Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!dataio!pilchuck!ssc!fyl
From: fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Xenix 386 v2.3 bug?
Summary: my guess
Keywords: Xenix,Unix,80386
Message-ID: <1596@ssc.UUCP>
Date: 20 Dec 88 17:49:22 GMT
References: <40@maxx.UUCP> <8411@alice.UUCP> <401@impch.UUCP> <8548@alice.UUCP> <3393@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
Organization: SSC, Inc., Seattle, WA
Lines: 19

In article <3393@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, tuck@iris.ucdavis.edu (Devon Tuck) writes:
> Regarding the memory parity error,  we had the same problem.  None of the
> standard tests we ran gave any indication of problems. 

I have had this happen on all sorts of flavors of UNIX on AT buss
machines.  Boards would work with DOS but fail with XENIX or V/AT.
After watching this happen I came to the conclusion that the failures
only happened while disk I/O was in progress.  Although I haven't gone
to the logic analyzer level, this seems to fit as memory diagnostics
only test memory and disk diagnostics only test disks.  Therefore,
the failure would not show up with the tests.

I considered writing a real test that would cause the failure but
it is easier to buy memory boards that actually work right and let
the DOS users have the others.

-- 
Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155  (206)FOR-UNIX
    uw-beaver!tikal!ssc!fyl or uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fyl