Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JC Jaros who wrote (34806)	8/28/2000 11:09:44 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

I'm not even a sysadmin, yet I remember months ago reading a discussion of heatsink screws coming loose and causing overheating that, it now seems, relates to this same issue.

To: JC Jaros who wrote (34806)	8/28/2000 11:51:32 PM
From: chic_hearne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Re: it's clear to me that you know significantly* less about what you're talking about than your posts might otherwise beg....* Read today's discussion on /. (moderated level 3 and above) if your interest is more scientific than spam-ific. You'll read that those who actually work with Sun 'quality' have the kind of kudos for Sun quality that matches up a lot more closely with Sun's sales growth than your Computerworld spin JCJ, Those are some pretty harsh words. I've followed Watson's posts on SI for a while. In my opinion, he is one of the most knowledgable guys on SI (if not the most). I have no idea what his background is, but my WAG is working on IBM mainframes. If he's wrong, IT'S BECAUSE SUN IS NOT BEHIND HONEST AND IS TRYING TO SWEEP THIS UNDER THE RUG. I'm not going to comment with what I think, because I don't know enough. Does anyone? chic

To: JC Jaros who wrote (34806)	8/30/2000 3:28:02 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 64865

After reading informed discussion on /. from Sun SysAdmins and others familiar with the problem, it's clear to me that you know significantly* less about what you're talking about than your posts might otherwise beg. The more I've seen posted regarding this issue, the more I believe my take was/is right on. It appears to be a off chip L2 SRAM (cache) problem which manifests itself in memory parity errors (just like I indicated). It also does not appear to be JUST related to one processor speed or environmental conditions, although in marginal situations, these can have an impact. I also believe based on the article and what I've read on other sites and sources, that the problem is far more widespread than Sun indicates and is not YET resolved. In fact, I can only conclude that Sun's claim that it effects only a "few dozen" systems is a LIE. (unless they mean a few dozen over a short time frame) My guess based on everything I've read would be 150 (and probably more) mid and high end Sun servers have seen this problem. Also, I would never now accept any future Sun version since I believe they have lied all ready in this regard. I also believe my take on the mirrored memory solution is correct as well as the source for the solution. Finally, the "Sun quality" mystique is now out front for everyone to see....and is/was in my opinion - a MYTH. Until I am convinced otherwise, my opinions stand. IMHO THE WATSONYOUTH