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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (134448)	5/8/2001 7:17:15 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

S, >I've done lots of microprocessor designs on large networks of Sun workstations, and never had a problem. It all sounds kind of bogus to me. Tell it to ebay. Also, the Sun crashes that got the publicity were not on workstations but on medium - large servers, which were supposed to have availability "high in the nines". As it turned out, they came out one or two nines short. It's been said here before, but machines of the class that Sun had problems with, from IBM and clones, had cache ECC starting in the early 80s. Intel based servers started having cache ECC available in 1997. The folks that designed those machines didn't put cache ECC in just for laughs. Tony

To: Scumbria who wrote (134448)	5/8/2001 7:25:45 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Scumbria, <I've done lots of microprocessor designs on large networks of Sun workstations, and never had a problem. It all sounds kind of bogus to me.> I'll bet the vast majority of Pentium owners back in 1994 never had a real problem with the FDIV bug, either. All of the hoopla over that bug must have been just as bogus, right? Tenchusatsu

To: Scumbria who wrote (134448)	5/8/2001 7:34:46 PM
From: ravi nair	Respond to of 186894

re: It all sounds kind of bogus to me. see Message 14683636 --ravi

To: Scumbria who wrote (134448)	5/9/2001 2:35:10 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Bogus? Why don't you do a little research ? theregister.co.uk Sun suffers UltraSparc II cache crash headache By: John Leyden Posted: 07/03/2001 at 17:47 GMT Sun Microsystems is advising support staff not to let on to clients that problems they have with its kit might be due to a wider year-old technical problem. The surprising advice from the hardware giant covers problems involving a processor fault that can cause certain Sun servers, particularly those with 400MHz UltraSparc IIs, to crash without warning. Servers with 450MHz UltraSparc II processors are also affected, but to a lesser degree. Our sources within the hardware giant tell us that staff are working under "orders" not to tell customers that any failures they experience could be part of a wider problem, involving cache memory on its UltraSparc II processor. The fault results in random parity errors which can force a server to shut down. "Apparently the design [Sun's] is fine, but the execution [which was outsourced] leaves a little to be desired. Result, system crashes [or in Sun lingo system panic]. In the best case, system panics re-starts and you never see the problem again. Worst case boot-loop," our informant tells us. "It has gotten to the point that just about the first thing we ask [users] is 'what speed processor do you have', and one system panic isn't enough for us to do something about it." The problem came to light over a year ago and was widespread enough for respected analyst firm Gartner to advice users to try to stay clear of 400MHz, 4MB cache UltraSparc II microprocessor modules, which are the focus of concerns. Instead it advised users to pick 400MHz, 8MB cache UltraSparc II microprocessor modules. At the time Sun admitted there had been quality issues with Static RAM (SRAM) on some 400MHz CPUs, and quality control problems with the fibre-optic controllers. Sun said the problem was due to components supplied by a third-party, and that it had changed its supplier. Sun's line since then has been that few of its customers were affected by the issue and in any case the problem has now been solved. However Sun published a best practice guide on "Addressing: E-Cache Parity Errors" in October 2000, which has been leaked to The Register, that suggests the problem is not as far in the past as it would like to say. This states: "Some customers have experienced intermittent external cache parity errors which can be caused by a faulty component (SRAM) that is overly susceptible to a number of factors. These factors can include temperature, humidity, slot, process running, noise and ionizing radiation that occurs naturally in the environment." Throughout last year Gartner reported that 60 clients have experienced problems with the bug on many of their Solaris servers. It reported that UE10000 with more than 36 CPUs and the UE6500 with more than 20 CPUs seemed to be particularly susceptible to the problem. The UltraSparc III processor features a mirrored cache and is immune to the problem, although high-end servers using the chip are not expected to ship until the second half of 2001, at the earliest.