Try it. 8-)
Whether you want to run non-parity or not is a different question.
George
> From heas@shrubbery.net Mon Jun 4 19:27:13 2001
> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:27:10 -0700
> From: john heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
> To: George Robbins <grr@shandakor.tharsis.com>
> Cc: jared@puck.nether.net, spork@inch.com, cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net,
> dan@drown.org
> Subject: Re: Full BGP and memory
> References: <200106042314.TAA01671@shandakor.tharsis.com>
> Content-Disposition: inline
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
> In-Reply-To: <200106042314.TAA01671@shandakor.tharsis.com>; from grr@shandakor.tharsis.com on Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:14:43PM -0400
> X-note: live free, or die!
> X-homer: there ya go, fish bulb
>
> Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:14:43PM -0400, George Robbins:
> > It's not all that critical. 32M 70nS FPM 36-bit Parity or Non-Parity
> > will work.
>
> afaik, 7200 MUST have parity. 3600 will definitely do non-parity, but
> i wouldnt recommend it.
>
> > There is a mechanical issue common to all Cisco low-angle SIMM sockets
> > in that the chips can't be too close to the contact fingers. The
> > ones most likely to give trouble have a slightly longer (more pins)
> > chip in the center. If that chip lines up with the others adjacent
> > to the contacts, you're ok. If that chip doesn't line up, it may
> > prevent the SIMM from settling down in the socket, which may result
> > in errors or a vibration sensitive router.
> >
> > It can happen. 8-(
> >
> > George
> >
> > > From cisco-nsp-request@puck.nether.net Mon Jun 4 17:49:46 2001
> > > Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 17:49:40 -0400
> > > Received-Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 17:44:51 -0400
> > > Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 17:44:47 -0400 (EDT)
> > > From: Charles Sprickman <spork@inch.com>
> > > To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
> > > cc: Daniel Drown <dan@drown.org>, <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> > > Subject: Re: Full BGP and memory
> > > In-Reply-To: <20010604174219.F23790@puck.nether.net>
> > > Resent-From: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > > X-Mailing-List: <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> archive/latest/6605
> > > X-Loop: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > > Precedence: list
> > > Resent-Sender: cisco-nsp-request@puck.nether.net
> > >
> > > Ooops, I meant memory for the 150...
> > >
> > > C
> > >
> > > On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's what I did. NPE-225 works perfect in the non-vxr chassis.
> > > >
> > > > - jared
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 05:41:32PM -0400, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> > > > > While we're at it, how about low-cost replacements for the NPE-150?
> > > > >
> > > > > Charles
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Daniel Drown wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 04:16:05PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > > > > > > Doesn't the NPE-200 take 72-pin simms?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it takes DIMMS, I would give it a try.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The NPE-200 I just took apart here takes 72-pin FP Parity simms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Daniel Drown
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
> > > > clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:40 EDT