On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 04:27:10PM -0700, john heasley wrote:
> 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.
I've (almost always) used non-parity in my 36xx equipment.
Either way if you take a memory error the device is going to
become very sad. None of the 36xx that I've upgraded ever had an issue
with the memory though. 75xx though is another matter. Those seem to
be more sensitive than any other product that Cisco has manufactured.
I'm not sure if it's the memory or the RSP{1,2,4}.
- Jared
> > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
-- 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