Re: [BLUG] New OS

Let me rephrase it -- if the bad memory block is mapped to the kernel
space, then it certainly will cause the OS to crash. If the same part
of the memory is mapped to the user space, probably it just caused some
program or programs to crash (or continue to run, depending on how the
area is used.) If it's just used to store couple variables, you might
just notice the program behaves strangely. You might not even notice
any problem if the variables are not used frequently. But if it's used
for memory address redirection, it might point to a la-la land and
causes the program to seg fault. Then again, if you are lucky enough,
it might be redirect to an address that does not do much harm. --SS
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Shei, Shing-Shong <shei@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>> I am afraid that this is not a correct assumption. Different OSes has
>> different way of allocating/using memory. Probably it's just lucky that
>> Ubuntu had not touched the bad memory block. --SS
>>
>
> I most certainly concede "perhaps", as I definitely don't know what
> I'm talking about with any certainty.
>
> I find "probably" too strong a word, though.
>
> You see, I'm a memory hog and find myself regularly forcing Ubuntu to
> swap if I'm in a system with less than 2GB of memory.
>
> I played memory-intense 3-D games (Nexuiz, anyone?) and routinely ran
> the GIMP on many large photos at once, while keeping Firefox open with
> my customary zillion tabs.
>
> If Ubuntu didn't touch the bad memory blocks, I find design more
> probable than luck.
>
> Though I do concede that I don't really know what I'm talking about.
>
> Simón
>
> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
>

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug