<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Greg Clifton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gccfof5@gmail.com">gccfof5@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">The installing/replacing memory in sets is basically due to older [but not too much older] motherboards ran dual channel RAM [new Intel 2P and some 1P is Triple and AMD is Quad Channel] and you don't want to mix RAM with different specs in the same channel. Also, possibly the manufacturer figures if one module failed it's 'partner' is apt to go soon so just replace both instead of having two trouble tickets to deal with stretched over several weeks. </blockquote>
<div>That part I've got, the pairing, what I had the impression of was when you bought like 4 sticks like I had you had to buy all four as a set, not just say buy a pair and then add another pair (same exact one as the 1st pair) later to add on. It didn't make sense to me unless if you're going to push things to the extreme with overclocking and such, then you need "handpicked" components, which for some reason I was under the impression that was what the mfgs were saying for all cases. It was like when I worked at Harris back in the late 70's they had developed a system code named 2C which had it's clocking set up to push TTL to it's extreme limit producing ECL speed (25nsec windows). All chips for that system had to go through special screening for handpicking for the 2C, this was the impression I had got of current memory buying practices. I don't want to give the impression that I don't understand that you have to buy in at least pairs and that all sticks have to have the same specs. I personally would stick to the same make/model as what I already have.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Michael B. Trausch <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@trausch.us" target="_blank">mike@trausch.us</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>On 6/17/2011 12:11 PM, Scott Castaline wrote:<br>> Sorry for replying to a reply, but to Mike, htop is showing 16<br>> incidents of mysql, whereas top is only showing 1. Each incident is<br>> using 1.0% of memory. I also noticed several incidents of kworker*<br>
> running of which (about 20) I don't remember the %Mem for each.<br></div>You're probably seeing all of MySQL's threads in htop. They together<br>will still be using only 1% of the memory...<br><br>kworker is a kernel thread, which has something to do with ACPI.<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div><br> --- Mike<br>_______________________________________________<br>Ale mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org" target="_blank">Ale@ale.org</a><br><a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at<br><a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Ale mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a><br><a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at<br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br>