-
Important Announcement for The TrueNAS Community.
The TrueNAS Community has now been moved. This forum will now become READ-ONLY for historical purposes. Please feel free to join us on the new TrueNAS Community Forums
FYI: Kingston no longer listing 8GB modules for most Supermicro X10 motherboards
- Thread starter Z300M
- Start date
- Status
If you read the jdec spec the RAM must not suffer damage up to 1.8v or something(but they aren't required to function).
So no, you won't damage the memory sticks, but all those benefits you thought you'd get by buying the low-voltage sticks won't apply.
I posted a review of the Kingston KVR16E11/8EF modules on Newegg.com and received an emailed response from Kingston, which is publicly viewable on the Newegg site. The relevant part of that response is:
"We found in our testing that X10 Supermicro boards require the first two slots to be populated with Hynix A DRAM modules (slots A1 /B1) then any other type DRAM can be inserted into the remaining two slots. When installing just two 8GB modules any DRAM type is acceptable. We do not currently manufacture Hynix A DRAM modules due to lack of available components. Currently we can only support the X10SL7 with 4GB modules."
"We found in our testing that X10 Supermicro boards require the first two slots to be populated with Hynix A DRAM modules (slots A1 /B1) then any other type DRAM can be inserted into the remaining two slots. When installing just two 8GB modules any DRAM type is acceptable. We do not currently manufacture Hynix A DRAM modules due to lack of available components. Currently we can only support the X10SL7 with 4GB modules."
Check out this picture!
http://www.petermcannell.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2014-03-06-08.46.43.jpg
http://www.petermcannell.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2014-03-06-08.46.43.jpg
Same name, same UPC, different component parts, one with the letters "HYN" (presumably = Hynix), the other with "KTC" (presumably = Kingston Technology Corp.) on the label. IOW, Kingston modules (like many other manufacturers' products*) with the same name and model/part number may be far from identical. My two KVR16E11/8EF appear to be the same, with the marking "ELP" on the label (presumably = Elpida, agreeing with the description on the NewEgg Web site -- although I don't recall seeing it on the Kingston Web site -- as "Elpida F"). Were the original KVR16E11/8EF modules different from and superior to the ones I received? Are the ones jyavenard received, four of which work just fine in each of two X10SL7-F motherboards, different from and superior to the ones I received?
*A few years ago someone wrote that the company for which he used to work bought computers by the pallet load, but sometimes no two in the same load of ostensibly identical machines (same make and model number) were completely identical. More recently someone wrote of a certain device being sent to the FCC for Radio Frequency Interference testing, gaining approval, but then being replaced by a significantly different device that certainly did not comply with FCC standards but marketed with the same model number and the same FCC certification number.
Googling "Kingston 'Hynix A'" (without the double quote marks) shows only Registered modules. And how was it that they originally claimed that their KVR16E11/8EF (Elpida F) modules had been tested by an independent laboratory and found to be compatible? Did they never test four modules at once?
Yeah, now it seems unlikely to me that they thouroghly test each different make of module every time. But hey! They said they did, advertised the products with that on their website. It's unfortunate when you can't distinguish between advertisement and warranty anymore. It reminds me of those internet service providers that say they can provide "up to" a certain bandwidth.
Sure, they don't have all these types of mainboards at hand, they need a contractor who does. And Kingston probably won't sent new modules to them every time they change some components. The manufacturers of those components promise Kingston that the things run within specifications and Kingston hold them responsible for that I guess. Then Kingston just tests the modules in their special quality control equipment or one or two mainboards. Or maybe they did sent them in to that test lab, but that contractor screwed up. Who knows!Somewhere costs wereEverywhere costs are cut and a shortcut was made that led failure of huge batches of modules go unnoticed. We pay the cheap price and cheap is what we get.
Fact is up until date X they promised their product was capable of Y because then they noticed they couldn't keep that promise. Our relation is with Kingston or the dealer and that's what matters. I wonder if Kingston will set the day they removed the affected modules from their compatibility list as a prerequisite for legit warranty claims... if you bought the modules after that date, "well you should have checked the website, dummy!"
Sure, they don't have all these types of mainboards at hand, they need a contractor who does. And Kingston probably won't sent new modules to them every time they change some components. The manufacturers of those components promise Kingston that the things run within specifications and Kingston hold them responsible for that I guess. Then Kingston just tests the modules in their special quality control equipment or one or two mainboards. Or maybe they did sent them in to that test lab, but that contractor screwed up. Who knows!
Fact is up until date X they promised their product was capable of Y because then they noticed they couldn't keep that promise. Our relation is with Kingston or the dealer and that's what matters. I wonder if Kingston will set the day they removed the affected modules from their compatibility list as a prerequisite for legit warranty claims... if you bought the modules after that date, "well you should have checked the website, dummy!"
Precisely.... When you put RAM in a motherboard there's a relationship that must work for the RAM and that motherboard to be supported... here's a random example....
Due to the speeds at which DDR3 runs at, the length of the circuit path from the memory controller on the CPU die to the actual RAM chip pin is something like 5". That's all you get. If the RAM chip is 1" and your motherboard is 4" of that path, then everything is fine. There's reasonable lengths allowed for the motherboard, with a certain amount of length left remaining for the RAM.
But what if a given RAM chip is 1.2" for the path on the RAM stick instead of 1"? Then the system won't work.
What about if your motherboard is 4.2" for the circuit instead of 1"? Then the system won't work.
Ok, so you buy motherboard X and drop in Brand A RAM and it works, then drop in Brand B RAM and it doesn't work. The immediate thought is that Brand B RAM must be bad. But, imagine if the motherboard decided to use more than their fair share of that circuit length causing Brand B RAM(which is expecting so much length) to not have it. The motherboard manufacturer is basically to blame for the whole problem, but the RAM manufacturer appears to be the problem to the technician. The technician will wrongly blame the RAM manufacturer when you and I know might know it's the motherboard manufacturer because of their poor engineering design.
That's just one of many examples that apply for RAM alone, and when you have a boundary where Brand A and Brand B meet there's a relationship that must take place. This is why specifications are created. Some specifications give clear-cut limits and tolerances while others do not. If that relationship is not acceptable(regardless of who is actually at fault) then you'll have problems. And neither you nor I can *really* say who is to blame. Just like my example above, it looks like the RAM manufacturer was to blame but in fact it was the motherboard manufacturer.
One good example of a tolerance that isn't so good(but still works) is road lanes. You drive down the street and see the lines separating the road. It's clear that if your tires cross that line unintentionally you might hit someone. You might not, even if they are next to you, because the lane is wider than their vehicle. If you lean to the left side of your lane and the guy to your left leans to the left everything is fine. But, if the guy to your left leans to his right but you both stay in your lanes you could conceivably break your rear view mirrors if they hit. Does this happen? It sure does. It's rare, but it happens.
Unless and until one of the companies actually starts talking about the problem there's no way to know. And like I've said several times, there is almost certainly a legal document that says that neither side can talk about the situation.
At the end of the day there's only one thing that we all(as part of the public) can know for certainty. Don't mix the ram in question with the motherboard in question. Anyone even trying to point fingers just looks ignorant and is trying to blame one side for things they cannot possibly prove.
Accepting the fact that you will not always have all of the information to make an informed decision about everything is the first step to enlightenment in this life. That's why I love conspiracy theorists. They look so stupid when they start talking about things that they cannot possibly know and can never possibly prove. With that I leave you with my favorite anti-conspiracy video....
Moon Hoax Not:
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU
Due to the speeds at which DDR3 runs at, the length of the circuit path from the memory controller on the CPU die to the actual RAM chip pin is something like 5". That's all you get. If the RAM chip is 1" and your motherboard is 4" of that path, then everything is fine. There's reasonable lengths allowed for the motherboard, with a certain amount of length left remaining for the RAM.
But what if a given RAM chip is 1.2" for the path on the RAM stick instead of 1"? Then the system won't work.
What about if your motherboard is 4.2" for the circuit instead of 1"? Then the system won't work.
Ok, so you buy motherboard X and drop in Brand A RAM and it works, then drop in Brand B RAM and it doesn't work. The immediate thought is that Brand B RAM must be bad. But, imagine if the motherboard decided to use more than their fair share of that circuit length causing Brand B RAM(which is expecting so much length) to not have it. The motherboard manufacturer is basically to blame for the whole problem, but the RAM manufacturer appears to be the problem to the technician. The technician will wrongly blame the RAM manufacturer when you and I know might know it's the motherboard manufacturer because of their poor engineering design.
That's just one of many examples that apply for RAM alone, and when you have a boundary where Brand A and Brand B meet there's a relationship that must take place. This is why specifications are created. Some specifications give clear-cut limits and tolerances while others do not. If that relationship is not acceptable(regardless of who is actually at fault) then you'll have problems. And neither you nor I can *really* say who is to blame. Just like my example above, it looks like the RAM manufacturer was to blame but in fact it was the motherboard manufacturer.
One good example of a tolerance that isn't so good(but still works) is road lanes. You drive down the street and see the lines separating the road. It's clear that if your tires cross that line unintentionally you might hit someone. You might not, even if they are next to you, because the lane is wider than their vehicle. If you lean to the left side of your lane and the guy to your left leans to the left everything is fine. But, if the guy to your left leans to his right but you both stay in your lanes you could conceivably break your rear view mirrors if they hit. Does this happen? It sure does. It's rare, but it happens.
Unless and until one of the companies actually starts talking about the problem there's no way to know. And like I've said several times, there is almost certainly a legal document that says that neither side can talk about the situation.
At the end of the day there's only one thing that we all(as part of the public) can know for certainty. Don't mix the ram in question with the motherboard in question. Anyone even trying to point fingers just looks ignorant and is trying to blame one side for things they cannot possibly prove.
Accepting the fact that you will not always have all of the information to make an informed decision about everything is the first step to enlightenment in this life. That's why I love conspiracy theorists. They look so stupid when they start talking about things that they cannot possibly know and can never possibly prove. With that I leave you with my favorite anti-conspiracy video....
Moon Hoax Not:
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU
jgreco
Resident Grinch
- Joined
- May 29, 2011
- Messages
- 18,680
I adore conspiracy theories. 9/11 is great for example. So let's assume that maybe the military industrial complex (and I'll specifically say Dick Cheney) wanted 9/11 to happen.
Which of these is more likely:
1) That on 9/11, agents of some black TLA of our government set out to stage what appeared to be aircraft hijackings, and planted explosives in the WTC, and did something or other to make all the people that were allegedly on those flights "disappear" somehow. This assumes that we have a bunch of nasty guys in the employ of the government to do this sort of stuff, and that some unpatriotic fucks at some professional demolition company rigged the WTC to explode. I'm keeping this short but you can basically waltz through the conspiracy theorists theories for an hour or two going "OMG that's impractical/unlikely/etc". The involvement of lots of people in such a plot make it virtually unthinkable that it could be kept a secret.
Or:
2) Dick Cheney pulled aside a CIA agent, gave him a briefcase full of money, told him to go find Bin Laden, and to have Bin Laden plot 9/11. Then Cheney had him snuffed on the way home by a CIA assassin. 9/11 was planned and unfolded EXACTLY as we saw. Very concise. Very simple. Very straightforward. Very possible.
Both are conspiracy theories. The difference is that I believe that if there was a conspiracy, it unfolded something along the lines of number 2). Only Cheney (or whoever it might have been) will ever really know.
I cannot prove or disprove that number 2) happened. But when comparing it to 1), Occam's Razor says it would have been 2).
Which of these is more likely:
1) That on 9/11, agents of some black TLA of our government set out to stage what appeared to be aircraft hijackings, and planted explosives in the WTC, and did something or other to make all the people that were allegedly on those flights "disappear" somehow. This assumes that we have a bunch of nasty guys in the employ of the government to do this sort of stuff, and that some unpatriotic fucks at some professional demolition company rigged the WTC to explode. I'm keeping this short but you can basically waltz through the conspiracy theorists theories for an hour or two going "OMG that's impractical/unlikely/etc". The involvement of lots of people in such a plot make it virtually unthinkable that it could be kept a secret.
Or:
2) Dick Cheney pulled aside a CIA agent, gave him a briefcase full of money, told him to go find Bin Laden, and to have Bin Laden plot 9/11. Then Cheney had him snuffed on the way home by a CIA assassin. 9/11 was planned and unfolded EXACTLY as we saw. Very concise. Very simple. Very straightforward. Very possible.
Both are conspiracy theories. The difference is that I believe that if there was a conspiracy, it unfolded something along the lines of number 2). Only Cheney (or whoever it might have been) will ever really know.
I cannot prove or disprove that number 2) happened. But when comparing it to 1), Occam's Razor says it would have been 2).
Or did Supermicro modify the design of their X10-series motherboards, or use some different components? My motherboard is Rev. 1.01. What revision are jyavenard's that are working with four KVR16E11/8EF modules?
jgreco
Resident Grinch
- Joined
- May 29, 2011
- Messages
- 18,680
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
Quote:
"The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were the result of a controlled demolition rather than structural failure due to impact and fire.[6][7] Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government[8][9] or that a commercial airliner was allowed to do so via an effective stand-down of the American military"
A controlled demolition implies a professional demolition company. Elements inside the U.S. government suggests a group of people. An effective stand-down of the military suggests knowledge through the chain of command.
All three of these fail any number of common sense tests.
Basically, this is summarized best as: “Three people may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.”
The number of people keeping this secret would be very large. Therefore it is a logical fail.
D4nthr4x
Explorer
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2014
- Messages
- 95
I just realized I was actually talking about what really happened: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html they knew there was a plot afoot but took no action into investigating it. Typical government incompetence or intentional act to drag us to war?
jgreco
Resident Grinch
- Joined
- May 29, 2011
- Messages
- 18,680
So we will probably hear for years how Malaysia Airlines 370 was $(conspiracy'd) for $(reason).
I'm going to put my it's-not-a-conspiracy money on:
Lithium ion batteries in hold catch on fire. Plane goes high to try to snuff the fire. Plane integrity becomes compromised by unrelenting fire. Plane dives low to 12000 for breathable air and turns towards Langkawi International for an emergency landing. Aircraft is seen by Vietnamese oil rig workers on fire. Pilots pass out. Plane flies until out of fuel several hours later because, y'know, it's a reliable triple-7.
Seems to explain the credible facts. Tragic accident.
My condolences to the families of all the victims.
I'm going to put my it's-not-a-conspiracy money on:
Lithium ion batteries in hold catch on fire. Plane goes high to try to snuff the fire. Plane integrity becomes compromised by unrelenting fire. Plane dives low to 12000 for breathable air and turns towards Langkawi International for an emergency landing. Aircraft is seen by Vietnamese oil rig workers on fire. Pilots pass out. Plane flies until out of fuel several hours later because, y'know, it's a reliable triple-7.
Seems to explain the credible facts. Tragic accident.
My condolences to the families of all the victims.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
