But Kingston took both varieties of 8GB modules off the recommended list for the X10-series motherboards -- the "Server Premier" variety and the "vanilla" variety. And the X10-series motherboards are not on Kingston's compatibilty list for their new, replacement 8GB "Server Premier" modules (KVR16EF/8KF); nor is there even a 4GB "Server Premier" recommendation for the X10-series boards.
Okay? But you've just added a ton of other variables compared to the thread I linked to above. And virtually all of those variables can have other variables that we as simple consumers are not privy to know or ever have access to. There's no doubt in my mind that they have some kind of non-disclosure clause specifically for issues like this, and there's no doubt in my mind that there's far more going on "behind the scenes" with this problem than we will ever appreciate. Even if you assume that both of my "assumptions" are wrong, you are still left with the fact that historically situations like this have been far far more complex than you or I can appreciate, and there's no telling when or if that information will be made public.
But, in the here and now, the one thing to keep in mind is that those sticks of RAM should have had a reasonably high chance of working, but didn't. Maybe if we can get others to test their sticks that are in question we can get a better idea of what is going on. But, based on our currently available information it's sure looking like more of a RAM problem than anything else. But time will tell.
Edit: There's also likely good reasons why Supermicro took them off their list. Two I'd consider to be perfectly valid and that I have seen in other situations are:
1. The RAM stick model number is no longer manufactured.
2. Some lots of that component are not what they are labeled to be. For example, maybe they changed manufacturers for the silicon and didn't change the model number(crap like this happens regularly and they will NEVER admit to what they did or why) and the new silicon isn't compatible. Since a small subset of those parts aren't what they claim to be and you have no way of proving if a given stick will or won't work they take the conservative approach of simply removing that model since you can't tell the difference. It's better to remove stuff from the list that *might* not work than to leave stuff that is proven to not work.
And if you look at some people here that have 4 of those "unapproved" sticks, both of the reasons I just listed above would explain why many people have not had a problem with the "unapproved" sticks while others have.
The bottom line, there's just not enough information for us to sit and try to point a finger at the RAM or the motherboard definitively. But, considering that the RAM should have worked on the AsRock it's a good hint of what *may* have gone on behind the scenes.
What I'd really like to see is what other hardware had the Kingstom sticks listed and if those are having problems in other hardware. ;)