[5574] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cisco Memory.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Craig A. Huegen)
Tue Oct 22 00:21:42 1996
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Craig A. Huegen" <c-huegen@quad.quadrunner.com>
To: Nathan Stratton <nathan@netrail.net>
cc: Patrick Lynch <plynch@jefferson.ind.net>, nanog@merit.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961021212844.28681A-100000@netrail.net>
On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, Nathan Stratton wrote:
==>> how well it works out in the field. Does latency increase with
==>*unqualified* > Cisco memory, or is the *unqualified* *qualified* Cisco
==>ram stuff just a big > ruse? Thanks for your input.
==>
==>Na, ram is ram. It is just like FDDI cables. I spent $250 on FDDI cables,
==>and then found out that I can get the exact same cable for $50 each.
There is a list of third-party RAM that Cisco approves, and this list is
available on CCO *somewhere*. I don't remember where, though; Paul
Ferguson is really good at remembering where this stuff is, though.
The reason you should at least follow Cisco's recommendation for RAM is to
keep your router at least running sanely. I have seen WAY TOO MANY
machines (including routers) do really weird stuff because the operator(s)
used cheap re-labeled RAM from Fry's or similar. Usually, it's in the
form of weird segfaults in UNIX, or software-forced-reloads in the case of
routers.
/cah
