Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Oct 2011 23:17 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 495149
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: the much, much cheaper option
by zlynx on Wed 2nd Nov 2011 16:57
in reply to "RE[2]: the much, much cheaper option"
You don't need ECC? You're crazy.
Bit errors happen a lot more often than people think. Those strange application errors or a Windows blue-screen that happen once every couple of months? It might possibly be a bug in the software. But it is equally possible the RAM got corrupted in just that spot.
Even WITH ECC on their servers, Sun (now Oracle) had to invent ZFS with extra checksumming because bit errors would creep into the data in their customer's petabyte sized drive arrays.
If that can happen on server level hardware, with ECC, what do you think is happening in your 8 GB of consumer-grade crap RAM?
RE[4]: the much, much cheaper option
by zima on Mon 7th Nov 2011 23:03
in reply to "RE[3]: the much, much cheaper option"
Bit errors happen a lot more often than people think. Those strange application errors or a Windows blue-screen that happen once every couple of months? It might possibly be a bug in the software. But it is equally possible the RAM got corrupted in just that spot.
Equally possible? Well, since you quantified it so clearly...
Some research, actual evidence, suggests that the probability of those events decreased dramatically with voltage and process shrinkage (say, http://www.ece.rochester.edu/~xinli/usenix07/ ) - if anything, SRAM seems much more vulnerable and responsible... but that would be outside of the scope of main memory modules.
Meanwhile, this mantra is repeated for 10 to 15 years - "if you'd only need 2x & up more RAM than is typical, like I do, then you would KNOW (promise!) why you have to buy ECC; and when my amounts will become normal, EVERYBODY will need to use ECC in their ~workstation to keep basic data integrity!"
It started at the latest in the times of 64-128 MiB, at least; never really came through.
That is crazy. You're not in LEO.
(and it's not about implementing storage verification and integrity; anyway, ZFS has its share of things which sound impressive, but... come on, 128 bits? ...were they hoping their fs will still live on when the Solar System gets turned into grey goo? ;p )




Member since:
2007-01-13
You don't need EEC RAM (or an expensive Quadra/FirePro graphics card) for a workstation. A white box with a decent CPU and gaming video card will work just as well.