On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, ow...@netptc.net wrote:
Most of the errors ECC is designed to correct are single bit errors
that, upon refresh, are no longer there (soft errors). The usual
Nowadays, server memory does a LOT better than single-bit error correction.
As an example, see this:
Do you use ECC RAM? Do you have any data about failure rates?
I'm evaluating this for a system with 8GB DRAM,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_random_access_memory#Errors_and_error_correction
says
Tests[ecc]give widely varying error rates, but about 10-12upset/bit-hr
is typical, roughly one
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:19:56AM -0800, john_re wrote:
Do you use ECC RAM? Do you have any data about failure rates?
I'm evaluating this for a system with 8GB DRAM,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_random_access_memory#Errors_and_error_correction
says
Tests[ecc]give widely varying
A non-ECC box that has an error may just show up as a random
non-reproducable error of a range of severity. A piece of software may
crash, a comma turn into a period in a letter you're writing, who knows.
I think its the who knows factor that makes ECC worth it in some
applications.
* john re:
What rates do you have?
Zero with appropriate cooling, more without it. I fully agree with
Stefan's comment below.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Original Message
From: dtu...@vianet.ca
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: ECC RAM failure data - jre
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:28:43 -0500
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:19:56AM -0800, john_re wrote:
Do you use ECC RAM? Do you have any data about failure rates?
I'm
6 matches
Mail list logo
