Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Edgar Toernig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> I think you have a wrong idea why the ECC is there. ECC deals with
> the inherit shortcommings of DRAM.
>
> DRAMs are not perfect. They have a probability to lose a bit.
> Norma
Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> Let's review: ECC is nice, but it doesn't solve all data corruption
> problems. Applications which do their own end to end data integrity
> checks will catch many more error cases than what ECC catches.
I think you have a wrong idea why the ECC is there. ECC deals with
On Wed, 9 May 2001, [ISO-8859-1] Gérard Roudier wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 8 May 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 8 May 2001, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > which is a text version of the paper I mentioned before. The basic
> > > message of the paper is that it really doesn't help much to have thi
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2001, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > which is a text version of the paper I mentioned before. The basic
> > message of the paper is that it really doesn't help much to have things
> > like ECC unless you can be sure that 100% of the rest of your sy
Larry McVoy writes:
> On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 12:24:25AM -0400, Marty Leisner wrote:
> > My understanding is suns big machines stopped using ecc and they
>
> The SUN problem was a cache problem and there is no way that I believe
> that SUN would turn of ECC in the cache. There are good reasons f
On Tue, 8 May 2001 22:22:10 -0700, Larry McVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Just to make sure you understand: I think ECC is a fine thing. If I'm
>running systems with no other integrity checks, I'll take ECC and like it.
>However, having ECC does not mean that I trust that my data is safe,
>th
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Larry McVoy wrote:
> which is a text version of the paper I mentioned before. The basic
> message of the paper is that it really doesn't help much to have things
> like ECC unless you can be sure that 100% of the rest of your system
> has similar checks.
UDMA has crc, scsi ha
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 12:24:25AM -0400, Marty Leisner wrote:
> I'm confused by the "lets not use ECC and use bk" talk.
I'll take a pass at unconfusing you, I can see how you might be. I wish
I had never mentioned BK, that was never the point. End to end was the
point, BK was just an example a
I'm confused by the "lets not use ECC and use bk" talk.
My understanding is suns big machines stopped using ecc and they
started to have "random" problems running big-iron applications
that took them a while to figure out (and a lot of bad press) and can
only be rectified in the big cycle (this
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>Larry McVoy wrote:
>
>>On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:33:57PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>>>Larry McVoy wrote:
>>>
>Because your original post was "yeah, Bitkeeper is a memory hog but you
>can get really cheap non-ECC RAM so just stuff your system with crappy
>
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Larry McVoy wrote:
> For the record, however, I never stated that BitKeeper is a
> memory hog, that's a conclusion you drew.
I read it that way in your message, but it's good to have
the situation clarified ;)
Rik
--
Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml
Vir
Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:33:57PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > > Because your original post was "yeah, Bitkeeper is a memory hog but you
> > > > can get really cheap non-ECC RAM so just stuff your system with crappy
> > > > RAM and be happy."
>
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:33:57PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > Because your original post was "yeah, Bitkeeper is a memory hog but you
> > > can get really cheap non-ECC RAM so just stuff your system with crappy
> > > RAM and be happy."
> I wasn't the one who said it
Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:21:28PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > What does BitKeeper have to do with this conversation?
> >
> > Because your original post was "yeah, Bitkeeper is a memory hog but you
> > can get really cheap non-ECC RAM so just s
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:21:28PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> > What does BitKeeper have to do with this conversation?
>
> Because your original post was "yeah, Bitkeeper is a memory hog but you
> can get really cheap non-ECC RAM so just stuff your system with crappy
> RA
Larry McVoy wrote:
> > >
> > > A) Fast has nothing to do with it, ECC runs at the same speed as non-ECC;
> >
> > "It" meaning BitKeeper.
>
> What does BitKeeper have to do with this conversation?
>
> s/BitKeeper/any_app_which_has_integrity_checks/
>
> Whether that app runs fast or not has nothi
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:01:50PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > Isn't this pretty much saying "if you're willing to dedicate your
> > > system to running nothing but Bitkeeper, you can run it really fast?"
> >
> > A) Fast has nothing to do with it, ECC runs at the same
Larry McVoy wrote:
> > >
> > > On the other hand, if your apps don't have built in integrity checks then
> > > ECC is pretty much a requirement.
> >
> > Isn't this pretty much saying "if you're willing to dedicate your
> > system to running nothing but Bitkeeper, you can run it really fast?"
>
>
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 11:47:34AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By author:Larry McVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 02:20:43PM +1200, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > > 1.5GB without ECC? Seems like a disater
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Larry McVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 02:20:43PM +1200, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > 1.5GB without ECC? Seems like a disater waiting to happen? Is ECC
> > memory much more expensive?
>
> Almost twice
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 02:20:43PM +1200, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> 1.5GB without ECC? Seems like a disater waiting to happen? Is ECC
> memory much more expensive?
Almost twice as expensive for 512MB dimms.
I used to be a die hard ECC fan but that changed since what we do here is
BitKeeper and Bit
I'll frickin' whine if I want to :-). I still use bitkeeper on a Solaris 2.6
machine with 32MB of memory.
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Larry McVoy wrote:
> This is a 750Mhz K7 system with 1.5GB of memory in 3 512MB DIMMS. The
> DIMMS are not ECC, but we use BitKeeper here and it tells us when we
> hav
This is a 750Mhz K7 system with 1.5GB of memory in 3 512MB DIMMS. The
DIMMS are not ECC, but we use BitKeeper here and it tells us when we
have bad DIMMS.
Guess what the memory cost? $396.58 shipped to my door, second day air,
with a lifetime warranty. I got it at www.memory4less.com which I f
23 matches
Mail list logo
