On 9/26/2010 8:06 AM, devsk wrote:
On 9/23/2010 at 12:38 PM Erik Trimble wrote:
| [snip]
|If you don't really care about ultra-low-power, then
there's
absolutely
|no excuse not to buy a USED server-class machine
which is 1- or 2-
|generations back. They're dirt cheap, readily
available,
| [sn
>
>
> On 9/23/2010 at 12:38 PM Erik Trimble wrote:
>
> | [snip]
> |If you don't really care about ultra-low-power, then
> there's
> absolutely
> |no excuse not to buy a USED server-class machine
> which is 1- or 2-
> |generations back. They're dirt cheap, readily
> available,
> | [snip]
> =
On 25 Sep 2010, at 19:56, Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
> We have correctable memory errors on ECC systems on a monthly basis. It's not
> if they'll happen but how often.
"DRAM Errors in the wild: a large-scale field study" is worth a read if you
have time.
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bianca/papers
> Erik Trimble sez:
> Honestly, I've said it before, and I'll say it (yet) again: unless you
> have very stringent power requirement (or some other unusual
> requirement, like very, very low noise), used (or even new-in-box,
> previous generation excess inventory) OEM stuff is far superior to
On 09/26/10 07:25 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 9/25/2010 1:57 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 09/25/10 02:54 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
Honestly, I've said it before, and I'll say it (yet) again: unless
you have very stringent power requirement (or some other unusual
requirement, like very, very low
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
> And about what SUN systems are you thinking for 'home use' ?
> The likeliness of memory failures might be much higher than becoming a
> millionair, but in the years past I have never had one. And my home sytems
> are rather cheap. Mind yo
On 9/25/2010 1:57 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 09/25/10 02:54 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
Honestly, I've said it before, and I'll say it (yet) again: unless
you have very stringent power requirement (or some other unusual
requirement, like very, very low noise), used (or even new-in-box,
previou
On 09/25/10 02:54 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
Honestly, I've said it before, and I'll say it (yet) again: unless
you have very stringent power requirement (or some other unusual
requirement, like very, very low noise), used (or even new-in-box,
previous generation excess inventory) OEM stuff is
On 9/24/2010 6:27 AM, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 09/23/10 19:08, Peter Jeremy wrote:
The downsides are generally that it'll be slower and less power-
efficient that a current generation server and the I/O interfaces will
be also be last generation (so you are more likely to be stuck with
parall
On 09/23/10 19:08, Peter Jeremy wrote:
The downsides are generally that it'll be slower and less power-
efficient that a current generation server and the I/O interfaces will
be also be last generation (so you are more likely to be stuck with
parallel SCSI and PCI or PCIx rather than SAS/SATA an
> On 2010-Sep-24 00:58:47 +0800, "R.G. Keen"
> wrote:
> > But for me, the likelihood of
> >making a setup or operating mistake in a virtual machine
> >setup server is far outweighs the hardware cost to put
> >another physical machine on the ground.
>
> The downsides are generally that it'll be
On 2010-Sep-24 00:58:47 +0800, "R.G. Keen" wrote:
>That may not be the best of all possible things to do
>on a number of levels. But for me, the likelihood of
>making a setup or operating mistake in a virtual machine
>setup server is far outweighs the hardware cost to put
>another physical machi
On 9/23/2010 at 12:38 PM Erik Trimble wrote:
| [snip]
|If you don't really care about ultra-low-power, then there's
absolutely
|no excuse not to buy a USED server-class machine which is 1- or 2-
|generations back. They're dirt cheap, readily available,
| [snip]
=
Anyone have
[I'm deleting the whole thread, since this is a rehash of several
discussions on this list previously - check out the archives, and search
for "ECC RAM"]
These days, for a "home" server, you really have only one choice to make:
"How much power do I care that this thing uses?"
If you are s
I should clarify. I was addressing just the issue of
virtualizing, not what the complete set of things to
do to prevent data loss is.
> 2010/9/19 R.G. Keen
> > and last-generation hardware is very, very cheap.
> Yes, of course, it is. But, actually, is that a true
> statement?
Yes, it is. Last
On Thu, September 23, 2010 01:33, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> Hi.
>
> 2010/9/19 R.G. Keen
>
>> and last-generation hardware is very, very cheap.
>
> Yes, of course, it is. But, actually, is that a true statement? I've read
> that it's *NOT* advisable to run ZFS on systems which do NOT have ECC
> RAM
On Sep 23, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
> On 23-9-2010 16:34, Frank Middleton wrote:
>
> > For home use, used Suns are
> available at ridiculously low prices and
>
> > they seem to be much better engineered than your typical PC.
> Memory
>
> > failures are muc
On 23-9-2010 16:34, Frank Middleton wrote:
For home use, used Suns are available at ridiculously low prices and
they seem to be much better engineered than your typical PC. Memory
failures are much more likely than winning the pick 6 lotto...
And about what SUN systems are you thinking for
On 09/23/10 03:01, Ian Collins wrote:
So, I wonder - what's the recommendation, or rather, experience as far
as home users are concerned? Is it "safe enough" now do use ZFS on
non-ECC-RAM systems (if backups are around)?
It's as safe as running any other OS.
The big difference is ZFS will tel
> On 23-9-2010 10:25, casper@sun.com wrote:
>> I'm using ZFS on a system w/o ECC; it works (it's an Atom 230).
>
>I'm using ZFS on a non-ECC machine for years now without any issues.
>Never had errors. Plus, like others said, other OS'ses have the same
>problems and also run quite well. If
On 23-9-2010 10:25, casper@sun.com wrote:
I'm using ZFS on a system w/o ECC; it works (it's an Atom 230).
I'm using ZFS on a non-ECC machine for years now without any issues.
Never had errors. Plus, like others said, other OS'ses have the same
problems and also run quite well. If not, yo
I'm using ZFS on a system w/o ECC; it works (it's an Atom 230).
Note that this is not different from using another OS; the difference is
that ZFS will complain when memory leads to disk corruption; without ZFS
you will still have memory corruption but you wouldn't know.
Is it helpful not know
On 09/23/10 06:33 PM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
Hi.
2010/9/19 R.G. Keen
and last-generation hardware is very, very cheap.
Yes, of course, it is. But, actually, is that a true statement? I've read
that it's *NOT* advisable to run ZFS on systems which do NOT have ECC
RAM. And those cheap
Hi.
2010/9/19 R.G. Keen
> and last-generation hardware is very, very cheap.
Yes, of course, it is. But, actually, is that a true statement? I've read
that it's *NOT* advisable to run ZFS on systems which do NOT have ECC
RAM. And those cheapo last-gen hardware boxes quite often don't have
ECC, d
24 matches
Mail list logo
