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:
http://www.
>
>
>
> 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 E
* 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
> 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.
A
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 var
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
