From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
To: Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ECC RAM really needed?
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 08:43:15 -0400
Message-ID: <20070526124313.GU1785@mathom.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4657912B.3000508@emolecules.com>
References: <4657912B.3000508@emolecules.com>
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 06:45:15PM -0700, Craig James wrote:
>We're thinking of building some new servers. We bought some a while back
>that have ECC (error correcting) RAM, which is absurdly expensive compared
>to the same amount of non-ECC RAM. Does anyone have any real-life data
>about the error rate of non-ECC RAM, and whether it matters or not? In my
>long career, I've never once had a computer that corrupted memory, or at
>least I never knew if it did.
...because ECC RAM will correct single bit errors. FWIW, I've seen *a
lot* of single bit errors over the years. Some systems are much better
about reporting than others, but any system will have occasional errors.
Also, if a stick starts to go bad you'll generally be told about with
ECC memory, rather than having the system just start to flake out.
Mike Stone
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: mstone+postgres@mathom.us, craig_james@emolecules.com
Subject: Re: ECC RAM really needed?
In-Reply-To: <20070526124313.GU1785@mathom.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox