From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ECC RAM really needed?
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 00:19:27 -0400
Message-ID: <29812.1180153167@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705252350350.16561@westnet.com>
References: <4657912B.3000508@emolecules.com>
<20070526021553.GA8875@wolff.to>
<Pine.GSO.4.64.0705252350350.16561@westnet.com>
Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> The paper I would recommend is
> http://www.tezzaron.com/about/papers/soft_errors_1_1_secure.pdf
> which is a summary of many other people's papers, and quite informative.
> I know I had no idea before reading it how much error rates go up with
> increasing altitute.
Not real surprising if you figure the problem is mostly cosmic rays.
Anyway, this paper says
> Even using a relatively conservative error rate (500 FIT/Mbit), a
> system with 1 GByte of RAM can expect an error every two weeks;
which should pretty much cure any idea that you want to run a server
with non-ECC memory.
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, gsmith@gregsmith.com
Subject: Re: ECC RAM really needed?
In-Reply-To: <29812.1180153167@sss.pgh.pa.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