Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CCB59FB617 for ; Sat, 26 May 2007 01:19:34 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 42297-10 for ; Sat, 26 May 2007 01:19:30 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB2B9FB5E9 for ; Sat, 26 May 2007 01:19:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l4Q4JRDs029813; Sat, 26 May 2007 00:19:27 -0400 (EDT) To: Greg Smith cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: ECC RAM really needed? In-reply-to: References: <4657912B.3000508@emolecules.com> <20070526021553.GA8875@wolff.to> Comments: In-reply-to Greg Smith message dated "Sat, 26 May 2007 00:01:56 -0400" Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 00:19:27 -0400 Message-ID: <29812.1180153167@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200705/552 X-Sequence-Number: 24942 Greg Smith 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