From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How much do the hint bits help? |
Date: | 2010-12-22 16:00:30 |
Message-ID: | 1293033630.1193.28500.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 17:42 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 22.12.2010 17:31, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 17:01 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> There's plenty of stuff in memory that's not covered by an
> >> application-level CRC. That's what ECC RAM is for.
> >
> > http://www.google.com/research/pubs/archive/35162.pdf
> >
> > Google research shows that each DIMM has an 8% chance per annum of
> > uncorrectable memory errors, even on ECC.
>
> You misread that paper. From summary:
I read the paper in detail before I posted. If you think that finding an
error in my quote disproves anything, you should read the whole paper. I
see this:
Conclusion 1
"... Nonetheless, the remaining incidence of 0.22% per DIMM
per year makes a crash-tolerant application layer indispens-
able for large-scale server farms."
What you are arguing for is a protection system that will reduce in
effectiveness as we add more cache.
What I am arguing in favour of is an option to allow people to protect
their data, whatever the size of their cache. I'm not forcing you or
anyone to use it, but I think its an important option to be offering to
our users.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-12-22 16:00:45 | Re: How much do the hint bits help? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-22 15:59:36 | Re: How much do the hint bits help? |