| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ECC RAM really needed? |
| Date: | 2007-05-26 02:15:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20070526021553.GA8875@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 18:45:15 -0700,
Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> 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. ECC sound like a good idea, but is it
> solving a non-problem?
In the past when I purchased ECC ram it wasn't that much more expensive
than nonECC ram.
Wikipedia suggests a rule of thumb of one error per month per gigabyte,
though suggests error rates vary widely. They reference a paper that should
provide you with more background.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2007-05-26 04:01:56 | Re: ECC RAM really needed? |
| Previous Message | Craig James | 2007-05-26 01:45:15 | ECC RAM really needed? |