| From: | Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| 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 12:43:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20070526124313.GU1785@mathom.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mark | 2007-05-26 14:52:14 | Re: ECC RAM really needed? |
| Previous Message | Kristo Kaiv | 2007-05-26 12:41:27 | Re: Performance problem on 8.2.4, but not 8.2.3 |