From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ECC RAM really needed? |
Date: | 2007-05-26 04:19:27 |
Message-ID: | 29812.1180153167@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter T. Breuer | 2007-05-26 07:07:26 | Re: general PG network slowness (possible cure) (repost) |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2007-05-26 04:01:56 | Re: ECC RAM really needed? |