Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:22:47 +0300 (EEST) From: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> To: "M.Hirsch" <M.Hirsch@hirsch.it> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6.x CVSUP today crashes with zero load ... Message-ID: <20060627011512.N95667@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> In-Reply-To: <44A04FD2.1030001@hirsch.it> References: <E1FuYsL-000HT3-H2@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk> <20060626100949.G24406@fledge.watson.org> <20060626081029.L1114@ganymede.hub.org> <20060626140333.M38418@fledge.watson.org> <20060626235355.Q95667@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <44A04FD2.1030001@hirsch.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello! On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, M.Hirsch wrote: > ECC is a way to mask broken hardware. I rather have my hardware fail directly > when it does first, so I can replace it _immediately_ You got it backwards. If your data has any value to you, then you don't want to miss any single-error bit in it, do you? If you're running hardware w/o ECC, your single-bit error in your data will go to the disk unnoticed, and you'll lose your data. With ECC, hardware will correct it. In (rare) case of multiple-bit error ECC logic will generate NMI for you, so you'll notice and "replace it _immediately_" instead of two weeks ago when your archive wont extract. > What's your hardware good for if it passes a "test", but fails in production? It's the way in what RAM will manifest single-bit errors: you run memory test - it won't catch them, later in production you'll miss this error because nothing will provide extra sanity check of your data. > ECC is totally overrated. Only by the people who don't understand it's point! Sincerely, Dmitry -- Atlantis ISP, System Administrator e-mail: dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua nic-hdl: LYNX-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060627011512.N95667>