Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 10:15:18 -0500 (CDT) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> To: richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) Cc: rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com, jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, hackers@freebsd.org, hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Triton chipset with 256k cache caches 32M only? Message-ID: <199605201515.KAA19424@brasil.moneng.mei.com> In-Reply-To: <199605170151.PAA20303@pegasus.com> from "Richard Foulk" at May 16, 96 03:51:28 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> } Only if you have memory that is failing or you need extreamly reliable > } operation (good memory should have a single bit error rate of something > } like 1 in 10 years). > > This is all subject to personal judgement. > > How a 15% performance hit compares with the possibility of lost or bad > data should not be trivialized. One error in ten years may not seem > like much, but it could still cost lots of time and money. And it's > just as likely to happen today as in ten years. Agreed, however, it's much more likely that some other component (think: disks, cpu fans, etc) will exhibit errors. 15% is a fairly hefty price to pay for a relatively small return. On a well built RAID system that needs the extra reliability, perhaps it is warranted. It is probably _not_ warranted on your average run of the mill server class system to lose 15% just to gain one correction every ten years rather than one crash every ten years, unless you have purposely over-spec'd the machine to account for the 15% loss. Obviously it is a matter of how paranoid (or silly?) you want to be.. I am perfectly confident that my disks will puke before my RAM. ... Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Greco - Systems Administrator jgreco@ns.sol.net Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI 414/546-7968
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605201515.KAA19424>