Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:39:47 +0200
From:      "M.Hirsch" <M.Hirsch@hirsch.it>
To:        Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua>
Cc:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD 6.x CVSUP today crashes with zero load ...
Message-ID:  <44A06233.1090704@hirsch.it>
In-Reply-To: <20060627011512.N95667@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua>
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> <20060627011512.N95667@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua>

index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail

Dmitry Pryanishnikov schrieb:

>
> 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.
>
Nope, I am right on track.
I do not want to lose any data. So I'd prefer a ECC error to raise a 
panic so I can replace the hardware ASAP.
Don't get me wrong, but tracking bugs in FreeBSD is quite more of an 
effort than "just" akquiring a new box...

>> 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.

Ok...
Does the standard fs, UFS2, do "extra sanity checks", then?

M.


help

Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44A06233.1090704>