From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Feise Subject: Re: Reiser4 crash 2.6.16-mm1 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:56:36 -0800 Message-ID: <4429B114.1090507@feise.com> References: <20060327214132.4074.qmail@pv105234.reshsg.uci.edu> <20060327223214.5291.qmail@pv105234.reshsg.uci.edu> <200603280439.k2S4dAql011014@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <4429577C.7020105@ics.uci.edu> <1143573487.2380.1.camel@localhost> <442997D9.7000505@namesys.com> <1143578704.2380.9.camel@localhost> Reply-To: jfeise@feise.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Gregory Maxwell Cc: Jonathan Briggs , reiserfs-list@namesys.com Gregory Maxwell wrote on 03/28/06 13:22: > On 3/28/06, Jonathan Briggs wrote: > >> But for a production machine that is "producing" something of value, the >> extra cost should not be an issue. RAM errors are so subtle and so hard >> to find that ECC is of far more value than RAID. It is obvious when >> your disk fails. >> >> An extra high bit in a credit transaction could cost you $16,384 and you >> might not ever realize what happened. :) >> >> Anyway, off topic, but ECC is highly recommended. > > And with the amount of memory that people are putting in modern system > 1 bit events should be happening on a approx weekly basis. > > ECC may be more expensive but it doesn't make memory more expensive > than it was just a few years ago.... you really should have it. I agree, and the system in question has ECC RAM. The additional cost is not such a big issue anyway... I have SCSI disks (no RAID, though) in there, and I could get at least 3 times the capacity for the same price if I was using IDE... -Joe