4 ms·
No, two-bit failures are supposed to hard fault (to minimize damage of data corruption). Which the Ryzen did not do (in that specific test, at least).
by deaddodo 9y ago
No, two-bit failures are supposed to hard fault (to minimize damage of data corruption). Which the Ryzen did not do (in that specific test, at least).
- theevilsharpie 9y agoThe OS detected the fault and terminated the application which used the faulted memory address range, which is what it was supposed to do.
- deaddodo 9y agoThe guy who ran the exact test OP is referring to specifically states that it handles two-bit errors in a sub-optimal manner. Sure, you don't have to hard fault. Just like regular memory controllers don't fail on any bit-errors. But it's ideal, when dealing with critical data.
- wyldfire 9y agoMemory (and other) errors generate a Machine Check Exception which are handled by OS and/or BIOS. OSs can be smart enough to accumulate a history of errors and offline affected physical pages (which can result in a very localized single process segmentation violation). You could just log the errors. But you could also dial up the reaction all the way to NMI on these errors, which often triggers a processor reset.