4 ms·

As I understand it, the situation is even better (as in, less errors) than that with DDR4. Unfortunately, all the published data I could find is woefully out of

As I understand it, the situation is even better (as in, less errors) than that with DDR4. Unfortunately, all the published data I could find is woefully out of date. Still, even if you generously assume something on the order of one correctable memory error per machine year, how many of those errors do you actually care about? Unless you have 100% memory utilization for 24/7 critical tasks, most of those errors probably don't even matter. EDIT: the least out of date reference I could find is a blog post by Jeff Atwood, where he concludes that based on the available literature ECC-correctable errors are quite rare. [1] [1] https://blog.codinghorror.com/to-ecc-or-not-to-ecc/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/to-ecc-or-not-to-ecc/

Retric 9y ago
The median performance for non ECC memory is very good. The problem is worst case performance is hard to detect and much much worse than that. "The median number of errors per year for those machines that experience at least one error ranges from 25 to 611." "We find that for all platforms, 20% of the machines with errors make up more than 90% of all observed errors for that platform." A minority of that 20% again have even more issues. The worse case is literally 10,000x more than 1 bit error per year on a single machine. Without using ECC you really can't tell other than some vague not sure what's wrong just replace it.