4 ms·

Then you'll have to pay a huge primer for that privilege. I can assure you that your standard computer components are not rated for century-scale use. That's w

by simias 6y ago

Then you'll have to pay a huge primer for that privilege. I can assure you that your standard computer components are not rated for century-scale use. That's why I've always been on the fence with this ECC thing. For servers it's vital because you need stability and security. For desktops I think that for a long time it was fine without ECC. If I have to chose between having, say, 30% more RAM or avoid a potential crash once a year, I'll probably take the additional RAM. The problem is that now these problem can be exploited by malicious code instead of just merely happening because of cosmic rays. That's the main argument in favour of ECC IMO, the rest is just a tradeoff to consider.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
But it isn't just a crash, it's also silent data corruption that will never be detected
- dev_tty01 6y ago
  This. How many user documents have memory flip errors introduced that are never detected? Impossible to say, but it is not a small number given the world-wide use of DRAM. Most are in trivial and unimportant documents, but some aren't...
- simias 6y ago
  It can be a concern, that's true, but personally most of the stuff I edit end up checked into a git repository or something similar. And I mean, we all spend all day editing test messages and comments and files on non-ECC hardware, yet bitflip-induced corruption is rare enough that I can't say that I've witnessed a single instance of it in my life, despite spending a good chunk of it looking at screens. It's just not a problem that occurs in practice in my experience. If you're compiling the release build of a critical piece of software, you probably want ECC. If you're building the dev version of your webapp or writing an email to your boss, you'll probably survive without it.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Can make that statement with any certainty? My personal and family computers have crashed quite a few times, and have corrupted photoes and files, some of them are valuable (taxes, healthcare, etc. Personal computers have valuable data these days) I couldn't tell, as a user, which if those corruptions and crashes were causes by bitflips. Could you?
loup-vaillant 6y ago
> I can assure you that your standard computer components are not rated for century-scale use. And that's probably not what GP asked for. There's a difference between guaranteeing an error rate of 1 error per century of use on average, and guaranteeing it over the course of an actual century. It might be okay to guarantee that error rate for only 5 years of uninterrupted use, and degrade after that. For instance: Years 1- 5: 1 error per century. Years 6-10: 3 errors per century. Years 10-15: 10 errors per century. Years 15-20: 20 errors per century. Years 20-30: 1 error per *year*. Years 30+ : the chip is broken. Now, given how energy hungry and polluting the whole computer industry actually is, it might be a good idea to shoot for extreme durability and reliability anyway. Say, sustain 1 error per century, over the course of fifty years. It will be slower and more expensive, but at least it won't burn the planet as fast as our current electronics.

by simias 6y ago

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

But it isn't just a crash, it's also silent data corruption that will never be detected

dev_tty01 6y ago
This. How many user documents have memory flip errors introduced that are never detected? Impossible to say, but it is not a small number given the world-wide use of DRAM. Most are in trivial and unimportant documents, but some aren't...
simias 6y ago
It can be a concern, that's true, but personally most of the stuff I edit end up checked into a git repository or something similar. And I mean, we all spend all day editing test messages and comments and files on non-ECC hardware, yet bitflip-induced corruption is rare enough that I can't say that I've witnessed a single instance of it in my life, despite spending a good chunk of it looking at screens. It's just not a problem that occurs in practice in my experience. If you're compiling the release build of a critical piece of software, you probably want ECC. If you're building the dev version of your webapp or writing an email to your boss, you'll probably survive without it.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Can make that statement with any certainty? My personal and family computers have crashed quite a few times, and have corrupted photoes and files, some of them are valuable (taxes, healthcare, etc. Personal computers have valuable data these days) I couldn't tell, as a user, which if those corruptions and crashes were causes by bitflips. Could you?

loup-vaillant 6y ago

> I can assure you that your standard computer components are not rated for century-scale use. And that's probably not what GP asked for. There's a difference between guaranteeing an error rate of 1 error per century of use on average, and guaranteeing it over the course of an actual century. It might be okay to guarantee that error rate for only 5 years of uninterrupted use, and degrade after that. For instance: Years 1- 5: 1 error per century. Years 6-10: 3 errors per century. Years 10-15: 10 errors per century. Years 15-20: 20 errors per century. Years 20-30: 1 error per *year*. Years 30+ : the chip is broken. Now, given how energy hungry and polluting the whole computer industry actually is, it might be a good idea to shoot for extreme durability and reliability anyway. Say, sustain 1 error per century, over the course of fifty years. It will be slower and more expensive, but at least it won't burn the planet as fast as our current electronics.