4 ms·

Considering the haswell parts don't support ECC, how many random bitflips per hour are your 128GB of DDR ram going to be taking and how many instances of unreco

by nullc 12y ago

Considering the haswell parts don't support ECC, how many random bitflips per hour are your 128GB of DDR ram going to be taking and how many instances of unrecoverable data loss per year does that translate into on average?

Joyfield 12y ago
5
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
tacotime 12y ago
ummmmmm, twice the number I get from my current 64GB non-ecc system?
sp332 12y ago
That's it, I'm running my RAM in a ZFS pool from now on! Now I just need 128GB of RAM to run ZFS... /s
- drewg123 12y ago
  You joke, but running ZFS on disk w/o ECC RAM is not a good idea. See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/zfs-macos/qguq6LCf1QQ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/zfs-macos/qguq6LCf1Q...
  - sp332 12y ago
    I've heard this from several sources, but is it worse than any other FS? I mean it seems obvious that data corrupted in RAM will be corrupted when you write it to disk. I think people are worried about software RAID vs hardware RAID, since all hardware RAID platforms have ECC cache and software RAID should too.
    - j00lz 12y ago
      It is worse as ram corruption can cause a loss of the entire zfs pool. there are no zfs recovery tools available, so data recovery can be next to impossible or very expensive.