Messages in this thread | | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Wow! Is memory ever cheap! | Date | 7 May 2001 11:47:34 -0700 |
| |
Followup to: <20010505194536.D14127@work.bitmover.com> By author: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 02:20:43PM +1200, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > 1.5GB without ECC? Seems like a disater waiting to happen? Is ECC > > memory much more expensive? > > Almost twice as expensive for 512MB dimms. > > I used to be a die hard ECC fan but that changed since what we do here is > BitKeeper and BitKeeper checksums everything. It tells us right away when > we have problems (to date it has found bad memory dimms, NFS corruption, > and a SPARC/Linux cache aliasing bug). So I've given up in ECC, we don't > need it. > > On the other hand, if your apps don't have built in integrity checks then > ECC is pretty much a requirement. >
Isn't this pretty much saying "if you're willing to dedicate your system to running nothing but Bitkeeper, you can run it really fast?"
-hpa -- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |