[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Wow! Is memory ever cheap!
Larry McVoy wrote:
> > >
> > > 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?"
> A) Fast has nothing to do with it, ECC runs at the same speed as non-ECC;

"It" meaning BitKeeper.

> B) As I said above, "if your apps don't have built in integrity checks then
> ECC is pretty much a requirement";
> C) As I said above, we use our systems for BK development, so this choice
> makes sense for us.
> I think the point you are really missing is that it is not an either/or
> choice. All you really need in practice is one application which is
> both heavily used and has integrity checks. It could be BitKeeper or
> something else, all that matters is that it will detect memory problems.

This is not true in my experience. YES, it will detect bad memory
configurations, but with over 2^34 memory cells to worry about -- each of
them carrying a charge of a few dozen electrons only -- you WILL have
random failures, especially if the memory is allowed to remain stale for
extended periods of time, as is very likely in a configuration like this
(think disk cache.)

Bad memory configurations is bad. However, good memory configurations
are not necessarily perfect.


<> at work, <> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.115 / U:25.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site