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.
-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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 07 2001 - 21:00:25 EST