Nico-Garcia wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Rob Kampen <rkampen at kampensonline.com> wrote: > >> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> > > >>> Pleae, name a single instance in the last 10 years where ECC >>> demonstrably saved you work, especially if you made sure ti burn in >>> the ssytem components on servers upon their first bootup... >>> >> Twice in the last two years my intel server mb with ECC RAM showed errors >> (after moving system physically) and thus I did a reseat (after cleaning) of >> the modules and all is now well. No data lost, complete confidence - >> definitely gets my vote for servers!! >> > > Same system? Did you burn it in (running it under serious load with > memory and CPU testing tools for a day or two after initial > installation)? And given that you opened it up, I also assume you > cleaned out accumulated dust and cleaned the filters. > This system was initially commissioned after burn in, in late 2004 - An Intel mb. It started with RH9, then went FC3, then CentOS5. As mentioned the ECC memory has warned me when things are not well and allowed me to take remedial action before anything impacted my data. It still does great work six years later. For some reason, each time I have shifted it, we started getting these errors. It may be accumulated dust and dirt - so I always clean everything while it is down. Re-seating the RAM after cleaning the contacts and blowing out the dust has always worked. So for me, getting a server grade mb with ECC RAM is a great investment and worth the slight extra cost, not to mention that CentOS seems to have the drivers and modules in place for these mb. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rkampen.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110214/27be3e83/attachment-0005.vcf>