Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:23 PM, David Brian Chait <dchait at invenda.com> wrote: >> By doubling the hardware, you still do not overcome the potential corruption that could occur with non-ecc memory. If this is truly a mission critical application then it really does not serve much of a purpose to short change yourself with substandard hardware. > > First, please don't top post in this group. > > Second, you've got a historically valid point about ECC's advantages. > But the accumulated costs of the higher end motherboard, memory, > shortage of space for upgrades in the same unit, the downtime at the > BIOS to reset the "disabled by default" ECC settings in the BIOS, and > the system monitoring to detect and manage such errors add up *really > fast* in a moderate sized shop. > > Worse, I've seen some serious false economies with memory. People with > tight budgets getting third party memory to install themselves, then > losing all their "savings" in downtime because they had trouble > telling the difference between "hard enough to seat the RAM" and "hard > enough to crack the motherboard, cut your hand, and bleed all over > important junctions". > > 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!! > _______________________________________________ > 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: 313 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110214/a026a2c1/attachment-0003.vcf>