On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 11:37:18PM +0200, M.Hirsch wrote.. > Nope, > > I'd like my bank data to be stored on a system that does ECC, no question. > But please, on hard disk level (RAID; that is _permanent_), not in the > RAM of a single node. > > If memory gets corrupted, please, raise a kernel panic... Even if
You *can't* panic if it is just a single bit error in a user page. You will never know there was a corruption.. If that was a page holding your account data your are toast. > there's ECC in place. Of course not. You only panic once you have no other options left. Proper hardware with ECC give you these options. I am not talking consumer grade crap here of course. > Counter question: > Would you like your bank account data to be stored on a medium where one > failure can be corrected, two can be detected, but three go unnoticed? > How unlikely is that, if you've got some hardware that is really /broken/? Very unlikely. There is enough hardware design done after all these years that this kind of problem can be prevented. > I know this is a rather random thing to happen. > Still, I think ECC memory is overrated. Better have it fail immediately. > _With a kernel panic, please_ As said, you can't > > M. > > Wilko Bulte schrieb: > > >Balderdash. > > > >Following your rationale you want your bank account data > >silently be corrupted by hardware with bit errors? Be my guest, give > >me ECC any day. > > > >Proper hardware will log the ECC errors, a proper OS tailored to that > >hardware will log and notify the sysadmins. > > > >That is how it should be done. > > > >Wilko > > > > > > --- end of quoted text --- -- Wilko Bulte [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
