On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 17:42 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 22.12.2010 17:31, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 17:01 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> There's plenty of stuff in memory that's not covered by an > >> application-level CRC. That's what ECC RAM is for. > > > > http://www.google.com/research/pubs/archive/35162.pdf > > > > Google research shows that each DIMM has an 8% chance per annum of > > uncorrectable memory errors, even on ECC. > > You misread that paper. From summary:
I read the paper in detail before I posted. If you think that finding an error in my quote disproves anything, you should read the whole paper. I see this: Conclusion 1 "... Nonetheless, the remaining incidence of 0.22% per DIMM per year makes a crash-tolerant application layer indispens- able for large-scale server farms." What you are arguing for is a protection system that will reduce in effectiveness as we add more cache. What I am arguing in favour of is an option to allow people to protect their data, whatever the size of their cache. I'm not forcing you or anyone to use it, but I think its an important option to be offering to our users. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
