Toyotas and neutrons
jsteller at spottydog.us
Wed Mar 24 19:50:25 CDT 2010
That's because most desktops run an operating system that will crash all
on its own without help from neutrinos, fat fingers or ghosts.
Mike O'Dell wrote:
> and people don't understand why i'm incensed that Intel
> has disabled use of ECC by the "desktop" Nahalem processors
> (i5, i7,i9). the "server" processors have ECC and Intel's
> configuration notes say that a server REALLY SHOULD use ECC.
> Meanwhile, the FAQ for the i7 states that it doesn't have ECC
> *because desktops don't usually run long enough to have a problem*.
> One big reason for the ECC difference is that it is about the ONLY
> difference between the i7s and the Xeon 5500s other than the price.
> That is nothing short of criminal malfeasance - using the unreliability
> of Windows to charge more for a processor because the users won't
> be able to tell the difference as to the cause.
> The busses are much, much faster, the signal margins much smaller,
> the memory parts are massively more dense and the charge in the
> capacitor cells is a small fraction of previous DRAMS.
> This is a recipe for DISASTER.
> What's more troubling is that the "COTS Journal", which is about
> using off-the-shelf hardware in military systems, now has ads for
> i7-based boards for embedded applications. not that long ago,
> mil-spec systems required ECC for obvious reasons. now these
> flying-on-a-wing-and-a-prayer processors are going to get put
> into military systems? THIS IS MADNESS.
> I'd raise a genuine stink about this if I had any idea how to do it
> such that it might do some good.
> On 3/23/10 11:27 PM, John Teller wrote:
>> Writing as much code as I have for satellite systems, most of which had
>> to live without radiation hardened and/or EDAC memory, I just got used
>> to not trusting that stuff I had written to memory wouldn't stay that
>> It's served me in good stead while working with some X parts we recently
>> obtained from a supplier that came with an undisclosed read/write
>> problem. The first batch of production ready parts do not have this
>> problem. I was able to deal with the glitch-prone X parts effectively
>> enough to provide our beta customers with products they could start
>> testing with. We're not planning on removing that code for the fixed
>> wb5mmb wrote:
>>> (2.3 meg pdf)
>>> Tacos mailing list
>>> Tacos at amrad.org
>> Tacos mailing list
>> Tacos at amrad.org
More information about the Tacos