111–120 of 161 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I miss the BX chipset. The last PC that wasn't a complete piece of shit I had was a 440BX chipset P3.
Me too. I would be running my 440BX today, but all the motherboards died from bad electrolytic capacitors that were endemic in that era.
We don't have ECC mainly because Intel has long been hostile to "consumer" access to ECC. Apparently this was conceived as a market segmentation scheme: people outfitting servers could get ECC when they pay a huge premium. They would thereby not be tempted to cheap out and buy consumer-grade equipment, otherwise wholly adequate to meet all their needs at a radically cheaper price. That we cannot get laptops or even d…
> That we cannot get laptops or even desk machines with ECC, and so have them crash frequently, is seen as a trivial side effect of the strategy I’m not sure what you mean by “frequently”, but my non-ECC machines definitely do not crash “frequently”. > before MS, a program crashing was grounds for a refund Source?
I get the claimed need for EEC, but yet I don't. I own a number of web properties and regularly update logos, software packages, html files, PHP files, ruby files, etc. No corruption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I realise that's blurrier when it comes to laptops, but AIUI it's more a case of whether the motherboard than supports it than about the AMD chip. i.e. given a desktop CPU, as far as I know you can put it in a motherboard that either does or does not support ECC RAM.
Ryzen APUs, which include almost all AMD laptops, actually have ECC fused off in silicon unless you buy the "Pro" variant.
This is especially true for NAS. And why you need BTRFS or preferably ZFS. Unfortunately none of the consumer NAS offers ZFS, and BTRFS is still not a default option. Neither Synology or Qnap seems to care.
I had RAM go bad after running 18T (5 HDDs in raid1) btrfs system in closet for years. Btrfs of course noticed it and fixed most of them automatically when some of blocks were corrupt. But eventually the system failed: the tree that contains the checksums for all the other trees corrupted itself on both copies of one node. Fixed the HW problem and then had to use hex editor to set the checksum manually to correct val…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't, that's the thing, right? I have a Ryzen desktop with ECC, and it registers about one bit-flip per week. I don't know how many of those would become crashes, but I'm more worried about the ones that wouldn't.
> I have a Ryzen desktop with ECC, and it registers about one bit-flip per week. This isn’t normal. You have a bad memory module. A non-ECC machine should able to support memtest86 (a rigorous memory testing tool) for a week straight without a single bitflip. Having a bit flip per week is so far away from normal that it’s definitely a bad memory part.
Memtest86 is not magic. It is designed to look for systematic failures, even if intermittent. It does that pretty well given it has only bus-level access.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ryzen APUs, which include almost all AMD laptops, actually have ECC fused off in silicon unless you buy the "Pro" variant.
I have a Ryzen 2600 (CPU not APU) and ECC works. I wonder what generation ECC fuses became a thing?
We don't have ECC mainly because Intel has long been hostile to "consumer" access to ECC. Apparently this was conceived as a market segmentation scheme: people outfitting servers could get ECC when they pay a huge premium. They would thereby not be tempted to cheap out and buy consumer-grade equipment, otherwise wholly adequate to meet all their needs at a radically cheaper price. That we cannot get laptops or even d…
> That we cannot get laptops or even desk machines with ECC, and so have them crash frequently, is seen as a trivial side effect of the strategy I’m not sure what you mean by “frequently”, but my non-ECC machines definitely do not crash “frequently”. > before MS, a program crashing was grounds for a refund Source?
Microsoft, uniquely exercising monopoly power, was able to institute a "no refunds, nohow" policy and make it stick: Windows95 machines commonly crashed several times a day, enough so that "crash" came to mean, instead, you have to reinstall the OS, which happened at least one per several months.
And here we are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That we cannot get laptops or even desk machines with ECC, and so have them crash frequently, is seen as a trivial side effect of the strategy I’m not sure what you mean by “frequently”, but my non-ECC machines definitely do not crash “frequently”. > before MS, a program crashing was grounds for a refund Source?
I see a ton of replies here. I am a tech user with thousands of terabytes stored locally. Most of those terabytes are mirrored in the cloud. In all of those situations I've never actually had any corruption related to memory or storage. I have 932gb in PICTURES ffs. I get the claimed need for EEC, but yet I don't. I own a number of web properties and regularly update logos, software packages, html files, PHP files, r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That we cannot get laptops or even desk machines with ECC, and so have them crash frequently, is seen as a trivial side effect of the strategy I’m not sure what you mean by “frequently”, but my non-ECC machines definitely do not crash “frequently”. > before MS, a program crashing was grounds for a refund Source?
Frequently, for me, means at all. Computers are designed as deterministic state machines. Any unintended indeterminism is a failure. Microsoft, uniquely exercising monopoly power, was able to institute a "no refunds, nohow" policy and make it stick: Windows95 machines commonly crashed several times a day, enough so that "crash" came to mean, instead, you have to reinstall the OS, which happened at least one per sever…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Me too. I would be running my 440BX today, but all the motherboards died from bad electrolytic capacitors that were endemic in that era.
Nothing you can't fix with Mouser and a soldering iron :)