Slashdot Mirror
Reliability of Computer Memory?
olddoc writes "In the days of 512MB systems, I remember reading about cosmic rays causing memory errors and how errors become more frequent with more RAM. Now, home PCs are stuffed with 6GB or 8GB and no one uses ECC memory in them. Recently I had consistent BSODs with Vista64 on a PC with 4GB; I tried memtest86 and it always failed within hours. Yet when I ran 64-bit Ubuntu at 100% load and using all memory, it ran fine for days. I have two questions: 1) Do people trust a memtest86 error to mean a bad memory module or motherboard or CPU? 2) When I check my email on my desktop 16GB PC next year, should I be running ECC memory?"
Recently I had consistent BSODs with Vista64 on a PC with 4GB...
This was a surprise?
My experience with memtest is you can trust the results if it says the memory is bad, however if the memory passed it could still be bad. Troubleshooting your scenario should involve replacing the DIMM's in questions with known good modules while running Windows.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
wrap your _whole_ computer in tinfoil to deflect those pesky cosmic rays. it also works to keep them out of your head too.
If a system gives memtest86 errors, I break it down and swap components until it doesn't. The test pattern it uses can find subtle errors you're unlikely to run into with any application-based testing even when run for a few days. Any failures it reports should be taken seriously. Also: you should pay a attention to the memory speed value it reports, that's a surprisingly effective simple benchmark for figuring out if you've setup your RAM optimally. The last system I built, I ended up purchasing 4 different sets of RAM, and there was about a 30% delta between how well the best and worst performed on the memtest86 results--correlated extremely well with other benchmarks I ran too.
At the same time, I've had memory that memtest86 said was fine, but the system itself still crashed under a heavy Linux-based test. I consider both a full memtest86 test and a moderate workload Linux test to be necessary before I consider a new system to have baseline usable reliability.
There are a few separate problems here that are worthwhile to distinguish among. A significant amount of RAM doesn't work reliably when tested fully. Once you've culled those out, only using the good stuff, some of that will degrade over time to where it will no longer pass a repeat of the initial tests; I recently had a perfectly good set of RAM degrade to useless in only 3 months here. After you take out those two problematic sources for bad RAM, is the remainder likely enough to have problems that it's worth upgrading to ECC RAM? I don't think it is for my home systems, because I'm OK with initial and periodic culling to kick out borderline modules. And things like power reliability cause me more downtime than RAM issues do. If you don't know how or have the time to do that sort of thing yourself though, you could easily be better off buying more redundant RAM.
1) Yes
2) No
Now to be serious. Home PC do not come yet with 6GB or 8GB. Most new home PC still seem to have between 1GB and 4GB. Where the 4GB variety is rare because of the fact that most home PCs still come with a 32-bit operating system. 3GB seems to be the sweet spot for higher-end-home-pcs. Your home PC will most likely not have 16GB next year. Your workstation at work, perhaps, but then even perhaps.
At the risk of sounding like "640KByte is enough for everyone", I have to ask why you think why you need 16GB to check your email next year. I'm typing this on a 6 year old computer, I'm running quite a few applications at the same time and I know a second user is logged in. Current memory usage: 764Meg RAM. As a general rule, I know that Windows XP runs fine on 512Meg RAM and is comfortable with 1GB RAM. The same is true for GNU/Linux running Gnome.
Now, at work with Eclipse loaded, a couple of application servers, a database and a few VMs... Yeah, there indeed you get memory starved quickly. You have to keep in mind that such usage pattern is not that of a typical office worker. I can imagine that a heavy Photoshop user would want every bit of RAM he can get too. The Word-wielding-office-worker? I don't think so.
Now, I can't speak for Vista. I heard it runs well on 2GB systems, but I can't say. I got a new work laptop last week and booted briefly in Vista. It felt extremely sluggish and my machine does have 4Gig RAM. Anyway, I didn't bother and put Debian Lenny/amd64 on it and didn't look back.
I my idea, you have quite a twisted sense of reality regarding to the computers people actually use.
Oh, and frankly... If cosmic rays would be a big issue by now with huge memories, don't you think that more people would be complaining? I can't say why Ubuntu/amd64 ran fine on your machine. Perhaps GNU/Linux has built-in error correction and marks bad RAM as "bad".
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
My first computer was a 80286 with 1 MB of RAM. That RAM was all parity memory. Cheaper than ECC, but still good enough to positively identify a genuine bit flip with great accuracy. My 80386SX had parity RAM, so did my 486DX4 120. I ran a computer shop for some years, so I went through at least a dozen machines ranging from the 386 era through the Pentium II era, at which point I sold the shop and settled on a AMDK62 450. And right about the time that the Pentium was giving way to the Pentium II, non-parity memory started to take hold.
What protection did parity memory provide, anyway? Not much, really. It would detect with 99.99...? % accuracy when a memory bit had flipped, but provided no answer as to which one. The result was that if parity failed, you'd see a generic "MEMORY FAILURE" message and the system would instantly lock up.
I saw this message perhaps three times - it didn't really help much. I had other problems, but when I've had problems with memory, it's usually been due to mismatched sticks, or sticks that are strangely incompatible with a specific motherboard, etc. none of which caused a parity error. So, if it matters, spend the money and get ECC RAM to eliminate the small risk of parity error. If it doesn't, don't bother, at least not now.
Note: having more memory increases your error rate assuming a constant rate of error (per megabyte) in the memory. However, if the error rate drops as technology advances, adding more memory does not necessarily result in a higher system error rate. And based on what I've seen, this most definitely seems to be the case.
Remember this blog article about the end of RAID 5 in 2009? Come on... are you really going to think that Western Digital is going to be OK with near 100% failure of their drives in a RAID 5 array? They'll do whatever it takes to keep it working because they have to - if the error rate became anywhere near that high, their good name would be trashed because some other company (Seagate, Hitachi, etc) would do the research and pwn3rz the marketplace.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
With memory becoming so plentiful these days (I haven't seen many home PC's with 6 or 8GB granted, but we're getting there) it seems that a single error on a large capacity chip is getting more and more trivial. Isn't it a waste to throw away a whole DIMM? Why isn't it possible to "remap" this known-bad address, or allocate some amount of RAM for parity the way software like PAR2 works? Hard drive manufacturers already remap bad blocks on new drives. Also it seems to me that, being a solid state device, small failures in RAM aren't necessarily indicative of a failing component like bad sectors on a hard drive are. Am I missing something really obvious here or is it really just easier/cheaper to throw it away?
First, it was not cosmic rays; memory was tested in a lead vault and showed the same error rate. Turns out to have been alpha particles emitted by the epoxy / ceramic that the memory chips were encapsulated in.
That said: Quite clearly given your experience, Vista and Ubuntu load the memory subsystem quite differently. It is possible that Vista, with its all-over-the-map program flow, is missing cache a lot more often and so is hitting DRAM harder; I don't have the background to really know. I believe that Memtest86, in order to put the most strain on memory and thus test it in the most pessimal conditions, tries to access memory in patterns that equally hit physical memory hardest. But, what I have found is that some OSs, apparently including Ubuntu, will run on memory that is marginal, memory that Memtest86 picks up as bad.
As for ECC in memory... The problem is that ECC carries a heavy performance hit on write. If you only want to write 1 byte, you still have to read in the whole QWord, change the byte, and write it back to get the ECC to recalculate correctly. It is because of that performance hit that ECC was deprecated. The problem goes away to a large extent if your cache is write-back rather than write-through; though there will be still a significant number of cases where you have to write a set of bytes that has not yet been read into cache and does not comprise a whole ECC word.
That said, it is still used on servers...
But I don't expect it will reappear on desktops any time soon. Apparently they have managed to control the alpha radiation to a great extent, and so the actual radiation-caused errors are now occurring at a much lower rate, significantly lower than software-induced BSODs.
My experience with a server that recorded about 15TB of data is something like 6 bit-errors per year that could not be traced to any source. This was a server with ECC RAM, so the problem likely occured in busses, network cards, and the like, not in RAM.
For non-ECC memory, I would strongly syggest running memtest86+ at least a day before using the system and if it gives you errors, replace the memory. I had one very persistend bit-error in a PC in a cluster, that actually reqired 2 days of memtest86+ to show up once, but did occure about once per hour for some computations. I also had one other bit-error that memtest86+ did not find, but the Linux commandline memory tester found after about 12 hours.
The problem here is that different testing/usage patterns result in different occurence probability for weak bits, i.e. bits that only sometimes fail. Any failure in memtest86+ or any other RAM tester indicates a serious problem. The absence of errors in a RAM test does not indicate the memory is necessarily fine.
That said, I do not believe memory errors have become more common on a per computer basis. RAM has become larger, but also more reliable. Of course, people participating in the stupidity called "overclocking" will see a lot more memory errors and other errors as well. But a well-designed system with quality hardware and a thourough initial test should typically not have memory issues.
However there is "quality" hardware, that gets it wrong. My ASUS board sets the timing for 2 and 4 memory modules to the values for 1 module. This resulted in stable 1 and 2 module operation, but got flaky for 4 modules. Finally I moved to ECC memory before I figuerd out that I had to manually set the correct timings. (No BIOS upgrade available that fixed this...) This board has a "professional" in its name, but apparently, "professional" does not include use of generic (Kingston, no less) memory modules. Other people have memory issues with this board as well that they could not fix this way, seems that somethimes a design just is bad or even reputed manufacturers do not spend a lot of effort to fix issues in some cases.In can only advise you to do a thourough forum-search before buying a specific mainboard.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Then it would proba%ly alter not just one byte, b%t a chain of them. The cha%n of modified bytes would be stru%g out, in a regular patter%. Now if only there were so%e way to read memory in%a chain of bytes, as if it w%re a string, to visu%lize the cosmic ray mod%fication. hmmm...
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Not all memory is created equal. Memory can be bad if Memtest detects errors, or you can simply be running it at the wrong settings. Usually there are both "normal" and "performance" settings for memory on higher end motherboards, or sometimes you can tweak all sorts of cycle-level stuff manually (CAS latency etc.).
Try running your memory with the most conservative settings before you assume it's bad.
.: Max Romantschuk
Depending on where it fails (if it fails in a the same spot) you can relatively easily work around it and not throw out the remaining good portion of the stick. I wrote a howto..
http://gquigs.blogspot.com/2009/01/bad-memory-howto.html
I've been running on Option 3 for quite some time now. No, it's not as good as ECC, but it doesn't cost you anything.
1) Do people trust a memtest86 error to mean a bad memory module or motherboard or CPU?
Well, I'd add some other possibilities such as:
Bad power supply,
Memory isn't seated properly in it's socket.
Incorrect timing set in bios.
Memory is incompatable with your motherboard.
etc..
But yeah, if memtest86 says there's a problem then there really is something wrong.
The probability of a cosmic ray at precisely the right angle and speed to cause a single bit error and cause an app to crash is somewhere on the same order as your chances of getting hit by a car, getting struck by lightning, getting torn apart by rabid wolves, and having sex in the back of a red 1948 Buick convertible at a drive-in movie theater on Tuesday night, Feb. 29th under a blue moon... all at the same time.... Sure, given enough bits, it's bound to happen sooner or later, but it isn't something I'd worry about. :-)
The probability of RAM just plain being defective---failing to operate correctly due to bugs in handling of certain low power states, having actual bad bits, having insufficient decoupling capacitance to work correctly in the presence of power supply rail noise, etc---is probably several hundred thousand orders of magnitude greater (probably on the order of a one in several thousand chance of a given part being bad versus happening to a given part a few times before the heat death of the universe).
Memory test failures (other than mapping errors) are pretty much always caused by hardware failing. If running memtest86 in Linux works correctly for days, this probably means one of three things:
I couldn't tell you which of these is the case without swapping out parts, of course. You should definitely take the time to replace whatever is bad even if it seems to be "working" in Linux. In the worst case, you have a few bad bits of RAM, they're somewhere in the middle of your disk cache in Linux, and you are slowly and silently corrupting data periodically on its way out to disk.... You definitely need to figure out what's wrong with the hardware and why it is only failing in Windows, and it sounds like the only way to do that is to swap out parts, boot into Windows, and see if the problem is still reproducible in under a couple of days, repeating with different part swaps until the problem goes away. Don't forget to try a different power supply.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
several hundred thousand orders of magnitude
We've crossed beyond the realm of the astronomical and into something else entirely. Surely you meant several orders of magnitude, aka, hundreds of thousands of times? Let's keep things on this side of the googol.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
and having sex in the back of a red 1948 Buick convertible at a drive-in movie theater on Tuesday night, Feb. 29th under a blue moon... all at the same time....
Mom?
I usually wear medieval armour. Not only does that work as efficient as tinfoil, it's also very fashionable.
Not only silicon... NASA astronauts consistently observe bright flashes in orbit, whether their eyes are open or closed. It is believed that these flashes are the result of cosmic rays interacting with the astronauts' retinas.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
http://www.ida.liu.se/~abdmo/SNDFT/docs/ram-soft.html
This references an IBM study, which is what I think I actually remember but could not find quickly this morning.
"In a study by IBM, it was noted that errors in cache memory were twice as common above an altitude of 2600 feet as at sea level. The soft error rate of cache memory above 2600 feet was five times the rate at sea level, and the soft error rate in Denver (5280 feet) was ten times the rate at sea level."
My bet is that it is cerenkov radiaton as a high speed charged particle breaks the speed of light in the fluid in the eyeball.
Indeed, these flashes have pretty much already been identified as the result of Cerenkov radiation.
Looks like these truths are not so self-evident after all...
I was recently running a server that archived about 2 terabytes of data and got something like one or two bit errors per year that could not be traced to any known source. This server boasted ECC RAM, so the problem didn't occur in the ram, and it was unlikely for it to have occurred in the FSB.
If you go with non-ECC, I would suggest running memtest86+. If you get errors, swap the memory. If swapping the memory still doesn't take care of it, swap motherboards! I recently had a memory problem in one of my customers' racks, and running memtest86+ got nothing until I had it running on my bench for over a week. There may be some problems with memtest86+...I even had another bit-error that memtest86+ did not find, but a Linux commandline memory tester found a problem almost immediately
The problem here is that different testing/usage patterns result in different probabilities of finding potentially bad words, e.g. words that may only be bad if you read from them a hundred cycles consecutively. But, if you do see a failure in memtest86+ or the CLI tester, you got yourself a serious problem. The point to take from this is that if you don't see errors, that doesn't mean you don't have errors!
Having said this, I still don't think memory errors among PCs are that common. We have more RAM on machines these days, but at the same time, the manufacturing processes have become better. I have a personal conviction in believing that though the likelihood of word error due to the increased amount of words in memory has increased, the RAM itself has become so much more "solid" that the increase of memory is negligible. Now, if you do dumb things with your computer like running it without a case or not giving it ventilation( learned this the hard way) or overclocking it, you *WILL* still run into problems. But if you design a system with quality and integrity, you typically shouldn't have these issues with memory!
One last thing to point out: there is quality hardware, and there is cheap hardware. My PC-Chips motherboard ran for three months and two days, and I didn't have a problem. Two days out of warrant. Now, take my MSI motherboard. It sets the timing for all memory modules to have the values of a single module. This resulted in stable single module operation, but got flaky for all four modules. I Finally moved to ECC before I figuerd out that I had to manually set the correct timings. This board is an ultra board, but apparently, it does not include use of generic (Micron, Corsair, etc!! - tried 'em all) memory modules. People on the Newegg reviews board have memory issues with this board as well that they could not fix with a BIOS update, and it appears that sometimes a design just is bad! Even the "good" manufacturers do not spend a lot of effort to fix issues in some cases.
My words of advice: Do your homework. Read through the reviews. AND DON'T BUY HARDWARE AS SOON AS IT COMES OUT!
I see you've never experienced the joys of J2EE.
if you look at the username it's not him at all, it's someone with ID 1344097 pretending to be him. Still, what he says is sensible, and what's wrong with this piece? If it doesn't interest you, why are you reading the comments?
which is totally what she said
You must be unlucky or the cause.
This would make a great slogan for Microsoft's new ad campaign:
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."