Slashdot Mirror


Tracking Down a Single-Bit RAM Error

Hanji writes "We have discussed here before the potential effects of and protections against cosmic ray radiation, but for the average computer user, it's an obscure threat that doesn't affect them in any real way. Well, here's a blog post that describes a strange segfault and, after extensive debugging, traces it down to a single bit flip, probably caused by a stray cosmic ray. Lots of helpful descriptions of Linux debugging techniques in this one, and a pretty clear demonstration that this can be a real problem. I know I'm never buying a desktop without ECC RAM ever again!" The author acknowledges that it might not have been a cosmic ray-based error, but the troubleshooting steps are interesting no matter what the cause.

67 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. Ugh, single bit errors by Kufat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of my computers had an intermittent failure in a RAM chip/line/something somewhere that mostly manifested as SHA/MD5 failures when I was checksumming large files that I'd downloaded. Never showed up in Memtest86, but eventually I eliminated every other possibility. IIRC, I solved it by underclocking the machine and then replacing it when I was able.

    1. Re:Ugh, single bit errors by rudy_wayne · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not sure why you'd want ECC ram in a desktop, unless it's some sort business critical machine that you're willing to spend 5 or 6 times what a normal desktop costs.

      This may have been true at one time, but ECC RAM is no longer that expensive. I just looked at prices on Newegg:

      8 GB DDR3 $214.99

      8 GB DDR3 ECC $274.99

      In some cases, depending on the brand and the speed, ECC is actually *CHEAPER*.

    2. Re:Ugh, single bit errors by hawguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the original article showed why you'd want ECC in a desktop machine -- random bit errors do happen in real life. I don't see how a warranty makes this less of an issue -- if my machine silently corrupts data due to a bit error, getting a $50 replacement DIMM isn't really going to satisfy me. Does ECC really cost 5X over non-ECC?

      If he was processing data or editing a spreadsheet, then that bit error could have corrupted his data. If he was compiling a program for distribution (perhaps to thousands of machines), that bit error could have corrupted his executable, causing errors on all of the machines it was deployed to.

      After reading this article, the question that comes to mind is why am I *not* running ECC on my desktop?

    3. Re:Ugh, single bit errors by hawguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I went to Dell's site and configured a few Dell Desktops (non-ECC) and Workstations (with ECC), and prices were similar for comparable systems. Though the Workstations that supported ECC didn't support many low-end processors, so if i didn't want ECC and didn't care about processor performance I could have gotten a desktop for about 60% of the price of the cheapest workstation with ECC. But I didn't see a 5x increase for ECC.

    4. Re:Ugh, single bit errors by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure why you'd want ECC ram in a desktop, unless it's some sort business critical machine that you're willing to spend 5 or 6 times what a normal desktop costs. For day to day use, ECC is overkill.

      My desktop has 8GB of ECC in it. This cost I think $40 more than non-ECC, and meant I got an Althon II x4 instead of a Core i5. That "5 or 6 times what a normal desktop costs" is either bullshit or Intel-onlyism (which is just another kind of bullshit).

    5. Re:Ugh, single bit errors by besalope · · Score: 2, Informative

      You'll also need a consumer-level motherboard with ECC support. Which are not common, which means you'll be stuck with a server-grade motherboard which costs more, has potential to change: cpu compatibility, case compatibility, and features on the board itself.

      There's alot more to making the change from non-ECC to ECC than just swapping out your ram.

    6. Re:Ugh, single bit errors by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 2, Informative

      You'll also need a consumer-level motherboard with ECC support. Which are not common, which means you'll be stuck with a server-grade motherboard

      Or, you know, go AMD. Because they don't limit ECC to only server parts.

    7. Re:Ugh, single bit errors by nabsltd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or, you know, go AMD. Because they don't limit ECC to only server parts.

      Or, just buy any one of a half-dozen motherboards costing less than $200 and add a Xeon that is priced within 5% of the equivalent spec non-Xeon.

      Sure, these might not be the best motherboards for gaming (although they are pretty competitive compared to other socket 1156 motherboards), but for a workstation doing everything else, they're great.

      And, this way you get a motherboard that is thoroughly tested with ECC RAM (as that's what is expected to be used), and likely far better BIOS control of the ECC.

    8. Re:Ugh, single bit errors by billcopc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depends on the type of desktop. ECC these days doesn't cost much more than non-ECC... Dell and HP may not want to admit it, but I buy ECC DDR3 all the time as I build a lot of white-box servers, and frankly even the lamest "gaming" Ram carries a higher premium than ECC.

      The tricky thing is that while most (all?) current AMD boards can take ECC ram (unbuffered, not registered), no consumer Intel boards can handle ECC - you need to step up to a Xeon processor and chipset. Luckily the single-processor setups don't cost all that much more than their mid-range consumer equivalents, but you do have to sacrifice buzzy features like USB 3.0, SLI/Crossfire, eSATA and overclocking. One exception to this is the EVGA Classified SR-2, which has absolutely everything, but it's $600 and requires a special oversized chassis (or a lot of dremel work).

      I'm going to put this out there: if someone is genuinely concerned about bit errors to a degree where the loss of work due to a minor crash or reboot is significant enough, go ahead and spend an extra 10% on ECC. Even if you pack that board with 96gb of memory, it's still cheaper than six months of therapy and thorazine :P

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    9. Re:Ugh, single bit errors by sjames · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One off single bit flips DO happen in otherwise perfectly good hardware.

      I saw one years ago. A '386 running a single batch process (under DOS). It was supposed to be a massive sorting operation (500MB was a lot back then) and the results came out terribly scrambled. Each entry was fine except that they were not in order as they should have been. Since it was a batch I had the luxury of running it again. The error NEVER repeated. The same machine ran flawlessly for the rest of it's natural life after passing every test I could throw at it.

      It could have been a cosmic ray, alpha decay or even a really unfortunately timed power spike.

      ECC wouldn't have helped though, it had parity and that didn't detect anything, so the flipped bit was likely in the CPU itself.

    10. Re:Ugh, single bit errors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      By only supporting ECC on their expensive server processors.

  2. Takes me back by tsotha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I was in college one of my physics professors told us he doubted programs would ever get bigger than a few hundred kilobytes because cosmic rays would cause the larger programs to fail too frequently.

    1. Re:Takes me back by Thanatos81 · · Score: 2, Informative

      To be fair, Gates never said that line. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Misattributed

    2. Re:Takes me back by Jurily · · Score: 2, Funny

      larger programs to fail too frequently

      We showed him right, huh?

  3. Easter Earthquake by ushering05401 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't know about cosmic rays, but immediately following the Easter day Earthquake in Guadalupe Victoria (about three hundred miles from where I was located) I tried to fire up my laptop and then my desktop, both of which had been suspended to RAM. Neither one would wake up, though the lappie displayed a garbled screen. No errors in the log files (Ubuntu 9.10 on the sys76 lappie, Deb Lenny on desktop).

    1. Re:Easter Earthquake by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wouldn't that be more likely caused by fluctuations in the power supply though? I'm not an electrical engineer nor an expert on earthquakes, but wouldn't it be possible that a quick loss of power or too high of power for a split second could mess up the data on the RAM?

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Easter Earthquake by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or RAM contact points during shaking: contact, no contact, contact, no contact, different contacts at different milliseconds.

  4. RAM error? by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Forget a RAM error, I have seen a bit on a file on the disk flip.

    After years of successful operation a Perl script quite working. On investigation a G was transformed to a W a difference of one bit. The file mod date was years old.

    1. Re:RAM error? by marcansoft · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I experienced almost exactly that issue with a RAM error. My system was apparently stable, and then one day I got a syntax error in a system Perl script: one character had changed. The script was owned by root and otherwise untouched. After puzzling over it for quite a while I realized it could be a RAM error and ran memtest86. It reported a single permanently stuck bit in my 512MB of RAM. I found a kernel patch to manually mark problem RAM areas as reserved and kept on running with that RAM for a few years.

      Are you sure that perl script issue was caused by a drive error? A RAM error can cause the same apparent problem, if the corruption happens in the kernel's cache. However, it shouldn't be permanent as it will not be written back to disk (the cache won't be dirty) unless someone actually modifies the file.

    2. Re:RAM error? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2, Funny

      Aha, my plan worked perfectly *rubs hands in delight*. I hack the entire internet at once by flipping single bits on a large number of machines. The maths is kind of chaotic. It's fun to track viruses as ant-algorithm analogies too.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    3. Re:RAM error? by marcansoft · · Score: 2, Informative

      The perl script will stay cached until something else pushes it out of RAM or until you reboot the system. In general, files are loaded once and stick around for quite a while unless you're low on RAM. In my case, it stayed cached while I investigated it, and I could see the broken character with various viewers. Bad RAM could also cause an intermittent issue if it happened to affect memory used by the Perl interpreter to load the file (that would change each time), but in this case it affected the kernel's file cache, which is quite persistent in the medium or even long term.

      I probably had the RAM error for a long time and never noticed. It likely caused a few kernel panics and segfaults along the way, but I probably attributed those to stuff like buggy X11 drivers. The broken Perl script was the first odd thing that I could directly attribute to a RAM problem, later confirmed with memtest86 (the broken bit also matched the change that happened to the character).

    4. Re:RAM error? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Informative

      Would the perl script be loaded at the same address in RAM every time? Wouldn't that likely be a one-time unrepeatable problem?

      If the stuck bit was in the file cache, then it would be repeatable for as long as the script stayed cached, plus you could load the file up in a text editor and see the changed character, etc. Then it would mysteriously go away.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:RAM error? by Rinikusu · · Score: 2, Funny

      /*After years of successful operation a Perl script quite working*/

      And a bit flipped to an e?

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    6. Re:RAM error? by petsounds · · Score: 2, Funny

      And 10,000 years from now, your Perl script has become the complete works of Shakespeare...

  5. It's not cosmic. It's from the die/package by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Informative

    Soft errors in DRAM are far more likely to be the result of alpha particle decay from materials in the die and packaging.

    1. Re:It's not cosmic. It's from the die/package by cusco · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People don't realize that lead is mildly radioactive, and the decay from solders on the connectors or chassis can also cause bit flips. Very old processed lead, such as that used for the roofs of some European cathedrals, has been used to build supercomputers since more of the radioactivity has decayed.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    2. Re:It's not cosmic. It's from the die/package by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Very old processed lead, such as that used for the roofs of some European cathedrals, has been used to build supercomputers since more of the radioactivity has decayed.

      That sounds a bit fishy.

      I _think_ I might be willing to believe the radioactivity of lead, presumably from contamination through some other source radioactive mineral in the ore that decays into radioactive lead. What I have a hard time believing though is that supercomputer makers wouldn't just use non-lead solder, which has been around for years and has actually been mandated for use in recent years in electronics.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:It's not cosmic. It's from the die/package by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe. It just sounds like an urban legend to me. I was also able to find a 25 year old patent claiming that gold-tin solder assured both high reliability in chip making.

      http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MZY1AAAAEBAJ&dq=4512950

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:It's not cosmic. It's from the die/package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      People don't realize that lead is mildly radioactive, and the decay from solders on the connectors or chassis can also cause bit flips. Very old processed lead, such as that used for the roofs of some European cathedrals, has been used to build supercomputers since more of the radioactivity has decayed.

      I'm unclear as how this "processing" of the lead has reduced its natural radiaoctivity...

      Pb-210 is in the U-238 and Rn-222 decay chains, so lead ore in the ground has a constant source of Pb-210 being generated due to uranium contamination. Likewise, radon gas can seep into the lead ore deposits and provide a fresh influx of Pb-210. Once the lead is smelted and purified, the uranium contanimation is removed and it's not being exposed to radon so the number of Pb-210 atoms in the sample starts decreasing significantly.

  6. Re:erm.... by JesseL · · Score: 3, Informative

    Would it really be so hard to read the article before posting?

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  7. faulty RAM by mojo-raisin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been working with some large microarray datasets recently, and so had to double my computer's memory to 8GB.

    As I've done for years, I went to Fry's to get some Corsair chips... installed F13 64bit to replace my older 32bit distro... and crash-o-matic began. Mostly from Chrome and Mercurial.

    I ran memtester86+ and sure enough, verified my first purchase of faulty memory.

    So, I went back to Fry's and exchanged for another pair of Corsair 2GB chips. This time, I ran memtester86+ first thing... ANOTHER bad set, so back it sent to Fry's.

    *Third* set of memory was Kingston, and a trip through memtester86+ verified no errors. Yay!

    Computer has been stable, too.

    With more and more RAM in computers, my next box will have ECC.

    1. Re:faulty RAM by Burdell · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you buy all new RAM, or add to existing? If you added to existing, did you test just the new RAM, or with the existing in there as well?

      Lots of RAM has different timings these days, and even when the timing is supposed to be the same, I've seen new RAM cause problems with old RAM to surface (possibly also from temperature changes). I had a system with 2G (2x1G) Corsair RAM, and then I added another 2G (2x1G) of the same model Corsair; the system started crashing. I assumed (as most would) that the problem was the new RAM. I ran memtest86+ for about 18 hours on just the new RAM and had no problems. I stuck the original 2G back in and the system crashed; I ran memtest86+ on just the old RAM; no problem. With all 4 sticks in, memtest86+ would show errors. By moving sticks around and figuring out the address mapping on my system, I tracked it down to one of the original sticks. I then ran memtest86+ for about 48 hours on just that stick, and it did eventually show an error (Corsair replaced it and I have had no more problems).

      RAM generates a good bit of heat these days, and adding RAM generates even more heat in a small space. My faulty RAM has the heat spreaders included, but the motherboard puts the RAM slots so close together there's still little space for heat to dissipate.

  8. fascinating by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its interesting to me because my first instinct would have been to assume something got corrupted and my first step would have been to reboot. If the problem persisted through a reboot then I might have gone down the rabbit hole in similiar
    fashion to try and find and fix the root cause.

    There are enough sofware bugs, kernel bugs, driver bugs, hardware hiccups due to marginal equipment, power fluctuation, interference, random noise... and i suppose even cosmic radiation that I would rarely think to spend the time to trace a transient problem unless it was reproducible accross reboots, or at least happened on multiple separate occasions.

  9. radioactive isotope in the chip by mirix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would think it's more likely there is trace radioactive elements in the epoxy the chip is encapsulated in.

    Actually, I recall reading that in the early solid state memory days, they had problems with this. I don't remember what the solution was, but I thought it was to make the circuit somewhat resilient to it, as it was impossible to get 100% neutral epoxy, there's always going to be traces of something radioactive.

    I think they tested the cosmic ray theory by running the same chip with and without lead shielding, and did not find a significant difference in errors, they then assumed it was impurities in the chips themselves decaying.

    --
    Sent from my PDP-11
  10. Old, old story by jmichaelg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Back in the early 80's, HP published a paper on random bit errors in RAM. They looked at chips from a variety of vendors and determined that the RAM coming out of Japan was the most reliable. That paper caused a lot of US RAM vendors to shutter their doors as there was a sea change in purchasing habits.

    A few years later, I ran into John Scully while we were waiting for a flight. I mentioned the paper to him and asked him how Apple could seriously expect to sell a Macintosh specifically aimed at the Scientific community if it didn't have ECC. He blithely said "it's not a problem..." 20+ years hence and most of us still don't have ECC so it seems he was right.

    1. Re:Old, old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      For a more recent analysis (by folks at Google and U.Toronto) see "DRAM Errors in the Wild: A Large-Scale Field Study" in ACM SIGMETRICS/Performance 09.

      They did an extensive analysis of DRAM failures from many vendors and debunk several myths as well as indicating that the soft error rate can be much higher than previously thought.

      Well worth a read...

      http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bianca/papers/sigmetrics09.pdf

       

    2. Re:Old, old story by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 2, Informative

      as well as indicating that the soft error rate can be much higher than previously thought.

      I'm not sure it really does; true they had enormous average (mean) error rates, but it sounded like this was misleading due to an incredibly skewed distribution. Going by the number of servers with zero errors, one error, and multiple errors over a year, and the failures-vs-age data, I came to the conclusion that there's about a 1/5 chance that you'll see one random single-bit error over a typical lifetime (I think I used 5-6 years), but also a similar chance that part of your ram will go bad after a couple years and give you a sudden flood of errors. It would have been very nice if they'd counted servers with 0,1,2,3,...10-20, 20-50, ... etc errors/year (preferably with a pretty graph), instead of only breaking it into zero, one, many.

  11. Cosmic Ray Protection... by r00tyroot · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm putting tinfoil hats on all of my servers, right away!

  12. Re:Too bad many consumer mainboards don't support by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is one area where AMD is light years ahead of Intel. With Intel, you have to buy a Xeon and a server chipset to have ECC support, which basically is going to run you at least a grand or two just for the CPU and motherboard (at least if you want an i7 based Xeon). AMD on the other hand supports ECC across the board, and you just need a motherboard which supports it, which is most of them (total cost: <$500).

    Thanks for the gouging Intel!

  13. Re:All data channels are noisy by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Informative

    And no doubt in these super high transistor count and clock frequency CPUs and chips we are using these days there must be devices and methods used inside them to keep the logic transfer and computation validity on the straight and narrow.

    Other than ECC on the cache arrays... No. Not a scrap.

    If you want reliability on every internal signal and register against cosmic ray strikes, because you're a military or aerospace contractor, you pay boku bucks for it, settle for having way less than what we would currently call performance. And even then I highly doubt anyone is actually putting ECC on each and every bus or set of latches. You just radiation harden the device as much as possible, and then use three of them so if one gets the wrong answer because of a particle strike, the other two will out-vote it.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  14. Also by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    Disks have a lot, and I mean a LOT of ECC on them. It is not a situation of "I need to write a 1 so I'll place one at this location on the drive." They use a complex encoding scheme so that bit errors on the disk don't yield data errors to the user.

    Then there's the fact that bits aren't even stored as bits really. All current drives use (E)PRML which is (Enhanced) Partial Response Maximum Likelihood. What this means is bits aren't encoded as a high-low state or FM wave or any of that. They are written using flux reversals, but the level is not carefully controlled, it can't be. So when you read the data the drive actually looks at an analogue wave. It encodes the partial response it gets, and then finds the maximumly likely pattern that matches.

    Sounds like voodoo but works really well. Things are not simple thresholds or the like, it is a complex system and ends up being quite robust and resilient to error.

    So it is highly unlikely that you had a bit flipped on a disk. Would require some amazing circumstances to happen. The RAM error is far more likely. Not just the cosmic ray thing but, as the parent noted, bad RAM. Normally when RAM fails, it fails catastrophically and it is immediately apparent. Not always though. It can not only fail on single bit locations, but only during certian ops. That is why memtest does so many different tests. One kind might works fine, another might fail. Rare, but I've seen it on a few systems.

    1. Re:Also by marcansoft · · Score: 2, Informative

      However, single-bit errors are possible with faulty disk hardware. The cache RAM on the disk or its interface can be flaky, and for PATA disks a bad cable can cause single-bit errors. SATA disks usually catch IO errors since they use a more complicated encoding and make use of checksums.

    2. Re:Also by Scaba · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then there's the fact that bits aren't even stored as bits really. All current drives use (E)PRML which is (Enhanced) Partial Response Maximum Likelihood. What this means is bits aren't encoded as a high-low state or FM wave or any of that. They are written using flux reversals, but the level is not carefully controlled, it can't be. So when you read the data the drive actually looks at an analogue wave. It encodes the partial response it gets, and then finds the maximumly likely pattern that matches.

      I doubt this is true. The disk would have to be spinning at 88 mph in order to activate the flux capacitor, and the power brick would need to supply 1.21 gigawatts to the drive, which exceeds the capacity of even the most tricked-out gaming PC. I think you'd better check your science, my friend.

  15. Re:erm.... by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Funny

    My RAM is shielded against cosmic rays by my mothers basement.

  16. Cosmic rays, my ass. Occam's Razor time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are on the right track. As someone with over a quarter century of background in combined embedded software and hardware design (the most recent decade for life-dependant systems), it always amazes me how quickly pseudo-technical people jump to wild speculation for observations that they cannot explain.

    They fail to understand that a hardware system is an imperfect representation of the theory (probably the biggest failure in the schooling of software developers and even some hardware is to get this message into their heads). While they feel comfort in the theory of a binary system, they utterly fail to understand that our real systems, like us, are imperfect and, like us, live in an analog world. Simple things like temperature variations, noise from common (rather than cosmic) sources, marginal design timing, imperfect components, simple intermittents, etc., are 10^24 times more likely the cause.

    But they're not as fascinating as wild speculation, are they?

  17. Had a MySQL problem once. (Once... ha.) by falzer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I had a mysql replication server which was reading SQL commands from a binary log on a master server. One day after years of operation I noticed an update failed. I didn't see anything at first by looking at the query, but when I looked closely I noticed the query had a single character changed, and of that character only one bit had changed. It was something like a P becoming a Q and thus giving a syntax error.

    True story.

  18. Radioactive packaging by overshoot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I recall reading that in the early solid state memory days, they had problems with this. I don't remember what the solution was, but I thought it was to make the circuit somewhat resilient to it, as it was impossible to get 100% neutral epoxy,

    The worst problem was with ceramic DIP packages -- the really good ones for when you needed reliability (partly because the plastic ones tended to allow moisture to get in, and then condensation on thermal cycling.) The standard ceramic packaging material contained trace amounts of thorium, which is an alpha emitter. The alpha bombardment was enough to flip bits.

    There have been several fixes since then. Using materials that don't contain radioactive species was one. The one you're probably remembering is that the manufacturers apply a polymer coating to the surface of the die, which is enough to stop a lot of alpha particles and a fair number of electrons. Getting rid of lead in packaging is also good, because lead tends to contain some radioactive traces.

    On the other hand, there's flat nothing to be done about cosmic rays and damn little to be done about X-rays and thermal noise (you do keep your memory cold, don't you? Thermal noise is proportional to KT/qe after all.) So at some point we get to where there are too many bits which need minimal energy to flip them -- and then you have errors.

    Pity that so few mobos actually support ECC, though.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  19. Re:erm.... by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    My girlfriend at the time even made me a tinfoil hat, that I'd sometimes wear around the house as I babbled nonsense about impending alien invasions. :)

    I am both shocked and amazed that you eventually broke up.

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  20. Re:This would be important by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Billions of years in the ground, and only a few centuries on the roof and all of the radioactivity is gone! Wow!

    The author needs to provide a reference, but there's a few ways I can think of that a processing stage, and a few centuries would produce something less radioactive than something produced more recently. I think all of them stem from the ore containing a source material that gets separated through the refining process, but the daughter products from the source don't. Here's one scenario:

    Ore = Lead + radio-isotope a + radio-isotope B.

    radio-isotope A decays to radio-isotope B

    radio-isotope A: 4 billion year half-life.
    radio-isotope B: 20 year half life, decays to stable isotope C.

    during refining, radio isotope A gets nearly completely refined out to parts per trillion. radio isotope B is similar to lead chemically, and remains at 1 parts per million (at time of refining).

    200 years go by. (10 half lives of radio isotope B)
    radio isotope B is now at 1/2^10 concentration, or about 1 part per trillion. Significantly less than when it was first refined. The added radioactivity from radio-isotope A decaying into B is negligible due to the long half-life of A.

    These numbers and process are obviously made up to show how it MIGHT work. It still remains to be seen if it's actually true or not.

    --
    AccountKiller
  21. Re:All data channels are noisy by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Funny

    Walla!

  22. Ksplice ... go figure by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The guy that posted this is a Ksplice developer. In case you didn't knew, KSplice allows you to patch your running kernel without rebooting. Nice.

    Anyway, this guys sees a random memory error. He conveniently goes on a debugging rampage, while we all know the most logical first step would be rebooting that damn machine. Random memory errors do happen.

    He says he "hasn't gotten around" to memtesting his RAM yet. So, let me get this straight ... he implies that random cosmic rays caused the error, but he hasn't yet tested his ram for what is the most possible cause of the issue?

    Then he goes on to explain that you don't even need to reboot your machine due to damn cosmic radiation. Or kernel updates. Because you have Ksplice.

    Come on.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  23. Re:Cosmic rays, my ass. Occam's Razor time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On the subject of the imperfect nature of machines, I found this post by Richard D. James (aka Aphex Twin, a noted electronic music composer) quite interesting. He describes how the physical machinery of analog electronic music machines means it is near impossible to duplicate them in digital programs.

    link

    Author: analord
    Date: 02-07-05 03:14

    some people bought the analogue equipment when it was unfashionable and very cheap though.
    some of us are over 30 you know!
    anyone remember when 303`s were £50? and coke was 16p a tin? crisps 5p

    also you have overlooked A LOT of other points because its not all about the overall frequency response of the recording system its how the sound gets there in the first place.
    here are some things which you can`t get from a plugin,they are often emulated but due to their hugely complex nature are always pretty crass aproximations..

    the sound of analogue equpiment including EQ, changes very noticably over even a few hours due to temperature changes within a circuit.
    Anyone who has tried to make tracs on a few analogue synths and make them stay in tune can tell you this,you leave a trac running for a few hours come back and think Im sure I didnt fucking write that,I must be going mental!

    this affects all the components in a synth/EQ in an almost infinte amount of tiny ways.
    and the amount differs from circuit to circuit depending on the design.

    the interaction of different channels and their respective signals with an analogue mixer are very complex,EQ,dynamics....
    any fx, analogue or digital that are plugged into it all have their own special complex characteristics and all interact with each other differently and change depending on their routing.
    Nobody that ive heard of has even begun to start emulating analogue mixer circuitry in software,just the aesthetics,it will come but im sure it will be a crap half hearted effort like most pretend synth plugins are.
    they should be called PST synths, P for pretend not virtual.

    Every piece of outboard gear has its own sound ,reverbs,modulation effects etc
    real room reverb, this in itself companies have spent decades trying to emulate and not even got close in my opinion, even the best attempts like Quantec and EMT only scratch the surface.

    analogue EQ is currently impossible in theory to be emulated digitally,quite intense maths shit involed in this if youre really that interested,you could look it up...good luck.

    your soundcard will always make things sound like its come from THAT soundcard..they ALL impose their different sound characteristics onto whatever comes out of them they are far from being totally neutral devices.

    all the components of a circuit like resistors and capacitors subtley differ from each other depending on their quality but even the most high quality milatary spec ones are never EXACTLY the same.

    no two analogue synths can ever be built exactly the same,there are tiny human/automated errors in building the circuits,tweaking the trimpots for example which is usually done manually in a lot of analogue shit.
    just compare the sound of 2 808 drum machines next to each other and you will see what I mean,you always thought an 808 was an 808 right?
    same goes for 303`s they all sound subltey different,different voltage scaling of the oscillator is usually quite noticable.

    VST plugins are restricted by a finite number of calculations per second these factors are WAY beyond their CURRENT capability.

    Then there is the question of the physicallity of the instrument this affects the way a human will emotionally interact with it and therfore affect what they will actually do with it! often overlooked from the maths heads,this is probably the biggest factor I think.
    for example the smell of analogue stuff as well as the look of it puts y

  24. I've seen this by Eil · · Score: 2, Informative

    A few years ago I came across a thread on a FreeBSD mailing list where a build of some package was failing and the submitter couldn't tell why because he wasn't a developer. The failure was unusual and no one else could reproduce it. Eventually, the problem was traced back to a character in the source differing from the original. The character was a one-bit difference from the correct character, and it was suggested to the submitter that he reboot and memtest his memory. Sure enough, one single bad bit out of around 512MB.

  25. ha! by serbanp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The really impressive thing is that this guy resisted the urge to just reboot his machine. Otherwise, the clues would have vanished and the expr binary would have run again without any issue.

    Maybe that's why the first step one takes when something behaves weird on a Windows system is to reboot it...

    1. Re:ha! by mpoon · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you take a look at the website hosting the blog (Ksplice), you might notice that "this guy" works for a company that produces software which eliminates the need for reboots...

  26. Re:All data channels are noisy by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

    Uh, no, not at all... *shifty eyes*

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  27. Roman ingots to shield particle detector by drerwk · · Score: 3, Informative

    Roman ingots to shield particle detector
    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100415/full/news.2010.186.html

  28. Re:Cosmic rays, my ass. Occam's Razor time. by bitflip · · Score: 2, Funny

    It was me.

    Sorry 'bout that.

  29. Re:erm.... by fishexe · · Score: 2, Funny

    You live below your mother's basement???

    Sure. In his mother's sub-basement.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  30. Memory Refresh Timing more likely by spydum · · Score: 2, Informative

    I know, cosmic rays sound so much cooler, but it's far more likely he has some crappy memory and/or his memory refresh timings are too high.

    DRAM memory cells have to be refreshed pretty often (anywhere from 7.8usec-12usec), otherwise they become unreliable. If his BIOS has the memory timings set to something obscurely long, it may be there are specific rows/cells on his DRAM modules that are too weak to read after bleeding off a bit of charge. Changing the refresh timing would likely improve the situation, causing the memory to refresh it's state more often.

  31. +1 Informative by fishexe · · Score: 2, Funny

    I shouldn't have spent all my mod points yesterday. I guess my hardware knowledge is obsolete; I had no idea modern HDDs don't store individual bits anymore.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    1. Re:+1 Informative by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Been common with all kinds of things for some time. CD-ROMs, for example, use EFM, eight-to-fourteen modulation at their most base level. Eight logical bits are actually written as fourteen pits on the disc. Again the reason is error correction. They have more error correction at higher levels, and even more for data CDs. That's why data and audio CDs don't add up. An 80 minute CD holds 700MB of data. But do the math on 44.1kHz, 16-bit, 2-track audio and it takes 800MB of data to hold. Well in data mode the CD has additional ECC and that takes up the space.

      As our media densities have increased, there is just no way to have 100% bit accurate recovery of data all the time. So, we just don't try. Instead, write it in a fashion that the errors can be dealt with.

      For sure the PRML that HDDs use is the coolest and the most voodoo. It really seems like the kind of shit that should work. I mean taking samples (PCM style) of an analogue wave and comparing it to what it is likely to be? GTFO...

      But it works, and works great.

      There's all sorts of nifty shit like that at the hardware level that just fascinates me. Another one is 8b/10b encoding, which most popular buses (PCIe, 1394, etc) use. You take each byte and encode it as 10 bits, instead of 8. Why? Because it gives multiple different ways of encoding it. In particular, you have have different 1s and 0s patterns or on the wire, different high and low voltage. You then have the system balance those out, giving you no DC component to the signal. If you didn't, and you got a lot of 1s (high voltage) you'd have DC on the wire and that could cause all kinds of trouble. However 8b/10b solves that problem quite nicely. You get 0 DC and pass all your data. Does incur overhead though. There are newer schemes of a similar fashion coming online with more complexity to get the same effect with less overhead.

  32. windows crashes by prkamath · · Score: 2, Funny

    And we used to blame Microsoft engineering team for all the crashes we experienced !!

  33. Re:Cosmic rays, my ass. Occam's Razor time. by w0mprat · · Score: 2, Informative
    Occam's DIMM I'm affraid. I had a stick of DDR2 that had a stuck bit that caused almost exactly the same issue as TFA. As a hardware geek, not a *nix geek with time to waste, I went straight to memtest86, and there it was, one single stuck bit.

    Although interesting, TFA it is without a doubt the most pedantic and roundabout way I've ever read of establishing your rig is not stable.

    From TFSA:

    And in fact, since that incident, I've had several other, similar problems. I haven't gotten around to memtesting my machine, but that does suggest I might just have a bad RAM chip on my hands.

    Yeah he has a stuck or semi-stuck bit and a hour or two of his life he won't get back.

    In such a circumstance I've found underclocking and overvolting the DIMM might coax it to work again but it's best to RMA or bin it.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  34. AMD vs. Intel with ECC, prices in Germany by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Checking at alternate.de (not the cheapest online shop, but good for comparisons because they have both consumer and server parts):

    Intel:
    The only Socket 775 boards that support ECC seem to be those with the 32xx MCH chipset. Starting at 195 Euros (Asus P5BV-C).
    For Socket 1156, the consumer chipsets allow ECC but you still need to find a board with BIOS support. Sadly Alternate does not list the ECC support status, but you might find one that supports ECC among the cheaper ones for 80-90 Euros. You do, however, need a Xeon which starts at 213 Euros (Xeon X3430, 4 x 2.4 GHz)
    So mainboard plus a quad CPU costs you around 300 Euros at Alternate.

    AMD:
    Board situation (Socket AM3) similar to Intel's Socket 1156, boards with ECC support are available for 80-90 Euros.
    Unlike Intel, even cheap desktop CPUs support ECC. As a cheap quad, Alternate offers the Athlon II X4 635 for 108 Euros.
    So mainboard plus quad CPU costs you around 200 Euros, 100 less than with Intel.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  35. My userid, FTW! by RandomBitFlipper · · Score: 2, Funny

    Woohoo!

  36. Single bit errors by mollog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While working as a failure analysis technician at a company that made a disk controller, I came across a single-bit error in static RAM cache that was repeatable. I was lucky to have the software and hardware tools available and I eventually tracked down the failure mode. Setting a bit at a certain location would cause another, different location's bit to get set. Just that one bit. And only if you set it. Resetting it did not cause the other bit to reset.

    This turned out to be a manufacturing problem with a particular run of RAM. I starting finding more of these bad parts and could reproduce the failures. I guess what I'm saying is that this could well be a manufacturing defect in the RAM.

    --
    Best regards.