|
I just ordered a new server for work with 192gb of ram. like I can't even fathom having a use case here where we'd come even close to needing that much but gently caress it, I ain't footing the bill probably set up some as a ramdisk and put tempdb on there for sick nasty speed
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Sniep posted:how does it get slightly faster? i thought it was slower overall, i mean, it's like sanity checking the poo poo so that takes cycles? eh im just remembering what bsd said http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3757586&pagenumber=9#post456524057 Notorious b.s.d. posted:ecc doesn't hurt throughput. it hypothetically hurts latency. if it normally takes, say, 10 clock cycles for your memory to start streaming your request back to you, ecc makes it 11 cycles. the bandwidth is the same, there's just that extra clock cycle spent waiting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
i would get ecc ram next time. I mean why wouldn't you? poor? l m ao
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
i have ecc ram in my mac pro so its the natural choice if youre make pro computing decisions
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
bit flips in RAM happen all of the time now that we make it at such a high density. usually the bit is somewhere where you don't notice it, like the data for an image or video. but sometimes it hits your OS and you get a blue screen or other major fault. many of your application crashes are due to it, and it is slowly but constantly corrupting data you write to your hard drive. then you open up that word document and find that something is messed up, but you just blame word for being a piece of poo poo. for normal users the frequency of observed errors is low enough and random enough that they will not feel any benefit from ECC RAM. but you probably don't want that on your servers, or on the machine that builds/generates the final version of the product you're about to release. you also want a CPU that has ECC in the cache.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
http://danluu.com/why-ecc/
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
lmao fatwood's another google cargo culter
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Smythe posted:just pressed the task manager to check my ram and realized ide never seen the screen before. windows10 supremacy.  huh. according to this i got 8.3 giggies of stuff in memory that's chached or "standby". didn't know the os did that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
jef fatwood is actively causing data corruption with his idiot articles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
akadajet posted:
yeah that started with either vista or 7. basically it will load your most-used files into unused RAM. if you have an active program that needs that RAM, the cached data is immediately flushed in favor of whatever you're actually doing. it's good
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
The Management posted:jef fatwood is actively causing data corruption with his idiot articles. heh. "fatwood"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:yeah that started with either vista or 7. basically it will load your most-used files into unused RAM. the best is when you search for standby ram you get a bunch of "gamers" who blame it for killing their fps and want it disabled.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Just-In-Timeberlake posted:I just ordered a new server for work with 192gb of ram. like I can't even fathom having a use case here where we'd come even close to needing that much but gently caress it, I ain't footing the bill anything involving search indexing will use mega amounts of ram to buffer indexes for performance so maybe that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:What's the actual use case for ecc RAM? Like, ram errors clearly must be either super uncommon or easily rectified, cause the average user doesn't ever see "poo poo is hosed up cause of RAM bit flips" There are some caveats, of course. It's their job to show that it's not Windows's fault that your computer sucks. More important for your question, however, they drastically underestimate the damage of DRAM errors. They only assume a crash happened due to a DRAM bit flip if the wrong bit happens in the Windows kernel's code pages (because they can know exactly what the memory *should* be). To quote, "...the only DRAM bit errors that cause system crashes are those that occur within the roughly 1.5% of memory that is occupied by kernel code page". Still, in that tiny amount of memory, your average shitbox machine has a 1/1700 chance of failing due to a bit flip in the kernel's code pages in an 8 month period (assuming its on for at least 30 days within those 8 months). After the first crash, it's much more likely to happen again, which is indicative of hard faults in the memory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 20:48
|
|
Failed Sega Accessory Ahoy!
|
lol if you think your ram vendor spent the amount of time it takes to qualify your consumer ram is actually good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
this ram is $20 cheaper on newegg, so I bought that. there's no difference, the numbers are all the same
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:yeah that started with either vista or 7. basically it will load your most-used files into unused RAM. vista. iirc this was a major source of the "VISTA IS A HUGE MEMORY HOG!" hissy fits online -- pro gamerz didn't realize what was going on when they saw close to 100% memory usage. win7 kept exactly the same feature but hid its usage from the task manager by default. pro gamerz: "ahh MUCH BETTER, MICROSOFT"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
yes, users are retarded. welcome to the it brotherhood
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Just-In-Timeberlake posted:I just ordered a new server for work with 192gb of ram. like I can't even fathom having a use case here where we'd come even close to needing that much but gently caress it, I ain't footing the bill virtual machines
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
my stepdads beer posted:virtual machines mysql configured to use 128mb of caching because you forgot to change it
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT7mnSstKGs
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
consumer hardware sucks and if you care at all about data integrity or system reliability then every single piece of memory in your system will be ECC from the ram to the cpu cache to the raid controller to the NIC
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
wow thats crazy
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Menacer posted:Still, in that tiny amount of memory, your average shitbox machine has a 1/1700 chance of failing due to a bit flip in the kernel's code pages in an 8 month period (assuming its on for at least 30 days within those 8 months). After the first crash, it's much more likely to happen again, which is indicative of hard faults in the memory. I've heard from an Intel chip engineer that the Windows 98 blue screens were basically all Intel's fault for not doing sufficient error checking at each stage of the datapath on their chips. I was shocked to learn (probably due to naivety) that even on-chip they don't guarantee that errors due to cross-talk aren't engineered out and instead they do error correction to fix those things. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
It's astonishing that microchips work at all, considering the scale and complexity of the devices and that they're pumped out by the billions and sold for a few dollars Any deterministic process running billions of times per second with any level of reliability or repeatability is completely magical as far as I'm concerned
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
a reasonably pedestrian cpu core executes 100 quadrillion operations in a year like its no big deal
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Bloody posted:a reasonably pedestrian cpu core executes 100 quadrillion operations in a year like its no big deal same, but your mom and beejs
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Just-In-Timeberlake posted:I just ordered a new server for work with 192gb of ram. like I can't even fathom having a use case here where we'd come even close to needing that much but gently caress it, I ain't footing the bill i just ordered a new workstation for work with 64gb of ram. it's for playing with ct scans of stuff. they are real big. it's not my money so i made sure the thing gets all creature comforts so the ssd and screen are overkill
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 10:57
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:i just ordered a new workstation for work with 64gb of ram. it's for playing with ct scans of stuff. they are real big. no doubt, I ain't footing the bill so spec the poo poo out of it
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
lomarf ram usage
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
I'm using 22% of my RAM
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
it's not the size of the ram it's how you usage
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Silver Alicorn posted:I'm using 22% of my RAM same but 56% i have like 80 chrome tabs open and also photoshop
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
lol if u ram
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
29.7% currently i wish i knew what win10/samsung magician were actually caching, it's hard to tell
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 03:13
|
|
