From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@labs.coraid.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:03:12 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <b02de62025167494f86950f5a0313a2a@coraid.com>
In-Reply-To: <13426df11002181246rba8e3aeu98ab4a26997906db@mail.gmail.com>
References: <769b58f43b908586ca581d2bfd2fcccd@ladd.quanstro.net>
	<4B7D8650.6030409@maht0x0r.net>
	<c1ae15d2c80dc5c8dbbdc28ee274f29d@coraid.com>
	<13426df11002181246rba8e3aeu98ab4a26997906db@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] pineview atom
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d6b9ef56-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> in many cases it's all about location. Where I used to live, 7200 feet
> up, it was a huge issue. Where you live, i am assuming close to sea
> level, and with a small number of machines, the statistics say that
> you're unlikely to see it. But I would not want to take several
> thousand of your machines to Los Alamos and try to make them run ...

exactly.  and coraid storage appliances use ecc throughout the
datapath.

all i'm saying is that 1 error per 3 days per 4 gb at sea level
(the orginal claim) seems exaggerated to me.   i believe my sample
size is big enough to refute that claim to very high confidence.

- erik