I'm sorry, but I, just like your admins, don't believe this. It's theoretically possible to have "undetectable" errors, but it's very unlikely and you'd see a much higher than this incidence of detected unrecoverable errors and you'd see a much higher incidence than this of repaired errors. I just don't buy the argument of "invisible errors".

EDIT: took a look on the paper you linked and it basically says the same thing I did. The probability of these cases becomes increasingly and increasingly small and while ECC would indeed, not reduce it to _zero_ it would greatly greatly reduce it.

▲

Agingcoder 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Well my admins eventually believed me , so I’m fairly comfortable with what I said.

We also had a few thousands of physical servers with about of terabyte of ram each.

You are right : we did see repaired errors, but we also saw (indirectly, and after testing ) unrepaired ones

▲

RealityVoid 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Ok, I am sure there is _some_ amount of unrepairable errors.

But the initial discussion was that ECC ram makes it go away and your point that it doesn't. And the vast vast majority of the errors, according to my understanding and to the paper you pointed to, are repairable. About 1 out of 400 ish errors are non-repairable. That's a huge improvement! If you had ECC ram, the failures Firefox sees here would drop from 10% to 0.025%! That is highly significant!

Even more! 2 bit errors now you would be informed of! You would _know_ what is wrong.

You could have 3(!) bit errors and this you might not see, but they'd be several orders of magnitude even rarer.

So yes, it would not 100% go away, but 99.9 % go away. That's... Making it go away in my book.

And last but not least, this paper mentions uncorrectable errors. It says nothing of undetectable ecc errors! You said _undetectable_ errors. I'm sure they happen, but would be surprised if you have any meaningful incidence of this, even at terabytes of data. It's probay on the order of 0.000625 of errors you can get ( but if you want I can do more solid math)

▲

Agingcoder 9 hours ago | parent [-]

We’re in agreement.

I think we diverge on ‘making it go away in my book’.

When you’re the one having to debug all these bizarre things ( there were real money numbers involved so these things mattered ), over millions of jobs every day , rare events with low probability don’t disappear - they just happen and take time to diagnose and fix.

So in my book ecc improves the situation, but I still had to deal with bad dimms, and ecc wasn’t enough. We used not to see these issues because we already had too many software bugs, but as we got increasingly reliable, hardware issues slowly became a problem, just like compiler bugs or other elements of the chain usually considered reliable.

I fully agree that there are lots of other cases where this doesn’t matter and ecc is good enough.

Thanks for taking the time to reply !

▲

RealityVoid 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh, I get this point. If you have a sufficiently large amount of data an you monitor the errors and your software gets better and better even low probability cases will happen and will stand out.

But this is sort of the march of nines.

My knee jerk reaction to blaming ECC is "naaah". Mostly because it's such a convenient scapegoat. It happens, I'm sure, but it would not be the first explanation I reach for. I once heard someone blame "cosmic rays" on a bug that happened multiple times. You can imagine how irked I was on the dang cosmic rays hitting the same data with such consistency!

Anyways, I'm sorry if my tone sounded abrasive, I, too, have appreciated the discussion.

	▲	Agingcoder 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		:-) never forget Occam’s razor ! No you were not abrasive at all - I’ve learned to assume good faith in forum conversations. In retrospect I should have started by giving the context ( march of 9s is a good description) actually, which would have made everything a lot clearer for everyone.