D
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn
Guest
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:21:22 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> Gave us:
It is hard calculated as the array is filled. It takes no additional
time, and no code is involved at the OS level. The access speed for
THAT RAM is exactly that. All overhead already considered. What you
can and or do run it at is what it runs at.
There is no, "this non-ECC such and such MHz RAM is faster than this
same speed rated ECC RAM because it has ECC delays".
Nope. Yer makin' shit up... again.
On 11/8/2014 2:14 AM, miso wrote:
The Xeon product line is all about stability. No overclocking. They use ECC,
which some say is slower. [I don't know.] If you are seriously going to do a
ram disk (dumb idea), you would want the ECC. For software RAID, you should
have ECC. I give Dell credit for at least using a Supermicro mobo, since
some of the Asus mobos don't use ECC correctly.
The bad news is RAM prices are up for some reason.
ECC *has* to be slower. It involves calculating check bits from the
word being stored and saving them. Then on the read all the bits are
calculated to see if there is an error and to correct it. That takes
some time on both the write and the read. It may not be a lot, but it
takes time.
It is hard calculated as the array is filled. It takes no additional
time, and no code is involved at the OS level. The access speed for
THAT RAM is exactly that. All overhead already considered. What you
can and or do run it at is what it runs at.
There is no, "this non-ECC such and such MHz RAM is faster than this
same speed rated ECC RAM because it has ECC delays".
Nope. Yer makin' shit up... again.