|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Quotes of the week

As I see it, there are no SSD devices which don't lose data; there are only SSD devices which haven't lost your data _yet_.
-- David Woodhouse

What I've been recommending for some time is that people use LVM, and run fsck on a snapshot every week or two, at some convenient time when the system load is at a minimum. There is an e2croncheck script in the e2fsprogs sources, in the contrib directory; it's short enough that I'll attach here here.

Is it *necessary*? In a world where hardware is perfect, no. In a world where people don't bother buying ECC memory because it's 10% more expensive, and PC builders use the cheapest possible parts --- I think it's a really good idea.

-- Ted Ts'o

What it basically shows is how intolerant the mainline kernel community members have become towards people who hold a different view to them. The attitude is: either conform or you're an idiot and we're going to attack you until you conform.

I do hope others see what has happened here, and seriously consider whether they want to get involved in a sniping dictatorial community. Maybe considering to go down the BSD route instead.

-- Russell King

Because it throws out everything about what we know is good about how to design a modern scheduler in scalability. Because it's so ridiculously simple. Because it performs so ridiculously well on what it's good at despite being that simple. Because it's designed in such a way that mainline would never be interested in adopting it, which is how I like it. Because it will make people sit up and take notice of where the problems are in the current design. Because it throws out the philosophy that one scheduler fits all and shows that you can do a -lot- better with a scheduler designed for a particular purpose. I don't want to use a steamroller to crack nuts.
-- Con Kolivas is back

to post comments

Quotes of the week

Posted Sep 3, 2009 1:27 UTC (Thu) by lordsutch (guest, #53) [Link] (7 responses)

Re: Ted's comment: part of the problem is that the processor makers and motherboard manufacturers are segmenting the market for no really good reason I can identify; I'd love to build an enthusiast-class Core i7 system that uses ECC RAM, but I'd have to buy a Xeon something-or-other (essentially a Core i7 with ECC allowed by its the memory controller) and a Xeon-compatible server-class motherboard (with half the on-board peripherals, but a steeper price tag) too. And my own CPU fan, since Intel doesn't include those with Xeons.

Then again Intel could do the world a favor and just refuse to make CPUs that run with non-ECC RAM whenever DDR4 or whatever rolls around. But I won't hold my breath.

Quotes of the week

Posted Sep 3, 2009 17:51 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (6 responses)

Is there a list of what motherboards actually implement ECC? Such would be useful to drive the market through consumer demand. Vote with your wallet and manufacturers really will listen.

Quotes of the week

Posted Sep 4, 2009 0:51 UTC (Fri) by zlynx (guest, #2285) [Link] (4 responses)

Anything that takes an AMD Opteron or older AMD MP.
Anything that takes an Intel Xeon 5500 or 3500 series (Nehalem).

Pretty much any server-class board rated for older Xeons.

Some consumer Core2 boards use a memory controller than can handle ECC. It is usually listed in the board's features.

Quotes of the week

Posted Sep 4, 2009 9:30 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (3 responses)

Note that not all 5500-series systems seem to have an EDAC controller that Linux can use yet, so you may well not be informed of errors when they're corrected. My Tyan motherboard has one such (I think: it's bloody hard to tell what EDAC controller the board has got: it doesn't appear in lspci nor anywhere else that I've found). Presumably Linux will learn to read it in time.

Quotes of the week

Posted Sep 4, 2009 21:00 UTC (Fri) by hmh (subscriber, #3838) [Link] (2 responses)

It is in the processor package itself :-)

I have seen patches flying in the EDAC MLs to improve support for the W35xx and E55xx/X55xx, so I hope any such issues will be dealt with shortly.

Quotes of the week

Posted Sep 7, 2009 22:45 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Aha! I had no idea. Good stuff.

(That's the danger of buying bleeding-edge hardware: bad support for new
stuff *and* the danger of nasty unfixable processor errata. :) )

Quotes of the week

Posted Sep 17, 2009 11:10 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

FWIW, the git tree for Core i7/5500 EDAC support is at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mchehab/i7core.git, in the 2.6.30+edac_mce+i7core branch.

It seems to work for me.

Quotes of the week

Posted Sep 4, 2009 1:59 UTC (Fri) by maney (subscriber, #12630) [Link]

I was asking myself that question recently. For a variety of reasons, not least being Intel's seemingly random inclusion of eg., virtualization support between models, I was looking for AM2/+/3 boards. I've now used a couple of Asus's boards with AMD 7xx chipsets, and like them a lot. Couldn't find anyone else who supports ECC outside of those more expensive for no benefit to me "server" boards. M3A78-EM and M4A78-PRO, all in desktops with 4 to 8 GB of ECC memory. (but as far as I've looked all the M3A7* and M4A7* boards include ECC support. never looked into the nvidia chipset boards, though I know there are some.)

I will never waste my time looking at Gigabyte motherboards again. Burned once by their "supports ECC or non_ECC" in the specs, which turned out to mean that you could plug either sort in, it just didn't care (nor use the ECC even though all it would take was wiring up the pins and BIOS support that they presumably could have enabled in their build - other similar boards using that BIOS brand did). Bah!

Been using ECC ever since Intel's 440-series chips made it so easy. But they lost that spirit, and then my business.

Quotes of the week

Posted Sep 3, 2009 15:28 UTC (Thu) by blitzkrieg3 (guest, #57873) [Link] (2 responses)

Con is my hero

Quotes of the week

Posted Sep 3, 2009 21:30 UTC (Thu) by cventers (guest, #31465) [Link]

Welcome back Con! :p TMTOWTDI!

Quotes of the week

Posted Sep 4, 2009 1:21 UTC (Fri) by kjamc1982 (guest, #59655) [Link]

Hopefully Con will keep his patches up to date and not worry about it getting
into the mainline. I have been using his patches for the past couple of days
no problems yet.

Quotes of the week

Posted Sep 4, 2009 22:48 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

As I see it, there are no SSD devices which don't lose data; there are only SSD devices which haven't lost your data _yet_.

Same for disk drives, of course.


Copyright © 2009, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds