[danieltillett]

Would you be more likely to kernel panic with more non-ecc ram? Won’t a bit flip probability be linked to the size of the critical os code size and that should be the same if you have 2 GB or 64 GB of ram?

[mjevans]

If nothing else, the cost savings in no longer having to actually worry about that vector of data corruption are well worth the small delta in cost.

I'm actually rather amazed that at least error /detecting/ ram isn't more common.

[dgemm]

I think consumer CPUs don't support it only to maintain market segmentation for server CPUs.

[danieltillett]

I don’t disagree - it is silent data corruption I really worry about not the odd kernel panic.

[beachstartup]

> Won’t a bit flip probability be linked to the size of the critical os code size

no, there are a wide range of memory conditions in which a kernel calls panic, and memory doesn't just flip single bits when it errors out, although that's certainly possible.

[danieltillett]

I thought that single bit flips was all that ecc memory protected against [1].

It is not flip errors per say that causes kernel panics (it is not going to cause any problems if a section of unallocated memory has a bit flip), but the probability of an uncorrected bit flip in a critical memory location. I am certainly willing to be corrected, but if don’t see how increasing the amount of non-critical memory increases the chance of a kernel panic.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECC_memory