Odpověď na názor

Vytahujes tu z clanku len data, ktore sa ti hodia a este ich tym vytrhnutym textom "prirovnavas" domace NAS riesenia k takmer nonostop vytazovanym serverom od Googlu.

"Google, though, found the rate much higher: 25,000 to 75,000 failures per billion hours."

Pokial som to pochopil spravne, tak v priemere vznikne v pripade googlu maximalne 75000 opravitelnych chyb v RAM za miliardu hodin operacii. Samozrejme ze cas medzi dvomi po sebe nasledujucimi chybami nebude vzdy rovnaky, ale ked to vydelim, tak mi vyjde ze chyba v najhorsom moznom pripade (tych 75000) a v priemernej dobe medzi chybami moze nastat nasledujuca chyba kazdych 555 dni (a samozrejme aj skorej) pocas pracovania s pamatou.

"While memory errors can cause serious problems, they're a lot less serious for PCs than for servers, Glaskowsky said. That's because servers keep a lot of data in memory, writing it periodically to the relative safe haven of a hard drive, whereas most of a PC's memory holds just application or operating system files or perhaps some content that's being seen but not edited."

"Mostly consumer PCs aren't manipulating huge amounts of data in memory," Glaskowsky said. "In many cases it's just for viewing purposes."

Teraz nam skus vysvetlit, ako bezny NAS v rodine, alebo v malej firme moze byt nonstop vytazovany s tym, ze vkuse zapratava a prepisuje pamat (ako v pripade Google serverov). Ak to v takychto pripadoch nenastava t.j. nonstop vytazovanie RAM (nie len read-only data), tak by priemerna sanca na nasledujucu chybu mala byt ovela nizsia.

Preto tu viaceri tvrdime, ze si paranoidny - pretoze normalne staci mat viac zaloh, nez verit v to, ze zrovna pocas ukladania dokumentu sa mi za 555 dni nastanu dve chyby (mame predsa zalohy dokumentov ze?)