If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Buffered and Registered Memory: Is it worth the expense?
Hey guys.
As the subject says, I'm pricing up some RAM. I'm looking for 2GB of PC2-8500 and I'm coming across modules that are either "buffered" or "unbuffered" and "registered" or "un-registered". I've found a website that explains what these mean, and it seems to emphasise that buffered and registered memory is only necessary in: "servers and other mission-critical systems where it is extremely important that the data is properly handled." For an average consumer such as myself, should I save some pennies and get unbuffered and unregistered RAM, or is their a genuine benefit to me? Kind Regards, Matt |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Buffered and Registered Memory: Is it worth the expense?
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Matt wrote:
For an average consumer such as myself, should I save some pennies and get unbuffered and unregistered RAM, or is their a genuine benefit to me? *IF* your motherboard supports buffered and registered ECC RAM, then get ECC RAM. If not, then don't bother. Most don't (but should). ;-{ -- _____ / ' / â„¢ ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_ (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Buffered and Registered Memory: Is it worth the expense?
Matt wrote:
Hey guys. As the subject says, I'm pricing up some RAM. I'm looking for 2GB of PC2-8500 and I'm coming across modules that are either "buffered" or "unbuffered" and "registered" or "un-registered". I've found a website that explains what these mean, and it seems to emphasise that buffered and registered memory is only necessary in: "servers and other mission-critical systems where it is extremely important that the data is properly handled." For an average consumer such as myself, should I save some pennies and get unbuffered and unregistered RAM, or is their a genuine benefit to me? Kind Regards, Matt Registered memory, adds a register chip between the memory chips on the DIMM, and the control/address bus. The purpose of doing that, is to reduce the electrical load on the control/address bus. By doing that, you can put more DIMMs on the same bus. That is handy for building server boards, as they tend to have more DIMM slots than desktop boards. Unbuffered memory doesn't have the register chip in the path. The other feature involves the data bit organization. Memory equipped with check bits, allows errors to be detected or to be corrected. Examples of methods are simple parity and ECC. Not all chipsets have support for ECC. The X38 has support, but we're not sure at this point, that it actually works. (The first report I've seen so far, showed trouble when ECC DIMMs were used on an X38.) If a user selects ECC equipped DDR2, at the moment that means using a slower grade of module. Perhaps DDR2-667 would be the speed you'd expect from an ECC equipped product - this is mainly because there is no interest in the enthusiast market, for using ECC DIMMs. The Athlon64 has the memory controller inside the processor itself, and the chip supports a grand total of 144 bits of data. That is enough for two 72 bit wide DIMMs. One of the options offered, is a protection method called "Chip Kill", which has enough redundancy so that if a x4 wide memory chip died, the memory could still function. So a chip like the Athlon64 ensures that AMD users have an opportunity with any motherboard, to have support for the extra check bits on an ECC module. On Intel, the chipset must be specifically designed with the extra bits added. And the practice in recent generations, has been for the most part to not include the extra bits, on chipsets intended for Intel processors. My 875P based board (DDR era) has ECC capability, but a lot of stuff more modern than that does not. The X38 only supports ECC on DDR2, and the ECC feature is missing if you buy an X38 with DDR3. It isn't even clear to me yet, whether DDR3 has room for an ECC chip on it or not - I haven't seen a DDR3 module with ECC included. (And navigating the JEDEC site is no fun, which is why I haven't investigated further.) While there is certainly value in having the ability to check the integrity of data stored in the RAM, the industry is not making it easy for a desktop user to get that feature. You have to decide what that is worth, as it affects a few buying decisions. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Buffered and Registered Memory: Is it worth the expense?
"Matt" wrote...
As the subject says, I'm pricing up some RAM. I'm looking for 2GB of PC2-8500 and I'm coming across modules that are either "buffered" or "unbuffered" and "registered" or "un-registered". For an average consumer such as myself, should I save some pennies and get unbuffered and unregistered RAM, or is their a genuine benefit to me? Get what the motherboard supports. Most consumer-grade MoBos support unregistered RAM. Opteron MoBos (especially multiple-socket types) normally support buffered/registered RAM. Many/most server MoBos support or require ECC RAM. Generally, if it is not required, buffered/registered or ECC RAM is not worth the extra cost for consumer machines. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Buffered and Registered Memory: Is it worth the expense?
John Weiss wrote:
.... snip ... Generally, if it is not required, buffered/registered or ECC RAM is not worth the extra cost for consumer machines. This misinformation needs to be squelched. ALWAYS get ECC memory if your system supports it, and try to buy systems that support it. There is no checking mechananism other than ECC available for memory, and random memory failures, such as caused by cosmic rays, can be fatal. The fault may not show up for weeks or months (or more) after occuring, and such things as memtestXX will show no fault. By this time all your backups are fouled. The extra cost is very small, about 1/8 to 1/5 of the cost of the simpler, faulty memory. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) http://cbfalconer.home.att.net Try the download section. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Buffered and Registered Memory: Is it worth the expense?
CBFalconer cbfalconer yahoo.com wrote:
John Weiss wrote: ... snip ... Generally, if it is not required, buffered/registered or ECC RAM is not worth the extra cost for consumer machines. This misinformation needs to be squelched. ALWAYS get ECC memory if your system supports it, and try to buy systems that support it. No surprise the original crosspost would open a can of worms. I've been building my own PC for over 15 years. Been making backup copies of the Windows partition (the latter years including program files) to the same hard drive for almost as long, that requires a whole lot of data copying. I've never used ECC memory and I've never had a memory error that destroyed data. Besides, I keep backup copies of all important files from my hard drive. People who don't put copies of important files on removable media are probably more likely to lose data from a hard drive failure than from a non-ECC memory failure. There is no checking mechananism other than ECC available for memory, and random memory failures, such as caused by cosmic rays, can be fatal. The fault may not show up for weeks or months (or more) after occuring, and such things as memtestXX will show no fault. By this time all your backups are fouled. The extra cost is very small, about 1/8 to 1/5 of the cost of the simpler, faulty memory. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) http://cbfalconer.home.att.net Try the download section. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon 04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!n ntpserver.com!zeus.nntpserver.com!10.1.1.41.MISMAT CH!pfilter-v0.1!not-for-mail Message-ID: 47831965.935C3A88 yahoo.com Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:34:13 -0500 From: CBFalconer cbfalconer yahoo.com Reply-To: cbfalconer maineline.net Organization: Ched Research http://cbfalconer.home.att.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.home built Subject: Buffered and Registered Memory: Is it worth the expense? References: flundj$9qn$1 heffalump.dur.ac.uk NfudnRq3ZMxmbx_anZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d comcast.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 25 NNTP-Posting-Date: 08 Jan 2008 06:48:51 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse teranews.com Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:500932 alt.comp.hardwa343689 alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:232240 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Buffered and Registered Memory: Is it worth the expense?
Matt wrote:
Hey guys. As the subject says, I'm pricing up some RAM. I've found a website that explains what these mean, and it seems to emphasise that buffered and registered memory is only necessary in: "servers and other mission-critical systems where it is extremely important that the data is properly handled." That's because businesses suffer from downtime and (very recently generated) data loss. You and I don't. For an average consumer such as myself, should I save some pennies and get unbuffered and unregistered RAM, or is their a genuine benefit to me? If you're just a gamer, there is no benefit to you. Somebody suggesting that a gamer needs ECC memory has pretty much lost it IMO. If you have any important files on your hard drive, keep at least two copies (one backup, and one backup of the backup... both copies don't have to be perfectly up to date) on removable media. Nobody ever comes here complaining that their non-ECC memory caused important data corruption. However, we do occasionally get a very sad story about a user losing important data because of hard drive failure. Kind Regards, Matt |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Buffered and Registered Memory: Is it worth the expense?
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt John Doe
wrote: Nobody ever comes here complaining that their non-ECC memory caused important data corruption. However, we do occasionally get a very sad story about a user losing important data because of hard drive failure. Sometimes memory-failures are thought to be hard-drive failures. When bad data from memory is saved, what's the first suspect when you retrieve it? You don't suspect the memory, even when it's at fault. Drives however *have* error-correction; so if you get bad data back from the drive, most likely it was *stored* there. The worst thing about memory errors, is that you never know when they happen without at least parity and preferably ECC memory. Memory errors happen ALL THE TIME; without ever being suspected. Those who say, "I've been running for years and never had a memory error," just don't KNOW they've probably had several ... If not from bad memory, then from cosmic rays or just the normal background radiation everywhere from the inevitable radioactive material built into about everything. Carbon 14 being one of the more obvious; but uranium also gets into just about everything ... not to mention all the stray stuff from atomic tests in the background. It's true that *most* of those errors don't cause visible problems; but that's the worst part of the problem: The errors are NOT visible. If you have data in memory and it gets hit, then saved, you have no idea until something important *depends* on that data. Most other problems just cause glitches or at worst system crashes. Those are fairly easily recovered from if you're not handling sensitive or important data. Of course, almost all such glitches and crashes are blamed on the Operating System, especially if it's from MicroSoft. There's little so frustrating as being in the middle of typing in something important for HOURS and then having the system freeze just when you're about to save it ... The sort of thing most likely to happen with a flipped bit in your core programs. However, it's quite true that if you're mainly a gamer and your conversations aren't saved or important to you, then paying the extra for ECC memory is probably wasted dough; as you'd be happier spending the same money for a faster board or more memory. The real problem is: Not all that many boards are offered with the extras many people like me, that actually *include* ECC as an option. -- _____ / ' / â„¢ ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_ (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Buffered and Registered Memory: Is it worth the expense?
In article ,
Frank McCoy wrote: In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt John Doe wrote: Nobody ever comes here complaining that their non-ECC memory caused important data corruption. However, we do occasionally get a very sad story about a user losing important data because of hard drive failure. Sometimes memory-failures are thought to be hard-drive failures. When bad data from memory is saved, what's the first suspect when you retrieve it? You don't suspect the memory, even when it's at fault. Drives however *have* error-correction; so if you get bad data back from the drive, most likely it was *stored* there. The worst thing about memory errors, is that you never know when they happen without at least parity and preferably ECC memory. Memory errors happen ALL THE TIME; without ever being suspected. That doesn't pass the smell test. Lots of us run servers with GB of ram chips that do have ECC and produce event logs for any error like this even when it is "soft", i.e. it recovered. I rarely see memory errors, recoverable or otherwise on machines that log everything. I've run big computers with solid-state ECC memory and hardware service logs since about 1982. As an old phart, I too am amazed that we operate desktop machines without ECC. It isn't just the ram chips, it's every bus in the computer, too. Real world experience with MACs and x86 PCs that don't produce mystery spreadsheet results or trash file systems due to a flipped bit, corrupted huge business databases or random OS crashes (with modern operating systems) says that undetected memory errors are rare to non-existent. My recollection is that memery errors were a problem circa 1975 and cosmic rays were suspected. Someone discovered that the epoxy used to package the memory was a source of alpha rays and they went away when it was changed. But it's been a long time and *my* memery is subject to parity errors by now. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Buffered and Registered Memory: Is it worth the expense?
Frank McCoy wrote:
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt John Doe wrote: Nobody ever comes here complaining that their non-ECC memory caused important data corruption. However, we do occasionally get a very sad story about a user losing important data because of hard drive failure. Sometimes memory-failures are thought to be hard-drive failures. Could be, but I'm talking about hard drive failures, the kind of failure we hear about. Those who say, "I've been running for years and never had a memory error," just don't KNOW they've probably had several ... If not from bad memory, then from cosmic rays or just the normal background radiation everywhere from the inevitable radioactive material built into about everything. Carbon 14 being one of the more obvious; but uranium also gets into just about everything ... not to mention all the stray stuff from atomic tests in the background. You know that "tinfoil hat" gibe? The guy it's based on was an important scientist. Of course, almost all such glitches and crashes are blamed on the Operating System, especially if it's from MicroSoft. One glaring contradiction is how much better Windows XP is over prior consumer versions of Windows. My XP system runs for days without having to be restarted. With prior versions, I sometimes had to restart several times per day. In other words, if it wasn't Windows, how come Windows XP is so much less unstable? If you think Windows XP handles errors better, of course it does, the operating system is supposed to handle errors. Prior to Windows XP, Windows memory management sucked. There's little so frustrating as being in the middle of typing in something important for HOURS and then having the system freeze just when you're about to save it ... Maybe for Ernest Hemingway using pre Windows XP. But most programs that handle important data allow automatic saving of data every X number of minutes anyway. Are you using pre Windows XP? The sort of thing most likely to happen with a flipped bit in your core programs. However, it's quite true that if you're mainly a gamer and your conversations aren't saved or important to you, ....or your system is reasonably stable Not having copies of (any) important files is hugely more important than memory type. If the hard drive fails, that can be a real problem especially without backups. If you can't afford to restart your computer or to lose recently generated data, maybe that's justification for buying an ECC memory system. then paying the extra for ECC memory is probably wasted dough; as you'd be happier spending the same money for a faster board or more memory. The real problem is: Not all that many boards are offered with the extras many people like me, that actually *include* ECC as an option. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Buffered and Registered Memory: Is it worth the expense? | Matt[_6_] | General | 7 | January 10th 08 10:26 AM |
Definition of Registered and Buffered SDRAM | Aaron Gray | General | 4 | May 16th 07 06:01 PM |
registered memory choices... please HELP! | willbill | General | 33 | May 24th 06 02:58 AM |
ECC or registered memory? | Sparky | Homebuilt PC's | 3 | September 8th 04 01:54 PM |
Athlon 64 and Registered memory | Ian Hopkins | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | May 16th 04 05:09 AM |