Log Name: System
Date: 10/12/1492 11:20:48 AM
Event ID: 19
Task Category: None
User: LOCAL SERVICE
A corrected hardware error occurred.
Error Source: Corrected Machine Check
Error Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
Processor ID Valid: Yes
Processor ID: 0x0
Bank Number: 4
Transaction Type: N/A
Processor Participation: Local node responded to the request
Request Type: Generic Read
Memory Hierarchy Level: Generic
Ryu Connor wrote:Windows 7 apparently understands how to leverage ECC. It should be in the System event log.
WHEA successfully initialized.
4 error sources are active
Error record format version is 10.
Forge wrote:Just thinking out loud more than anything, but why would you care about *corrected* ECC errors? You basically want to know that ECC is doing it's job, or are you wanting to keep track for some strange reason?
Forge wrote:I could very possibly be wrong, but it's my understanding that if you see corrected errors per WEEK, much less per day or per hour, then you have an unusual situation and or a developing problem. When I ran an ECC-enabled system, many moons ago, I think I saw two corrected and zero uncorrected in two or three years.
Krogoth wrote:I wouldn't be surprise if the desktop versions of Windows lack any built-in ECC monitoring tools, since ECC memory is typically found in server-level equipment.
ptsant wrote:here they estimate approximately 2000-6000 correctable errors per year per GB. With 16GB, I could be getting something like 1000 corrected errors per week. Uncorrectable errors (detected ones), are at least 1000 times less frequent, so I don't expect many to occur.
ptsant wrote:It certainly isn't easy to find out what's happening,
Krogoth wrote:IMO, ECC support will start to become more important as memory capacities in desktop system start to go into tens of GiBs.
Glorious wrote:ptsant wrote:here they estimate approximately 2000-6000 correctable errors per year per GB. With 16GB, I could be getting something like 1000 corrected errors per week. Uncorrectable errors (detected ones), are at least 1000 times less frequent, so I don't expect many to occur.
The abstract plainly says: "...and more than 8\% of DIMMs affected by errors per year."
If only ~8% of DIMMs are affected by errors per year, how is what you are saying even remotely possible?
JBI wrote:It is certainly possible if those 8% marginal DIMMs are getting lots of errors!
ptsant wrote:and I'm looking for a way to justify my purchasing decision. If I don't get any (or very, very few) corrected errors, I could have gotten away with non-ECC RAM, which is cheaper and faster...