<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Gadget Blog &#187; RAM</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog/tag/ram/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog</link>
	<description>Gadget News - Gadget Reviews - Gadget Tech Specs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:03:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Conclusion from Google: Memory Chips More Unreliable Than Previously Believed</title>
		<link>http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog/conclusion-from-google-memory-chips-more-unreliable-than-previously-believed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog/conclusion-from-google-memory-chips-more-unreliable-than-previously-believed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:30:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rico Mossesgeld</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failure rates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memory chips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RAM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog/?p=5547</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Over the last two-and-a-half years, search engine giant Google analyzed the performance of the thousands of computers it uses for its own data centers. The surprising trend? Based on real-world data, Google concluded that the error rates of memory chips are higher than previously believed. Much much higher:
How many errors? On average, about one in three Google servers experienced a correctable memory error each year and one in a hundred an uncorrectable error, an event that typically causes a crash.
Older research showed that, for every 1 billion hours, a memory chip would fail on average around 200 to 5,000 times. [...]<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog">The Gadget Blog</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Over the last two-and-a-half years, search engine giant <a href="http://everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog/tag/google/">Google</a> analyzed the performance of the thousands of computers it uses for its own data centers. The surprising trend? Based on real-world data, Google concluded that the error rates of memory chips are higher than previously believed. Much much higher:</p>
<blockquote><p>How many errors? On average, about one in three Google servers experienced a correctable memory error each year and one in a hundred an uncorrectable error, an event that typically causes a crash.</p></blockquote>
<p><a rel="attachment wp-att-5552" href="http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog/conclusion-from-google-memory-chips-more-unreliable-than-previously-believed/google-circuit-thingy/"><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-5552" src="http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog/files/2009/10/google-circuit-thingy-300x225.jpg" alt="google-circuit-thingy" width="300" height="225" /></a>Older research showed that, for every 1 billion hours, a memory chip would fail on average around 200 to 5,000 times. Google&#8217;s project revealed a much higher ratio: 25,000 to 75,000 failures within the same time period.</p>
<p>To be clear, those numbers aren&#8217;t anything significant for the typical consumer. A billion hours is equal to more than 100,000 years after all, worth at least ten thousand lifetimes. Nevertheless, Google&#8217;s research should be useful for projects or businesses that have to rely on lots of memory chips to get the job. A prominent example is of course other companies that maintain their own data centers.</p>
<p>Of course Google couldn&#8217;t pass up the opportunity to market its own technical expertise, discussing the various technologies it uses to protect end-users from crashes caused by memory errors. Apparently &#8220;error correction code&#8221; and &#8220;chipkill&#8221; are just two of the things Google relies on to protect you from the <em>evil</em> data corruption. (<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10370026-264.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1">Source</a>, thanks to <a href="http://wigwam.tumblr.com">Sheree</a> for the pic!)</p>
<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog">The Gadget Blog</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog/conclusion-from-google-memory-chips-more-unreliable-than-previously-believed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>RAM Upgrade FAIL</title>
		<link>http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog/ram-upgrade-fail/</link>
		<comments>http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog/ram-upgrade-fail/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:00:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rico Mossesgeld</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Laptops]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lifestyle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CORSAIR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DIMM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FAIL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RAM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SODIMM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[upgrade]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thegadgetblog.com/2008/09/22/ram-upgrade-fail/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hey kids, can you guess what&#8217;s wrong with this picture?

That&#8217;s right! Trying to upgrade a laptop&#8217;s SODIMM memory with larger DIMM chips equals FAIL.
How do you avoid this mistake? Make sure to get the RAM—specs-, speed-, and size-wise—that fits your computer. If you&#8217;re not entirely sure what to do, ask a techie-friend or Google for advice.
Post from: The Gadget Blog
<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog">The Gadget Blog</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey kids, can you guess what&#8217;s wrong with this picture?</p>
<p><img src='http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog/files/2008/09/wrong-ram.jpg' alt='wrong-ram.jpg' style='margin-left:0;' /></p>
<p>That&#8217;s right! Trying to upgrade a laptop&#8217;s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SODIMM">SODIMM</a> memory with larger <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIMM">DIMM</a> chips equals FAIL.</p>
<p>How do you avoid this mistake? Make sure to get the RAM—specs-, speed-, and size-wise—that fits your computer. If you&#8217;re not entirely sure what to do, ask a techie-friend or Google for advice.</p>
<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog">The Gadget Blog</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog/ram-upgrade-fail/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>