我又一次在设计评审中遇到了这样的说法，即某个特定场景的概率“小于宇宙射线影响程序的风险”，我突然意识到我根本不知道这个概率是多少。
“既然2-128是340282366920938463463374607431768211456中的1，我认为我们有理由在这里冒险，即使这些计算有几十亿倍的偏差……我相信，宇宙射线把我们搞砸的风险更大。”
这个程序员正确吗? 宇宙射线击中计算机并影响程序执行的概率是多少?
当前回答
Memory errors are real, and ECC memory does help. Correctly implemented ECC memory will correct single bit errors and detect double bit errors (halting the system if such an error is detected.) You can see this from how regularly people complain about what seems to be a software problem that is resolved by running Memtest86 and discovering bad memory. Of course a transient failure caused by a cosmic ray is different to a consistently failing piece of memory, but it is relevant to the broader question of how much you should trust your memory to operate correctly.
基于20 MB常驻大小的分析可能适用于普通应用程序，但大型系统通常有多个具有较大主存的服务器。
有趣的链接:http://cr.yp.to/hardware/ecc.html
不幸的是，海盗链接在页面似乎死了，所以查看海盗链接在这里代替。
其他回答
我曾经为在太空中飞行的设备编程，然后你(据说，没有人给我看过任何关于这方面的论文，但据说这是业内的常识)可以预期宇宙射线总是会导致错误。
Memory errors are real, and ECC memory does help. Correctly implemented ECC memory will correct single bit errors and detect double bit errors (halting the system if such an error is detected.) You can see this from how regularly people complain about what seems to be a software problem that is resolved by running Memtest86 and discovering bad memory. Of course a transient failure caused by a cosmic ray is different to a consistently failing piece of memory, but it is relevant to the broader question of how much you should trust your memory to operate correctly.
基于20 MB常驻大小的分析可能适用于普通应用程序，但大型系统通常有多个具有较大主存的服务器。
有趣的链接:http://cr.yp.to/hardware/ecc.html
不幸的是，海盗链接在页面似乎死了，所以查看海盗链接在这里代替。
“宇宙射线事件”在这里的许多答案中被认为是均匀分布的，这可能并不总是正确的(即超新星)。虽然“宇宙射线”的定义(至少根据维基百科)来自外太空，但我认为将局部太阳风暴(又名日冕物质抛射)也包括在同一保护伞下是公平的。我相信这可能会导致几个比特在短时间内翻转，可能足以破坏甚至启用ecc的内存。
众所周知，太阳风暴会对电力系统造成相当大的破坏(如1989年3月的魁北克停电)。计算机系统很可能也会受到影响。
Some 10 years ago I was sitting right next to another guy, we were sitting with each our laptops, it was in a period with quite "stormy" solar weather (sitting in the arctic, we could observe this indirectly - lots of aurora borealis to be seen). Suddenly - in the very same instant - both our laptops crashed. He was running OS X, and I was running Linux. Neither of us are used to the laptops crashing - it's a quite rare thing on Linux and OS X. Common software bugs can more or less be ruled out since we were running on different OS'es (and it didn't happen during a leap second). I've come to attribute that event to "cosmic radiation".
后来，“宇宙辐射”成了我工作场所的一个内部笑话。每当我们的服务器发生了什么事情，我们找不到任何解释，我们开玩笑地把错误归咎于“宇宙辐射”。: -)
维基百科引用了IBM在90年代的一项研究，该研究表明“计算机通常每个月每256兆字节的RAM中会出现一次宇宙射线引起的错误。”不幸的是，引用的是《科学美国人》上的一篇文章，该文章没有提供任何进一步的参考文献。就我个人而言，我发现这个数字非常高，但也许大多数由宇宙射线引起的记忆错误不会引起任何实际或明显的问题。
另一方面，当涉及到软件场景时，人们谈论概率通常不知道他们在谈论什么。
这是一个真正的问题，这就是为什么在服务器和嵌入式系统中使用ECC内存。以及为什么飞行系统与地面系统不同。
For example, note that Intel parts destined for "embedded" applications tend to add ECC to the spec sheet. A Bay Trail for a tablet lacks it, since it would make the memory a bit more expensive and possibly slower. And if a tablet crashes a program every once in a blue moon, the user does not care much. The software itself is far less reliable than the HW anyway. But for SKUs intended for use in industrial machinery and automotive, ECC is mandatory. Since here, we expect the SW to be far more reliable, and errors from random upsets would be a real issue.
通过IEC 61508和类似标准认证的系统通常都有启动测试，检查所有RAM是否正常(没有位卡在0或1)，以及运行时的错误处理，试图从ECC检测到的错误中恢复，通常还有内存清除任务，不断地遍历和读写内存，以确保发生的任何错误都能被注意到。
但是对于主流PC软件来说呢?没什么大不了的。对于长期存在的服务器?使用ECC和故障处理程序。如果一个不可纠正的错误杀死了内核，那就这样吧。或者你偏执地使用带有锁步执行的冗余系统，这样如果一个核心损坏，另一个核心可以在第一个核心重新启动时接管。
