[c-nsp] RAM thing

[Doug McIntyre]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:24:29PM +0000, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 16/02/14 22:47, Tony wrote:
> 
> > At least some information on failure rates might be a bit more helpful
> > in planning (ie. 1/10000 - you just got unlucky or 1/10 and you need to
> > definitely plan for a hardware failure to happen each time you reboot
> > the box). It kinda makes upgrading due to bug/security fixes a little
> > more fraught with danger as the box may never come back after the reboot...
> 
> While I agree more info on failure rate would be helpful, it's worth 
> noting that the chance of failure has not suddenly gone up, just because 
> Cisco has announced it - this issue has been extant since 2005.

Although some reports have been that this type of DRAM they have used
has "fatigue" and has been failing much more recently. Not because of
knowledge, but because of a certain age and degredation over time.
Rather than just a random time-to-fail, it definately now has reached
an age where things can be much more at risk.