Components issues: Memory: DDR3 w/o parity? USB3 obsolete? RAID 0or 1?

[RayLopez99]

I'm getting DDR3-1333 MHz SDRAM rather than the 'overclocked' 1600
MHz, for slightly less money, since I don't do overclocking, nor much
gaming for my new Intel i7 mP.

Also I assume that for non-servers parity vs non-parity (sic) ECC
(Error Correction Code) is not an issue (from stats I've seen you get
one failure every few years or so, not worth worrying about since
likely the bit that fails is not critical anyway.

Finally, USB3 is not standardized, and Intel is coming out with their
version in 2011, and besides Intel is pushing their fiber optic
solution for 2012+, so I take it USB3 is not a "must have", though for
the new system I have it comes free. Also needless to say, USB3 has
to be backwards compatible.

As for RAID 0 (performance) it creates backup hassles since the bits
are on both drives ,no? RAID 1 (security) still requires backups,
since RAID 1 only goes to if the HD fails, and can you backup RAID 0
or 1 easily using a third party program like Acronis Backup? BTW
Sorry if I confused Raid 1 with 0, but you get my question.

Please correct me if I'm wrong in any of the above.

RL

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Also I assume that for non-servers parity vs non-parity (sic) ECC
(Error Correction Code) is not an issue (from stats I've seen you get
one failure every few years or so, not worth worrying about since
likely the bit that fails is not critical anyway.

Google has a white paper on this that says parity errors are far more
common than this. I'm not having any luck finding it, though.

 

[RayLopez99]

Google has a white paper on this that says parity errors are far more
common than this.  I'm not having any luck finding it, though.

OK. I based my statement on a website that sells memory...they cited
some study. I don't think they had an ax to grind since they sold
both types of memory.

RL

 

[Loren Pechtel]

OK. I based my statement on a website that sells memory...they cited
some study. I don't think they had an ax to grind since they sold
both types of memory.

Google was saying that what they found was not what they
expected--conventional thought was that such errors were very
infrequent.