I don't care about ECC https://blog.codinghorror.com/to-ecc-or-not-to-ecc/

I had hardware raid 5 before and it failed, because I used similar hard drives ( 3 drives failed within a month, wasn't expecting that).

Working on redundant deployment though ;)

-- My quote still stands as I said it

> I don't care about ECC https://blog.codinghorror.com/to-ecc-or-not-to-ecc/

And that's fine. Though as a counterpoint:

https://louwrentius.com/please-use-zfs-with-ecc-memory.html

> I had hardware raid 5 before and it failed, because I used similar hard drives ( 3 drives failed within a month, wasn't expecting that).

Which goes back to my point. You're comparing your home system, with something like one-9's uptime (90% availability over an entire year) with a cloud provider that is going to give you five-9's or better.

These are not the same things. And you are going to pay more for each additional 9 of uptime.

For your own stuff, yes, of course it can make perfect sense to host it yourself. I've got a personal server running on positively ancient hardware that still manages two-9's availability, and that's fine for my use case. But I wouldn't directly compare that to a cloud provider either.

I said my hardware raid failed, I'm still checking georedundancy / failover at sperate locations.

Ryzen threadripper supports ECC memory actually. And most server grade features you could think about.

Yes, but you still have to buy it.

Server-grade ECC memory is slower and more expensive than what people typically put in their desktop machines.