The same way backups are most rigorously performed by people who've lost data, ECC is a non-negotiable requirement for people who've suffered slow data corruption via silent memory failures.

It surprises me that people are happy with 64GB+ builds of non-ECC, especially for NAS (ie. very long term storage, where corruptions probably wouldn't be noticed for years).

Periodically I look at replacing my small fleet of HP micro Gen8's, which use Xeons, have 4 x 3.5" bays (with proper h/w RAID1), but max out at a frustratingly low 16GB. They're quite robust, but because of their age - and HP - a horse veterinarian approach to component failures is usually indicated.

A Ryzen + ECC whitebox build is massively appealing, but almost everyone's build-out includes caveats like 'check the datasheet of the mobo and CPU' (because series aren't consistent), and about half the time a terrifying disclaimer to the effect of 'ECC is present / enabled in the kernel, but I can't tell if it's actually functioning properly'.

This. Additionally, there is the price point of modern AMD "workstationish" systems vs. used Intel "real server" systems. Efficiency together with more performance is great, but if I had to pay double the price for a system that offers lots of performance I won't need anyway I'm not willing to pay the price.

Used Intel Systems are just way cheaper, because nobody seems to want them anymore... Everyone wants a >= 8 core ryzen :-) I personally don't need this for a little Proxmox / NAS kind of system.

However, I'm hoping for frame.work to announce official ECC support[1] on their Notebook boards (pretty likely this will never happen). I would love to just use the coolermaster case with small efficient modern notebook hardware for 600 bucks just because I don't need additional harddisks and I would just buy one to support the company.

[1]: https://community.frame.work/t/ecc-error-correcting-code-def...

Older AGESA (part of the mobo firmware that handles system initialization) versions had a bug that prevented the chipset from recognizing and utilizing ECC ram properly even though the chipsets should support it. Check any motherboard in question for a firmware update which includes at least AGESA 1.0.0.5 patch C.

https://www.reddit.com/r/truenas/comments/10lqofy/

Indeed. ECC is non-negotiable, even for "consumer"-grade servers. Heck, also for workstations. Less/no mystery software malfunctions.

This is the setup I was looking for, the ECC support is really a requirement for a NAS.

What type of ECC is a requirement? All DDR5 has on-die ECC but it's hard to get real ECC with error reporting. Since errors are pretty rare (about 1 / year per 100GB) and you sacrifice to get it, seems like a hard choice.

On-die ECC is not ECC memory. On-die ECC only corrects certain errors (e.g. not transport errors), and is absolutely necessary with DDR5 else such errors would be intolerably frequent.

True DDR5 ECC memory exists, and is not hard to find—just look for “server” RAM.

I wish JEDEC and the memory manufacturers had not decided to present on-die ECC as being a "feature" of DDR5 memory, when it has far more to do with the generation of the fab process than the generation of the memory interface.

anecdotal: run the exact same system and tasks on desktops with ddr4 ecc and laptops without ecc ddr5 (they technically have amd pro apu and sodimm sockets, but i can't find the damn memory to buy)

the laptops see two unexplainable crashes per 6 mo.

There might be options in your country. But in the Netherlands there is very little choice for ECC DDR5. Only a couple model are available of 32GB 5200+ sticks; it's slow, expensive and barely in stock.