[HN Gopher] 10% of Firefox crashes are caused by bitflips
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       10% of Firefox crashes are caused by bitflips
        
       Author : marvinborner
       Score  : 33 points
       Date   : 2026-03-04 19:58 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (mas.to)
 (TXT) w3m dump (mas.to)
        
       | thegrim33 wrote:
       | A 5 part thread where they say they're "now 100% positive" the
       | crashes are from bitflips, yet not a single word is spent on how
       | they're supposedly detecting bitflips other than just "we analyze
       | memory"?
        
         | tredre3 wrote:
         | > last year we deployed an actual memory tester that runs on
         | user machines after the browser crashes.
         | 
         | He doesn't explain anything indeed but presumably that code is
         | available somewhere.
        
       | kdklol wrote:
       | I'm glad to see somebody is getting some data on this, I feel bad
       | memory is one of the most underrated issues in computing
       | generally. I'd like to see a more detailed writeup on this, like
       | a short whitepaper.
        
       | tredre3 wrote:
       | > In other words up to 10% of all the crashes Firefox users see
       | are not software bugs, they're caused by hardware defects! If I
       | subtract crashes that are caused by resource exhaustion (such as
       | out-of-memory crashes) this number goes up to around 15%.
       | 
       | Crashes caused by resource exhaustion are still software bugs in
       | Firefox. At least on sane operating systems where memory isn't
       | over-comitted.
        
         | LorenPechtel wrote:
         | Memory isn't the only resource.
        
       | kmoser wrote:
       | The next logical step would be to somehow inform users so they
       | could take action to replace the bad memory. I realize this is a
       | challenge given the anonymized nature of the crash data, but I
       | might be willing to trade some anonymity in exchange for
       | stability.
        
         | titaniumtravel wrote:
         | The easy solution for that is to just do that analysis
         | _locally_... Firefox doesn 't submit the full core dumps anyhow
         | for this exact reason and therefore needs to do some
         | preprocessing in any case.
        
       | vsgherzi wrote:
       | is there a way to get the memory tester he mentioned? Is it open
       | source? Once Ram goes bad is there a way or recovering it or is
       | it toasted forever?
        
       | mrguyorama wrote:
       | People I think are overindexing on this being about "Bad
       | hardware".
       | 
       | We have long known that single bit errors in RAM are basically
       | "normal" in terms of modern computers. Google did this research
       | in 2009 to quantify the number of error events in commodity DRAM
       | https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.c...
       | 
       | They found 25,000 to 70,000 errors per billion device hours per
       | Mbit and more than 8% of DIMMs affected by errors per year.
       | 
       | At the time, they did not see an increase in this rate in "new"
       | RAM technologies, which I think is DDR3 at that time. I wonder if
       | there has been any change since then.
       | 
       | A few years ago, I changed from putting my computer to sleep
       | every night, to shutting it down every night. I boot it fresh
       | every day, and the improvements are dramatic. RAM errors will
       | accumulate if you simply put your computer to sleep regularly.
        
       | NotGMan wrote:
       | >> In other words up to 10% of all the crashes Firefox users see
       | are not software bugs, they're caused by hardware defects!
       | 
       | I find this impossible to believe.
       | 
       | If this were so all devs for apps, games, etc... would be talking
       | about this but since this is the first time I'm hearing about
       | this I'm seriously doubting this.
       | 
       | >> This is a bit skewed because users with flaky hardware will
       | crash more often than users with functioning machines, but even
       | then this dwarfs all the previous estimates I saw regarding this
       | problem.
       | 
       | Might be the case, but 10% is still huge.
       | 
       | There imo has to be something else going on. Either their
       | userbase/tracking is biased or something else...
        
       | nubinetwork wrote:
       | 470k crashes in a week? Considering how low their market share
       | is, that would suggest every install crashes several times a
       | day... I gotta call bs.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-03-04 23:01 UTC)