AMD's EPYC Rome Chips Crash After 1,044 Days of Uptime

Ryzen die
(Image credit: Fritchenz Frenz)

AMD's latest processor revision guide for the EPYC 7002 'Rome' server chips reveals an interesting new bug (errata) that can cause a core on the chip to hang after 1,044 days of uptime (~2.93 years), after which you'll have to reset the server for the chip to run correctly. AMD says it will not fix the issue.

AMD's description of the issue, which impacts its second-gen EPYC processors (AMD's fourth-gen Genoa chips are the newest), is succinct, but there's a lot to unpack.

AMD

(Image credit: AMD)
TOPICS
Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • The Historical Fidelity
    I’m getting Y2K vibes with this errata lol
    Reply
  • AtomicRobotMan0101
    !RemindMe 1043 days
    Reply
  • usertests
    Kinda bad. I think Epyc/server users are more likely to want and actually achieve 3-yr/indefinite uptime than a Ryzen desktop user.
    Reply
  • Friesiansam
    Far worse things to worry about, than a minor impact bug that can be prevented with a triyearly restart.
    Reply
  • /=^>3-O-B=
    You misspelled error, duh.
    To flex in Latin, it's called an "erratum"; "errata" is the plural.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    I don't know of any server type and ops team in which they'd allow machines to spend over a year without a restart. While not all, there's a few patching cycles that force you to restart machines and if you're not patching kernel and not restarting them, then you're doing OPs wrong IMO.

    Even for critical infrastructure, you plan for such scenarios.

    This being said, I don't know 100% of the industry and there may be cases where they do have a valid use case for a machine to be always on from the moment it's put in service, but I just don't know of any or even could rationalize that being the case.

    Anyway, the bug sounds funny and easily avoidable.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • kaalus
    It's a massive bug. Not every server is security-critical and has to be updated regularly. I have Linux servers which have been running for 6+ years straight, without any changes. And I don't intend to change anything in the foreseeable future. They work perfectly well, and they will continue to do so. I would be mightily angry if it turned out I have to reboot them every 3 years.
    Reply
  • johnrock2
    I guess I could see instances when you might want the server to never restart but honestly it seems like a good idea to restart periodically anyway, not just to avoid weird timer bugs. I wouldn't patch this either if I was AMD, not a big issue and I think they don't even sell this CPU anymore.
    Reply
  • Paul Alcorn
    The Historical Fidelity said:
    I’m getting Y2K vibes with this errata lol
    Same! It was the first thing I thought of, actually :)
    Reply
  • Co BIY
    I agree that this is more a curiosity than a major issue. Nice that it can be fixed by a first line maintainer without any knowledge of the situation. "Did you try restarting it ?"

    The fact that they know about it does probably means someone ran up against the limit and cared enough to ask AMD to look into it.

    I've never maintained any major piece of datacenter equipment but I can totally see why some would not want to shut down and restart something that is working just fine right now. It's another chance to introduce a problem.
    Reply