Is the below true ?
1. Single Rank Memory is faster than Dual Rank Memory, in laymen’s terms when a computer accesses Single Rank Memory it only has to go around the track once, where are Dual Rank it would have to go around the track twice
2. ranks cannot be accessed simultaneously as they share the same data path
3. I should get "dual" rank memory for my Dell PowerEdge T630 dual Xeon E5-2630v3 100 person Windows 2012 R2 RAID-10 file server ?
It is important to ensure that DIMMs with appropriate number of ranks are populated in each channel for optimal performance. Whenever possible, it is recommended to use dual-rank DIMMs in the system. Dual-rank DIMMs offer better interleaving and hence better performance than single-rank DIMMs.
For instance, a system populated with six 2GB dual-rank DIMMs outperforms a system populated with six 2GB single-rank DIMMs by 7% for SPECjbb2005. Dual-rank DIMMs are also better than quad-rank DIMMs because quad-rank DIMMs will cause the memory speed to be down-clocked.
Another important guideline is to populate equivalent ranks per channel. For instance, mixing one single-rank DIMM and one dual-rank DIMM in a channel should be avoided.
A memory rank is, simply put, a block or area of data that is created using some or all the memory chips on a memory module.
A rank must be 64 bits of data wide; on memory modules which support Error Correction Code (ECC), the 64-bit wide data area requires an 8-bit wide ECC area for a total width of 72 bits. Depending on how memory modules are engineered, they can contain one, two, or four areas of 64-bit wide data areas (or 72-bit wide areas, where 72 bits = 64 data bits and 8 ECC bits).
So to sum up everything, it appears that ranks have more to do with density and pricing than actual performance. Granted, I'm working off of generalized statements from a vendor and wikipedia, I don't think most people put much effort into researching ranks. All that matters (for most server admins) is that RAM have matching ranks.