-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Le 25.07.2005 13:30:20, Mattias Wadenstein a écrit :
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Erik Mouw wrote:On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 11:32:33PM -0700, Juan Ortega wrote:Why dont you simply use memtest86?Because memtest86 doesn't catch all memory errors, while a kernel compile stresses the system in ways memtest86 doesn't. Some memoryerrors only happen when there is IO going on at the same time, which is exactly what a kernel compile does. For more information, see the sig11FAQ at http://www.bitwizard.nl/sig11/ .Well, to be fair to memtest86+, we have so far only found one repeatable crash situation that we could pinpoint to faulty RAM that memtest86+ didn't find, and in that case it could just be a case of not running it for long enough (I had a service technician on site on other duty anyway).
To be sure of the reliability of the test a long run is mandatory. 10 to 15 hours.
It is a bit (!) crazy to have so many memory cells without any real check of the consistancy of the data. And surprisingly, most of the time, it works...
This under a couple of dozen finds of faulty RAM. But if it is memory controller timings etc, they are much harder to find or trigger thanpure bit errors.
And don't forget that the memory management is part of the Athlon processor. I seems that venice core have a better one.
One good other test to run is bonnie -f, because then all available ram will be used up as disk cache, at the same time as you have IO load./Mattias Wadenstein - with 1.5TB of ram, you learn to find errors..
Jean-Luc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFC5OLYXit3lz9m7V4RAtyaAJjiabNI5Yt4PBJVSzhhwR0wL8UJAJ44b4al umdtcSp+2EWoPbyjuEYcFQ== =H2jD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----