Re: Bad memory (was: Linux crashes a lot)
John Reinke wrote:
>
> Well, I ran the memtest86 program on my computer, and it looks like I have
> some bad memory. My question is: Is it normal (safe) to have one error on a
> stick of RAM?
it's not normal but it is safe. you will have to do some modificaitons
to the configuration of the system, i do remember seeing something on
the linux-kernel mailing list about mods to the kernel(i think) that
allowed systems to run with bad memory, the system just did not use
those memory addresses. this was a bitch to track down but here's the
website for the project -
http://home.zonnet.nl/vanrein/badram/
Objective of the project
My objective is to patch the Linux kernel in such a way that it can
handle defective RAM modules. With defective RAM, I mean RAM which has
some bits wrong at some (known)
addresses. Normally, such RAM is considered useless and thrown away; the
larger RAMs get, the higher the chances of failing addresses. With ever
growing RAM sizes, it would
therefore be pleasant to have an alternative to discarding of defective
RAM chips.
> only the 64 now, and I'll try to recreate the situation where Netscape
> crashes the entire box this weekend. Hopefully, I won't have to replace the
> 64.
least now you know its a hardware problem :) linux is good like that..i
like it's ability to be able to find questionable hardware rather
quickly, once replaced the systems usually run better then ever.
hth
nate
--
:::
ICQ: 75132336
http://www.aphroland.org/
http://www.linuxpowered.net/
aphro@aphroland.org
Reply to: