On Tuesday 30 October 2001 11:11 am, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > Paolo Pedroni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I detected memory problems at least three times, using memtest. > > It just works! Now, everytime some friend of mine asks me to > > check their malfunctioning computer, first thing I do is stick a > > memtest floppy disk in their drive and check their memory.
> Personally, I use for a long time the simple following thing: I > recompile 100 times a kernel, storing the logs, and I then verify > all the logs are the same ; when memory or chipset or processor are > malfunctioning, sometimes GCC receives signal-11 because of failing > hardware. > > I'm wondering if "memtest" would not miss some of the errors; also > it doesn't use the harddisk so it can miss chipset problems related > to disk probably. > > Of course, "memtest" is really more easy to use than recompiling a > kernel. cpuburn http://users.ev1.net/~redelm/ severely tests cpu/cache/ram. As a long time overclocker, I can say if your system can run cpuburn for at least 30 mins, it's stable as can be. Quicker and easier to use than memtest86 or settin up a kernel compile loop. I'd strongly suggest havin continuous cpu temp monitoring setup before runnin any of cpuburn's modules. 'burnK7' will get my 1.4 at 1.55 ghz Tbird up to 52�C. BTW, thanks Guillaume for your Penguin Liberation rpms ;) -- ��������Tom Brinkman � � � � � � � � Galveston Bay, USA chmod +x /bin/Laden.al-Qaeda.Taliban
