Tom Brinkman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > cpuburn http://users.ev1.net/~redelm/ severely tests
This looks interesting; I'm thinking of puting that in the rescue; what would you advice? What's the procedure? Fork, launch the "burn*" program and monitor the process? It seems that burnBX would terminate on error but burnP5 would not, is it right? It's sad because it seems that burnP6 would terminate on error? Which "burn*" would be the best for a general-purpose test, burnP5 for processor and burnBX for memory, right? > 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 Why so? Physical damage only occurs when the processor is _really_ hot, and the motherboard would prevent from that, isn't it? > 1.55 ghz Tbird up to 52�C. > BTW, thanks Guillaume for your Penguin Liberation rpms ;) As Blue told it, you're mixing the Guillaume's :-). -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
