>>>>> "guillaume" == Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
guillaume> Paolo Pedroni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Il 12:43, marted� 30 ottobre 2001, hai scritto: >> >> > Do you use it often? Did it allow you to detect memory problems in the >> > real world? >> >> 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. guillaume> Personally, I use for a long time the simple following thing: I recompile guillaume> 100 times a kernel, storing the logs, and I then verify all the logs are guillaume> the same ; when memory or chipset or processor are malfunctioning, guillaume> sometimes GCC receives signal-11 because of failing hardware. guillaume> I'm wondering if "memtest" would not miss some of the errors; also it guillaume> doesn't use the harddisk so it can miss chipset problems related to disk guillaume> probably. guillaume> Of course, "memtest" is really more easy to use than recompiling a kernel. memtest is better for testing memory. But recompiling the kernel is perhaps better for finding that you have overclocking/bad CPU fan & similars. There is another program, cpuburn, that help to found that kind of problems, it executes secuences of instructions that are known to heat the CPU. I don't remind the URL, but goople should help you. Later, Juan. -- In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they are different -- Larry McVoy
