-----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 memory
errors 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
sig11
FAQ 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 than
pure 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-----
