David Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 08:03:06AM -0800, Karl Cunningham wrote: > >> Typical users will put in 1GB of RAM and if they get windows xp to run >> (out of the box using only first 150MB of RAM) they declare it a >> success. No tests of memory (other than POST), temperature stress, CPU >> loading, etc. So far they haven't tested very much of the >> functionality of the board. Failures after this are usually chocked up >> to user error or software bugs. Amazing what people will put up with, >> "Y'know I never could get that to work right." >> >> I recommend at least memtest to anyone who buys a cheap MB or >> computer. A lot of them don't pass the first time. > > I've only have one memory failure that showed up in memtest, and it was a > real RAM failure. > > Most of my other memory problems showed up in the "standard linux memory > test", e.g., compiling a kernel. If gcc segfaults, you've got memory > problems. > > Another common memory test is to create a reiserfs partition and see how > badly it corrupts itself.
Hey! that makes me want to put reiserfs everywhere -- then I get continuous testing. ( :-) ;-) :-) ) Regards, ...jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
