On Tue, 2 Nov 2010, Daniel Pittman wrote: > It is also notable that memtest86+ is good, but usually not as hard > as running real software on the machine is; we have previously had > occasional faulty sticks of memory that would run clean for weeks > under memtest86+, but would oops within ten minutes on corruption in > the Linux MM lists.
I'll second this assessment: it IS worth noting that real-world application stress will tickle errors that memtest86+ won't find. My suspicion in such cases is that the extra power draw and/or heat output that occurs under OS/Application load is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. memtest86+ is relatively easy on all aspects of hardware usage other than memory. Marginal components are more likely to reveal their true nature when hard drives are spinning furiously, data buses and expansion cards are pushing bits like mad, and CPU instructions are queued in a long line. -- Paul Heinlein <> [email protected] <> http://www.madboa.com/ _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
