Tom Brinkman wrote: >On Tuesday 30 October 2001 11:11 am, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > >>Paolo Pedroni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>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. >>> > >>Personally, I use for a long time the simple following thing: I >>recompile 100 times a kernel, storing the logs, and I then verify >>all the logs are the same ; when memory or chipset or processor are >>malfunctioning, sometimes GCC receives signal-11 because of failing >>hardware. >> >>I'm wondering if "memtest" would not miss some of the errors; also >>it doesn't use the harddisk so it can miss chipset problems related >>to disk probably. >> >>Of course, "memtest" is really more easy to use than recompiling a >>kernel. >> > > cpuburn http://users.ev1.net/~redelm/ severely tests >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 >1.55 ghz Tbird up to 52°C. > > BTW, thanks Guillaume for your Penguin Liberation rpms ;) > Or the entire ctcs suite. And btw, wrong Guillaume. We call this one 'gc', you are thinking of Guillaume Rousse I believe.
>
