Re: memories

2000-01-13 Thread Jim McCloskey
I wrote: |> Until recently I had just 32MB of RAM. I added 64 more on |> Saturday. Everything seemed fine to begin with---the 96MB was |> detected in BIOS and by the kernel; I had much less disk-thrashing |> in long Netscape sessions and so on. But |> |> If I leave the machine up overnight

Re: memories

2000-01-10 Thread Gary Hennigan
"Gary Hennigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I have a Debian box which has been rock-solid in the three years I've > > been using it. Currently it's slink with the 2.0.38 kernel > > (custom-compiled) and just a few extras in /usr/local. No other OS. > > > > Until r

Re: memories

2000-01-10 Thread aphro
id be willing to bet its bad memory. i would take the old 32MB out and keep the new 64MB in and try some tests.. http://www.freshmeat.net/search.php3?query=memory+test I haven't had experience with those programs, but they may show some results, i reccomend Microscope 7, but it is about $300 or

Re: memories

2000-01-10 Thread Gary Hennigan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have a Debian box which has been rock-solid in the three years I've > been using it. Currently it's slink with the 2.0.38 kernel > (custom-compiled) and just a few extras in /usr/local. No other OS. > > Until recently it had just 32MB of RAM. I added 64 more on > Sa

Re: memories

2000-01-10 Thread Brian Servis
*- On 10 Jan, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about "memories" > > I have a Debian box which has been rock-solid in the three years I've > been using it. Currently it's slink with the 2.0.38 kernel > (custom-compiled) and just a few extras in /usr/local. No other OS. >

memories

2000-01-10 Thread mcclosk
I have a Debian box which has been rock-solid in the three years I've been using it. Currently it's slink with the 2.0.38 kernel (custom-compiled) and just a few extras in /usr/local. No other OS. Until recently it had just 32MB of RAM. I added 64 more on Saturday. Everything seemed fine to begin