David Mathog wrote:
Tony Travis wrote:
Memtest86+ is fine for 'burn-in' tests, but it does not do a realistic
memory stress test under the conditions that normal applications run.
Wow, deja vu. I just remembered we had almost exactly this same
discussion 2 years ago, in fact I apparently sent you my hacked up
version of memtester which has delays in it between the write and read
cycles, to allow it to catch bit fade (due to radiation or whatever).
Hello, David.
Yes, I remember ;-)
One thing I still don't get though, if memtester is catching memory
errors which only appear when _other parts of the system are active_
does replacing the "bad" memory actually cure these problems? That is,
if memtest86+ runs cleanly and memtester finds problems, is it really
the memory which is the issue?
Yes, replacing the faulty memory does fix the problem in the majority of
cases. However, I've had to replace a couple of faulty CPU's. I do think
memtester is a much more realistic stress test, but you can't use it to
test memory exhaustively like you can with memtest86+, so you still need
to do both tests. I also run memtester randomly as a confidence building
exercise :-)
Best wishes,
Tony.
--
Dr. A.J.Travis, | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rowett Research Institute, | http://www.rri.sari.ac.uk/~ajt
Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, | phone:+44 (0)1224 712751
Aberdeen AB21 9SB, Scotland, UK. | fax:+44 (0)1224 716687
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
