Joe Landman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> We have been using some GAMESS runs for about 3 years now. Causes > systems to generate MCEs at prodigious rates if the memory system is > flaky. I've started a thread in the memtest86+ forum here: http://forum.x86-secret.com/showthread.php?t=7739 for discussing memory errors found by other methods which are not detected by memtest86+. That would probably be a better place to put further observations than here. I must apologize for one sentence in my first post there. I used a phrase which did a really poor job of conveying what I meant. There is no "edit" on that site, so I can't fix it. Where it said "assuming these reports are correct" I didn't mean to imply that any of you weren't seeing memory errors with these other methods that previous memtest86+ tests missed. What I meant was that "not found by memtest86+" wasn't very well defined, either in terms of which test modes were run or for how long. Somebody reading this thread cannot know from what has been posted so far if memtest86+ might not have flagged the memory as bad if ECC or cache were disabled, if bit fade tests were run, or if one of these modes was run for twice as long. The best way to settle that issue is to try running these non-default modes on a system which has already been shown to have bad memory by the other programs. That will show if those memtest86+ configuration changes are enough to allow it to detect errors. I don't currently have such a bad system, but if one of you does, please take a moment to investigate this issue. Thanks, David Mathog [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manager, Sequence Analysis Facility, Biology Division, Caltech _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
