Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:13:30 +0100 (CET) | From | Jesper Juhl <> | Subject | Re: Oops with 2.4.23 |
| |
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Chris Frey wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 06:17:00PM -0800, Barry K. Nathan wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 12:35:24AM +0100, Maciej Zenczykowski wrote: > > > you did run memtest for a minimum dozen hours? sometimes it takes that > > > long to find errors... > > > > On one machine (with a bad power supply, as it turned out) it took > > memtest86 almost 18 hours to report an error. So 12 hours isn't enough > > either. > > > > (On a related note, one machine that I tested with mprime's Torture Test > > <http://www.mersenne.org/> took I think close to 43 hours to show a > > failure. In that case I don't know if the failure was the CPU or the > > motherboard, because in the end both failed on that system.) > > At what point do people start suspecting the kernel? > > I mean, I would hope the linux kernel is not so badly written as to stress > the machine 24/7. So after 12 hours of running memtest86 with clean > results, does that not begin to point to a software error rather than > hardware? > Personally I expect my hardware to be able to survive being stressed 24/7. I'm not saying the kernel does that, but if it did I would consider my hardware broken if it didn't survive.
/Jesper Juhl
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |