Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB - Slackware

This is a discussion on Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB - Slackware ; Hallo, Mark, Du meintest am 01.02.08: >> Memtest86+ Pass 17% ##### > ... >> WallTime 2:26:26 > It ran through the test cycle 3 times without showing an error, and > that's good, but 17% of the way through the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

  1. Re: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

    Hallo, Mark,

    Du meintest am 01.02.08:

    >> Memtest86+ Pass 17% #####

    > ...
    >> WallTime 2:26:26



    > It ran through the test cycle 3 times without showing an error, and
    > that's good, but 17% of the way through the 4th pass the machine
    > locked up. I see from the clock that it ran tests for 2 hours and 26
    > minutes before locking. Lockups are not unknown with memtest, since
    > it is messing with the memory after all.


    "memtest" works in Video RAM; maybe there are bad cells.

    > The fact that no errors were detected is a good thing,


    No, not at all.
    One of my laptops sometimes hung up. Running "memtest" showed some
    errors after about 24 hours.

    Viele Gruesse
    Helmut

    "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  2. Re: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

    Hi all

    Am 01.02.2008 13:50, Helmut Hullen schrieb:
    >
    > Du meintest am 01.02.08:
    >
    >>> Memtest86+ Pass 17% #####

    >> ...
    >>> WallTime 2:26:26

    >
    >> It ran through the test cycle 3 times without showing an error, and
    >> that's good, but 17% of the way through the 4th pass the machine
    >> locked up. I see from the clock that it ran tests for 2 hours and 26
    >> minutes before locking. Lockups are not unknown with memtest, since
    >> it is messing with the memory after all.

    >
    > "memtest" works in Video RAM; maybe there are bad cells.
    >
    >> The fact that no errors were detected is a good thing,

    >
    > No, not at all.


    In any case memtest was stuck (no reaction to Esc, c, etc.) That's
    not good ;-(

    I restarted memtest and it froze after 14 Sec.!

    Stole the RAM from another identical model, and memtest is running
    again. We'll see.

    Thanks for the support!

    Arun

  3. Re: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

    On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:50:00 +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote:

    >> It ran through the test cycle 3 times without showing an error, and
    >> that's good, but 17% of the way through the 4th pass the machine locked
    >> up. I see from the clock that it ran tests for 2 hours and 26 minutes
    >> before locking. Lockups are not unknown with memtest, since it is
    >> messing with the memory after all.

    >
    > "memtest" works in Video RAM; maybe there are bad cells.


    Good point.

    >> The fact that no errors were detected is a good thing,

    >
    > No, not at all.


    That's open to interpretation. It's a good thing as long as no errors
    are detected. That is not the same thing as saying that one can be
    certain there will be no errors.

    A man fell off a tall building. As he passed each floor on his way down,
    he said "So far, so good."

  4. Re: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

    Am 01.02.2008 14:13, Arun Dev schrieb:
    >
    > In any case memtest was stuck (no reaction to Esc, c, etc.) That's
    > not good ;-(
    >
    > I restarted memtest and it froze after 14 Sec.!
    >
    > Stole the RAM from another identical model, and memtest is running
    > again. We'll see.


    No use. memtest would freeze anything between 10 sec to couple of
    minutes. I give up.

    Thanks to everybody.

    Arun

  5. Re: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

    Arun Dev wrote:
    > Hi all
    >
    > Am 01.02.2008 13:50, Helmut Hullen schrieb:
    >>
    >> Du meintest am 01.02.08:
    >>
    >>>> Memtest86+ Pass 17% #####
    >>> ...
    >>>> WallTime 2:26:26

    >>
    >>> It ran through the test cycle 3 times without showing an error, and
    >>> that's good, but 17% of the way through the 4th pass the machine
    >>> locked up. I see from the clock that it ran tests for 2 hours and 26
    >>> minutes before locking. Lockups are not unknown with memtest, since
    >>> it is messing with the memory after all.

    >>
    >> "memtest" works in Video RAM; maybe there are bad cells.
    >>
    >>> The fact that no errors were detected is a good thing,

    >>
    >> No, not at all.

    >
    > In any case memtest was stuck (no reaction to Esc, c, etc.) That's
    > not good ;-(
    >
    > I restarted memtest and it froze after 14 Sec.!
    >
    > Stole the RAM from another identical model, and memtest is running
    > again. We'll see.
    >
    > Thanks for the support!
    >
    > Arun


    For me, a machine needs to be able to run memtest/some other benchmark
    for 72 hours before I consider it stable.

    Ray

  6. Re: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

    Arun Dev wrote:
    > Am 01.02.2008 14:13, Arun Dev schrieb:
    >>
    >> In any case memtest was stuck (no reaction to Esc, c, etc.) That's
    >> not good ;-(
    >>
    >> I restarted memtest and it froze after 14 Sec.!
    >>
    >> Stole the RAM from another identical model, and memtest is running
    >> again. We'll see.

    >
    > No use. memtest would freeze anything between 10 sec to couple of
    > minutes. I give up.
    >
    > Thanks to everybody.
    >
    > Arun


    what kind of hardware is it running on?
    can you mess with ram timings and slow it down?
    I've seen 3 athlon xp machines of various vintages pop the caps on their
    mobos in the last 3 months.
    (there was a rash of bad caps a few years ago.)


  7. Re: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

    On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:46:37 +0000, ray wrote:

    > For me, a machine needs to be able to run memtest/some other benchmark
    > for 72 hours before I consider it stable.


    The question is whether one counts the wall time or the number of passes
    as the more important criterion. Fast machines do run memtest faster.

  8. Re: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

    Hallo, Mark,

    Du meintest am 02.02.08:

    >> For me, a machine needs to be able to run memtest/some other
    >> benchmark for 72 hours before I consider it stable.


    > The question is whether one counts the wall time or the number of
    > passes as the more important criterion. Fast machines do run memtest
    > faster.


    But time counts, too. Some memory fails after many hours of correct
    working (please excuse my gerlish).

    Viele Gruesse
    Helmut

    "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  9. Re: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

    On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:11:00 +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote:

    > Hallo, Mark,
    >
    > Du meintest am 02.02.08:
    >
    >>> For me, a machine needs to be able to run memtest/some other benchmark
    >>> for 72 hours before I consider it stable.

    >
    >> The question is whether one counts the wall time or the number of
    >> passes as the more important criterion. Fast machines do run memtest
    >> faster.

    >
    > But time counts, too. Some memory fails after many hours of correct
    > working


    I don't pretend to know which is the better criterion. Just the the
    longer it runs without error, the better, and that's true of passes and
    walltime.

    It can be heavily machine dependent. I have an old stick of PC-133 that,
    when inserted in one machine, prevents the machine from booting, yet the
    machine runs fine for weeks on end with other memory. In another
    machine, that same stick has passed memtest for 100+ hours with no
    errors, and the machine runs fine for weeks on end.

    > (please excuse my gerlish).


    Like most Europeans, you speak better English than the Anglophones :-)

    > Viele Gruesse


    Danke Schön. An sie auch.

  10. Re: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

    Hi ray

    Am 01.02.2008 22:48, ray schrieb:
    > Arun Dev wrote:
    >>
    >> No use. memtest would freeze anything between 10 sec to couple of
    >> minutes. I give up.

    >
    > what kind of hardware is it running on?


    Two old notebooks, make CLAXMAN Pentium-MMX 266.7 MHz, one 32 MB the
    other 64 MB, both 2 GB HD.

    > can you mess with ram timings and slow it down?


    Good point! Next time I'm in the office I'll check that.

    My original idea was to install Linux and donate to a school in
    my home county in Asia.

    Arun




  11. Re: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

    Helmut Hullen wrote:
    >But time counts, too. Some memory fails after many hours of correct
    >working


    Truly, all memory does.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

    But if you get past "infant mortality", then you're _probably_ ok.

    One more note: I've had "bad" memory that was incorrectly seated.
    Plugging it in tight fixed it.

    -Beej


  12. Re: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

    On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:59:25 +0000, Beej Jorgensen wrote:

    > I've had "bad" memory that was incorrectly seated. Plugging it in tight
    > fixed it.


    Memory insertion is like stress relieving bicycle spokes. If it doesn't
    leave a mark on your hand, you haven't pressed hard enough.

  13. Re: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

    Mark South wrote:
    >
    > I don't pretend to know which is the better criterion. Just the the
    > longer it runs without error, the better, and that's true of passes and
    > walltime.
    >
    > It can be heavily machine dependent. I have an old stick of PC-133 that,
    > when inserted in one machine, prevents the machine from booting, yet the
    > machine runs fine for weeks on end with other memory. In another
    > machine, that same stick has passed memtest for 100+ hours with no
    > errors, and the machine runs fine for weeks on end.
    >


    my 386 would work with virtually ANY ram you threw in there. It wasn't
    picky, I ended running all sorts of stuff because it was unstable in
    other people's machines, so I'd get it for free.

    I guess I'm not picky how many cycles the machine can do - I want it
    pedal to the metal for 72 hours before I consider it cured. I don't
    care if it's doing a kernel compile, a windows benchmark, memtest, or
    whatever... it needs to be exercising and hard. At work we've even
    covered up openings with paper to really beat on a machine if we think
    it might make it fail. (obviously not TOO hot, but hot.)

    Ray

  14. Re: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

    On 2 Feb 2008 22:10:17 +0100,
    Mark South wrote:
    > On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:59:25 +0000, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
    >
    >> I've had "bad" memory that was incorrectly seated. Plugging it
    >> in tight fixed it.

    >
    > Memory insertion is like stress relieving bicycle spokes. If it
    > doesn't leave a mark on your hand, you haven't pressed hard
    > enough.


    Ahh... another Jobst Brandt disciple.

    --
    Theodore (Ted) Heise Bloomington, IN, USA

  15. Re: Slackware 12.0 on 64 MB

    On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:27:20 -0500, Theodore Heise wrote:

    > On 2 Feb 2008 22:10:17 +0100,
    > Mark South wrote:
    >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:59:25 +0000, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
    >>
    >>> I've had "bad" memory that was incorrectly seated. Plugging it in
    >>> tight fixed it.

    >>
    >> Memory insertion is like stress relieving bicycle spokes. If it
    >> doesn't leave a mark on your hand, you haven't pressed hard enough.

    >
    > Ahh... another Jobst Brandt disciple.


    Actually, now that you mention that, I think that Jobst actually used to
    say it more often about closing wheel quick releases. He always reckoned
    that you should be able to read "Shimano" in mirror image on your palm.

    I've certainly had "Samsung" imprinted on my fingers a few times :-)

    OBTW, thank you for reminding me that I lent my copy of The Bicycle Wheel
    to a friend a few months ago, must be time to ask for it back.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2