| 1 |
"Patric Douhane" <patric@×××××.se> posted |
| 2 |
04b401c6e136$bacb3140$7b00a8c0@Turbo2, excerpted below, on Tue, 26 Sep |
| 3 |
2006 08:41:00 +0200: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Ok that could be it, though I've never noticed that there could be |
| 6 |
> something wrong with the memory before, but I ran Windows XP and perhaps |
| 7 |
> you don't notice such problems then? Can I test my memory with Memtest86?? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
You can, but it won't necessarily find a problem. If it does tho, you |
| 10 |
know you have one, but on mine, it didn't, because the problem wasn't |
| 11 |
really with the memory, but with the speed of access. Memtest86 came up |
| 12 |
100% fine, but it was running on an otherwise idle system (duh, since you |
| 13 |
boot to it and can't be running anything else at the time), and simply |
| 14 |
wasn't stressing the timings enough to trigger the problem, which as I |
| 15 |
said wasn't the memory cells themselves going bad, but simply the timing. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That was part of the frustration. At first I didn't know which component |
| 18 |
it was, and the memory never did actually turn out bad. It's just that it |
| 19 |
wasn't stable at the rated speed when under stress. I never /did/ |
| 20 |
actually know it was the memory until I got the BIOS that let me slow it |
| 21 |
down, and that cured it -- and then when I got new memory and it ran just |
| 22 |
fine at the higher speed, so it wasn't that the mobo memory traces simply |
| 23 |
couldn't handle it either. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 27 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 28 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives