1 |
Now wait a minute, not everyone has $100k to spend on a brand new |
2 |
laptop. I'm a student, and I have a single computer to last me through |
3 |
two years of highschool and and at least a few years of college, and |
4 |
there's no way I'm going to screw up my computer without some |
5 |
insurance, ok? Before I run anything on this machine, I'm going to |
6 |
make sure that I'm still under warrantee, whether the parts are user |
7 |
servicable or not. Now if you call that being silly, then that's your |
8 |
choice, but it's my choice if I want to be cautious, even overly so. |
9 |
|
10 |
On that note, I did buck up and run memtest86+ from a Ubuntu livecd, |
11 |
and after several loops (about 1h 30 min of straight testing) I didn't |
12 |
get a single error. It was on Test #6 when I stopped, so I think the |
13 |
memory's chill. Besides, as I said before, when I run anything GUI |
14 |
(enlightement, right now), it's fine. I just have to jump in and out |
15 |
of terminal really quickly. The fact that it likes to crash after |
16 |
starting x server twice makes me think I might have a few damaged |
17 |
portions on my harddrive. Does that sound about right? Of course, that |
18 |
sounds like it could be a kernel issue too. If I can figure out how to |
19 |
"downgrade" my kernel, maybe that will solve it. |
20 |
|
21 |
I just clicked the "<<plain text" button and the setting has held for |
22 |
this entire thread. Come to think of it, I may have actually converted |
23 |
it back to Rich Text a few weeks back. |
24 |
|
25 |
-Peter |
26 |
|
27 |
On 5/15/07, Peter Hoff <petehoff@×××××××.net> wrote: |
28 |
> |
29 |
> |
30 |
> |
31 |
> ----- Original Message ---- |
32 |
> From: Peter Davoust <worldgnat@×××××.com> |
33 |
> To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o |
34 |
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 7:11:20 PM |
35 |
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Gentoo crashing? |
36 |
> |
37 |
> I know it doesn't actually burn the cpu, but I'd rather not cook any |
38 |
> components if I don't have to. From what I know of torture tests, they run |
39 |
> the cpu so hot it starts making computational errors, am I right? It still |
40 |
> makes me nervous. I was hoping to be able to fix the issue just by |
41 |
> recompiling my kernel, but no such luck. I'll mess with it some more and see |
42 |
> what I can do. Can you give me any advice as to what I should to to a) not |
43 |
> violate my warrantee and b) avoid killing my computer as much as possible? |
44 |
> Could it just be something with my Gentoo install? I guess that's a stupid |
45 |
> question; I've had this problem on an older computer, but it was a Desktop |
46 |
> and it was much easier to swap components without messing up my warrantee. |
47 |
> So if it were a hardware problem, wouldn't you think that suse 10.2 would |
48 |
> have run into it as well? I used to run 10.2 (used to as in 3 days ago) for |
49 |
> hours on end without any problems at all. I agree that Gentoo can run the |
50 |
> computer harder, but that doesn't quite click. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> -Peter |
53 |
> |
54 |
> |
55 |
> |
56 |
> You're being silly. Software torture tests are not going to kill your |
57 |
> hardware. Just run them and see what you get. Memtest will give you the |
58 |
> address where the error occured, and I've always been able to determine |
59 |
> which stick was bad from that, using a little deductive reasoning (I usually |
60 |
> verify by testing the sticks alone, but so far I've not been wrong). |
61 |
> |
62 |
> As for voiding your warranty, memory and the hard drive are typically |
63 |
> considered user-servicable parts. In fact, most of the time if either of |
64 |
> those are the problem they'll just send you the parts and you'll have to |
65 |
> replace them yourself anyway. |
66 |
> |
67 |
> More on torturing hardware: really, the only component that's at all |
68 |
> vulnerable to this is the hard drive, simply because it's a mechanical |
69 |
> device, but it will take an absurdly long time to do any actual damage. I |
70 |
> used to test hard drives for video servers (think Tivo, but starting at |
71 |
> $100k). We tried a wide variety of drive testing suites, but it turned out |
72 |
> none of them ran the drives harder than our normal application. A surprising |
73 |
> number of the oldest version of our product are still running, on the |
74 |
> original drives, after over 10 years, in situations that are very demanding |
75 |
> (like serving multiple channels for DirecTV). So, really, stop being so |
76 |
> paranoid about software torture tests. It is a complete myth that you can |
77 |
> ruin your hardware by running them. |
78 |
> |
79 |
> |
80 |
> |
81 |
-- |
82 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |