| 1 |
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 02:04:30AM -0400, Peter Davoust wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ok, first, while I appreciate your advice, this is a brand new laptop |
| 3 |
> and there's no way I'm running bonnie++ (that's prime95, right?), or |
| 4 |
> anything with the words "cpu" and "burn" in the same sentence on this |
| 5 |
> thing. Memtest86 might be an option as long as it has no potential to |
| 6 |
> kill anything. I agree, it could be the heat, and that was the first |
| 7 |
> thing that came to my mind, but Vista boots and runs for long periods |
| 8 |
> of time with no issues. I'll check it out with the new kernel in the |
| 9 |
> morning and see what it does. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Any new laptop should have the hardware smarts not to smoke itself, or |
| 12 |
something really is broken. It may shut down "unexpectedly" (which I |
| 13 |
also consider a design bug), but actually causing damage is unlikely. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
That said, this really sounds like a RAM problem, so I would run |
| 16 |
memtest86 first. Memtest86 has zero chance of smoking any system that |
| 17 |
has passed a factory QA check. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I had a Gentoo system (a server) that pretty much ran (to be honest, it |
| 20 |
was a heavily used database server that stayed up for a good 3 months in |
| 21 |
this state). However, its clock was skewed something like 10m/hour (I |
| 22 |
now think this was due to lost ticks during processing of memory |
| 23 |
faults). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I tried all the various kernel flags, largemem, etc., only to find out |
| 26 |
that the problem was (as others on this thread have posted) incompatible |
| 27 |
RAM. I point this out only to say that bad RAM can cause *very* unusual |
| 28 |
problems (not just the segfaults you'd expect), and to say that lots of |
| 29 |
complex operations (like Vista, for example) can continue to run just |
| 30 |
fine in such a broken environment. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Dustin |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives