| 1 |
On Tuesday 11 May 2004 15:04, Greg KH wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:55:47PM -0400, Kevin wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Thanks for your reply, Greg. Although what you say here may be |
| 4 |
> > true in some circumstances, I think you're wrong in this case. You |
| 5 |
> > may have stopped reading after the above paragraph, but in the rest |
| 6 |
> > of my post, I describe how a SuSE9 distro installed on this same |
| 7 |
> > hardware has no problems doing all of the things that failed in |
| 8 |
> > Gentoo. That's a pretty strong indication that there are no |
| 9 |
> > hardware problems, isn't it? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Not at all. Different compilers/kernels/programs exercise hardware |
| 12 |
> in very different ways. It could be that your compiler settings for |
| 13 |
> Gentoo causes different instructions to be used for the same program |
| 14 |
> on SuSE. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Try running memtest86 overnight as a good start to rule out your |
| 17 |
> memory. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Ok. Thanks for the suggestion. But what about this: Dell has a utility |
| 20 |
partition and some programs for doing exhaustive testing of all the |
| 21 |
hardware in the server. If I run the most thorough set of tests |
| 22 |
available in this utility partition and I get a clean bill of health, |
| 23 |
is that a reliable indication that there are no hardware problems? Or |
| 24 |
does memtest86 do testing that's more exhaustive than most such utility |
| 25 |
suites? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If the utility partition testing says all is well (I've done it several |
| 28 |
times in the last month or so, though maybe not the most extensive |
| 29 |
tests), what's the next place to look for an explanation of why this |
| 30 |
MCE is happening in Gentoo but not in SuSE? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-Kevin |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives