> Ok. The question is are the Sig11's random. If they are random I'd
> say you _do_ have hardware or heat problems but I'd be reluctant to feel
> definitive about that unless you'd run 2.0.3x (ie a stable linux kernel)
> on the box. The fact its a VIA chipset should rule out cache area problems.
Ok, I did install 2.0.33 and ran the kernel compile test as outlined in
the Sig11 web page. I also changed a CMOS setting which tells the board
what speed RAM is being used. It was set to "auto", but I changed it to
60ns to match the RAM I had installed. I am going to try it on the 70ns
setting to see if it is bad RAM.
Out of 100 kernel compiles, 89 were successful. At the same time as these
kernel compiles, I also built all of XFree86, gcc 2.7.2.3, gcc 2.8.0,
glibc, and egcs without incident. If this is a hardware problem, it sure
doesn't manifest itself very easily.
> Its not bullshit. 95 will run on very faulty substandard hardware and the
> OS doesnt make much use of things at all. NT generally shows up as unstable
> on the same hardware as Linux however but not always.
Just for kicks, I did run some more tests on NT and it didn't fail once.
Does it have a mechanism for catching these hardware flaws and doing a
retry or some such?
I still would like to work through some of the other things outlined in
the Sig11 page (ie. disabling cache, etc), but as this is my main machine,
I can't be out of service for testing for too long.
Mike.
======================================================================
Mike Frisch Email: mfrisch@saturn.tlug.org
Northstar Technologies WWW: http://saturn.tlug.org/~mfrisch
Newmarket, Ontario, CANADA
======================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu