> On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:32:02AM -0400, Simon Kirby wrote:
> sim> It seems to find bad memory so easily with such a simple program.
> sim> *shrug* :)
> sim>
> sim> I've put a slightly updated version up here:
> sim>
> sim> ftp://blue.netnation.com/pub/memtest.c
> sim>
> sim> I added a comment, fixed a spelling error and cosmetics in the fprintfs,
> sim> but didn't change anything else (so hopefully it won't lose its magical
> sim> powers). :)
> sim>
> sim> Simon-
>
> would it be a good idea to include the tester into a linux kernel
> so we could have a bootdisk with which could test all the memory
> not only the free part?
There is already "memtest86" which does this (well, it uses the kernel's
boot stuff, I think), and then tests as much as it can. This is probably
better than running it over top of the kernel. If not, I guess this
would be a good idea. :)
Also, for a machine that is assumed to have a hardware problem, I
wouldn't trust memtest.c's output simply if it doesn't print a failure in
a few hours...other testers actually have some knowledge of the hardware
they're running on built in to them, and so they theoretically should do
a better job than mine. *shrug* :) Although, in Miquel van Smoorenburg's
case, he had run a DOS memory tester for 48 hours before which didn't
turn up anything, so maybe it is worth it...
Simon-
[ Stormix Technologies Inc. ][ NetNation Communcations Inc. ]
[ sim@stormix.com ][ sim@netnation.com ]
[ Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employers. ]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/