From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5680 invoked from network); 11 May 2004 19:38:39 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (128.193.0.39) by eagle.gentoo.oregonstate.edu with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 11 May 2004 19:38:39 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([128.193.0.34] helo=eagle.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BNd5K-0008Qd-W4 for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 11 May 2004 19:38:38 +0000 Received: (qmail 163 invoked by uid 50004); 11 May 2004 19:38:38 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 23949 invoked from network); 11 May 2004 19:38:38 +0000 From: Kevin To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:38:35 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1 References: <200405111407.58909.gentoo-dev@gnosys.biz> <200405111455.47547.gentoo-dev@gnosys.biz> <20040511190400.GA22352@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20040511190400.GA22352@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200405111538.35551.gentoo-dev@gnosys.biz> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Major MCE problem with SMP on Gentoo kernels X-Archives-Salt: 34ba5a07-f9af-40cd-b6fb-0cb442734160 X-Archives-Hash: 1d6f3abd7ffd78a5762db9133437d15c On Tuesday 11 May 2004 15:04, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:55:47PM -0400, Kevin wrote: > > Thanks for your reply, Greg. Although what you say here may be > > true in some circumstances, I think you're wrong in this case. You > > may have stopped reading after the above paragraph, but in the rest > > of my post, I describe how a SuSE9 distro installed on this same > > hardware has no problems doing all of the things that failed in > > Gentoo. That's a pretty strong indication that there are no > > hardware problems, isn't it? > > Not at all. Different compilers/kernels/programs exercise hardware > in very different ways. It could be that your compiler settings for > Gentoo causes different instructions to be used for the same program > on SuSE. > > Try running memtest86 overnight as a good start to rule out your > memory. Ok. Thanks for the suggestion. But what about this: Dell has a utility partition and some programs for doing exhaustive testing of all the hardware in the server. If I run the most thorough set of tests available in this utility partition and I get a clean bill of health, is that a reliable indication that there are no hardware problems? Or does memtest86 do testing that's more exhaustive than most such utility suites? If the utility partition testing says all is well (I've done it several times in the last month or so, though maybe not the most extensive tests), what's the next place to look for an explanation of why this MCE is happening in Gentoo but not in SuSE? -Kevin -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list