From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QvMYQ-0001fi-AE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 04:56:06 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 04F4521C141; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 04:55:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B242121C054 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 04:54:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so4393979wyg.40 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 21:54:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.169.13 with SMTP id m13mr1667163wel.32.1313988885071; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 21:54:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aemaeth.localnet (93-34-49-96.ip48.fastwebnet.it [93.34.49.96]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ek1sm4533787wbb.62.2011.08.21.21.54.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 21 Aug 2011 21:54:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Francesco Talamona Organization: i.Know To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Suspend to RAM caused crashes Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 06:54:40 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.0.3-gentoo; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201108211127.57077.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <201108211319.40825.francesco.talamona@know.eu> In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201108220654.40577.francesco.talamona@know.eu> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 78ceabcf33290621df5bc589c9aba87f On Sunday 21 August 2011, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 08/21/2011 02:19 PM, Francesco Talamona wrote: > > I wish yours it's not a RAM > > > > issue, it could be tricky to spot, because memtest is not putting > > any load to the machine, so it's very useful when it reports > > error, but when it doesn't you can't be sure if RAM modules are in > > good health. > > CPU load doesn't affect RAM errors. CPU load affects CPU errors. If > you only get RAM errors during heavy load, the RAM is just fine, but > your CPU has a fault. I see your point: to better explain my statement I point you to http://people.redhat.com/~dledford/memtest.shtml The idea is that a "synthetic" test isn't guaranteed to repeat real life conditions, so its results has to be interpreted rather than taken acritically. Cheers Francesco -- Linux Version 3.0.3-gentoo, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Aug 19 07:16:13 CEST 2011 Two 2.9GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 Processors, 4GB RAM, 11659 Bogomips Total aemaeth