Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Epic list of total FAIL.

[Alan Grimes <ALONZOTG@verizon.net>]

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2015-08-21, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Earlier I saw segfaults in gcc, and another poster pointed it out.
>>
>> When gcc segfaults, it is always suspicious mostly because the compiler
>> is an app where we know the devs take extraordinary measures to prevent it.
>>
>> The most common cause is faulty hardware (most often memory) as gcc
>> tends to use all of it in ways no other app does. The usual procedure
>> at this point is to run memtest for an extended period - say 48
>> hours, or even 72 for an older slow machine.
> That is definitely good advice.  I've run into this situation several
> times.  A machine had bad RAM that didn't seem to cause any problems
> under "normal" operation.  But, when trying to compile something large
> like gcc, I would see non-repeatable segfaults (it wouldn't always
> segfault at the exact same point).  In those cases, I could often run
> memtest for several passes and not see an error. But, _eventually_
> ramtest would catch it.  Run memtest for a few days.  Really.

Yeah, I know there's a single bit error out at the end of RAM that will
appear on the third or fourth pass...

I have already RMA'd half of the ram in this machine because it was
giving a whole fist-full of errors across two sticks... I run the rusty
old bus on the CPU ( SIX CORES!!!!)  a bit harder than it was intended
in order to keep up with the new junk. My previous machine had ECC.   =(

I was advised to just jack the voltage a little bit and live with it. I
guess I'd better run more tests and see what the situation is....

It just doesn't seem reasonable to demand that every bit in a 32
gigabyte memory bank be absolutely perfect....

-- 
IQ is a measure of how stupid you feel.

Powers are not rights.