From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 794CA198005 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:49:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E80F1E073A; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:49:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com (mail-vc0-f169.google.com [209.85.220.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B900E0686 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:49:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id kw10so1494156vcb.14 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:49:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=Y55g1lyqUpRZvzcuZl6IMPbtV+gZ5+vOkS+5fscIouU=; b=LNn0kZq11qlaUoiLnpboxXzFukzUNKmz1bvuEluNMz/NZJDr1oA2GRBEXMCu3BUJbj Vi9v3m/bIOnALdgNBFYr9IXxesMUr9CuvzNrt/Qkzg+rIvlhOFneLMnchWW8AABhsI5Q dq/SFOtzVwreFEt+NJuDlmmpjx8ejyKtIJ9KlP8aO7pUI+ih36R6ZKrkabiPgqnwFrS+ 79UL34H/hkSC5johncux27TxSp4yYV0P25RhRIDXCB+DJ9f7M9sUoMaMDxySoQNuyA2D +vkZL2AtR/2w9l4uKsICQYdYPOwyfkIAL/ZdGuQPEg1S7TYgXM1fyXKHeVwCwmGAnWa9 OAfQ== X-Received: by 10.220.155.8 with SMTP id q8mr8752623vcw.42.1363798182751; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:49:42 -0700 (PDT) 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 Sender: paul.hartman@gmail.com Received: by 10.58.250.66 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:49:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1363754548.1800.1.camel@hydra> From: Paul Hartman Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:49:22 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: NJvfeNOk1uzybAn2djqh4X2CIkY Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: System freezes during compiles To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 61d0eac5-070a-4477-8da7-f4e6b9370b2f X-Archives-Hash: 0d9f42ffa8f9c5de5d2ca28ffe0b676b On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: > > On 2013-03-20, Carlos Hendson wrote: > > > That's by no means conclusive, however, I've also run a complete pass of > > memcheck for over an hour without any issues reported. > > FWIW. I've had flakey memory that ran memcheck fine for several hours > and multiple passes -- but if I let it run long enough, it would fail. > I wouldn't be confident unless memtest ran for at least 12 hours (24 > would be even better). When I've had memory problems, it seemed like it was always shown in tests 5 and 8 from memtest86+. So, now, to expedite the tests, I set it to only run tests 5 and 8. A few hours of those can find problems faster than a couple days of running the full battery of tests. I always run the full set at least once, but my experience and those of people I've seen on Google seems to indicate that on modern systems 5 and 8 are where errors are exposed. YMMV of course. :)