An unknown repeated-reboot test program.

Hi,

My family recently had to send their desktop PC back to the
manufacturers (a small/medium sized OEM) with a hardware fault. They
returned it claiming that they could find no fault, so I'm trying to
get some information on what they used to test the machine and on a
couple of odd statements in their "test report".

As part of the tests, they claim to have used an "Automated 'Re-Boot'
Program which completed over 700 Full System Re-boots (Fully into
Windows) successfully." They also sent a printout of what I assume is
meant to be this program's output, and it appears to tell a different
story.

I'm hoping that someone will recognise the program used from the
information below and be able to shed some light on the apparent
oddities in this printout. I googled for some of the phrases in it but
found nothing.

1.) The first lines in the printout are

"[3] 2008-Jul-16 14:24:06 STARTING CYCLE OF 1130 REBOOTS",
"[3] 2008-Jul-16 14:24:51 ABOUT TO REBOOT, COUNT 2", and
"[3] 2008-Jul-16 14:25:48 LOADED AFTER REBOOT, COUNT 2".

The last lines are:

"[3] 2008-Jul-17 10:46:30 ABOUT TO REBOOT, COUNT 716",
"[3] 2008-Jul-17 10:47:27 LOADED AFTER REBOOT, COUNT 716", and
"[3] 2008-Jul-17 10:47:35 CYCLE WAS STOPPED".

So, instead of the implied 700+ reboot test throwing up no problems,
we appear to have a 1130 reboot test failing for some reason at reboot
717. (Which is still a lot more reboots than it's ever performed
successfully for us!) and with information on the first boot-up/first
reboot missing.

2.) The printoff of the test looks like it might be taken from a
longer document detailing more tests. There are two pieces of evidence
for this: the "[3]" at the start of each line, and the header "Battery
Log - Charge and Discharge Rate" at the top of each page, which seems
to be nothing to do with a repeated-reboot test.

Hope someone can help with this.

Thanks!

James McLaughlin.

james.d.mclaughlin@googlemail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My family recently had to send their desktop PC back to the
> manufacturers (a small/medium sized OEM) with a hardware fault. They
> returned it claiming that they could find no fault, so I'm trying to
> get some information on what they used to test the machine and on a
> couple of odd statements in their "test report".
>
> As part of the tests, they claim to have used an "Automated 'Re-Boot'
> Program which completed over 700 Full System Re-boots (Fully into
> Windows) successfully." They also sent a printout of what I assume is
> meant to be this program's output, and it appears to tell a different
> story.
>
> I'm hoping that someone will recognise the program used from the
> information below and be able to shed some light on the apparent
> oddities in this printout. I googled for some of the phrases in it but
> found nothing.
>
> 1.) The first lines in the printout are
>
> "[3] 2008-Jul-16 14:24:06 STARTING CYCLE OF 1130 REBOOTS",
> "[3] 2008-Jul-16 14:24:51 ABOUT TO REBOOT, COUNT 2", and
> "[3] 2008-Jul-16 14:25:48 LOADED AFTER REBOOT, COUNT 2".
>
> The last lines are:
>
> "[3] 2008-Jul-17 10:46:30 ABOUT TO REBOOT, COUNT 716",
> "[3] 2008-Jul-17 10:47:27 LOADED AFTER REBOOT, COUNT 716", and
> "[3] 2008-Jul-17 10:47:35 CYCLE WAS STOPPED".
>
> So, instead of the implied 700+ reboot test throwing up no problems,
> we appear to have a 1130 reboot test failing for some reason at reboot
> 717. (Which is still a lot more reboots than it's ever performed
> successfully for us!) and with information on the first boot-up/first
> reboot missing.
>
> 2.) The printoff of the test looks like it might be taken from a
> longer document detailing more tests. There are two pieces of evidence
> for this: the "[3]" at the start of each line, and the header "Battery
> Log - Charge and Discharge Rate" at the top of each page, which seems
> to be nothing to do with a repeated-reboot test.
>
> Hope someone can help with this.
>
> Thanks!
>
> James McLaughlin.

I have no issue believing that they tried 1130 reboots, and then
manually aborted the process after 716. Hell that's a good test in my
mind. And I find it easy to think that they have a utility they wrote
to do a boot, launch a program and then cause it to reboot. Heck I
have an icon on the desktop to restart and could put that in my startup
folder.

As for 94 % healthy, that could mean defragged etc. All of this only
the techs can respond to.

You should first tell us why you even sent an obviously good working PC
to be repaired. Someone might have better insight how you yourself
might diagnose the issue. Next time you get an error, write it down and
post it here.

Good luck.