On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:38:56 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote:
>Larc wrote:
>> Thanks very much for the help. I've already downloaded and installed
>> Memtest86+ to a floppy and will try it later.
>>
>> BTW, I was using Memtest86 v3.0 but upgraded to the latest v3.4. I
>> couldn't get it to work correctly on either computer I tried it on
>> (both CD and floppy). All the tests would appear to run in about four
>> seconds and then a summary of extensive errors in every test would
>> come up. Had to drop back to v3.3. It works with no problems.
>> Larc
>
>Why not try the latest one from here ?
>
>http://www.memtest.org/
Thanks. RobV had suggested that and I've already downloaded and made
a floppy for later use.
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:joaem3pm0534stdnvrklcpsjuj0fn5e7dt@4ax.com...
> In message <N6Cdndf_AKBOtPranZ2dnUVZ_qainZ2d@giganews.com> "Ian D"
> <taurus@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>The latest Memtest86+ is 1.70. It has no problems with the latest
>>multicore CPUs and motherboards.
>
> Still x86 though, no x64 support, correct?
The OS is irrelevant as it runs at machine language level and
loads off a diskette with Memtest86+'s own bootloader.
> On Dec 17, 2:23 pm, larc-n...@saturnlink.net wrote:
>> While I realize there are better memory test programs than
>> Memtest86, it's probably the best free one. So, any suggestions
>> on how long or for how many passes I should run it?
>>
>> Thanks for your help.
>> Larc
> Time spent is completely irrelevant
Unless your time is valuable.
> as the amount of testing done
> depends on system speed and the size of your memory (half the
> memory twice as much testing per hour). Thus reliability should be
> measured solely in the number of passes,
Or how long it takes to test the memory, times the number of passes.
Ian D wrote:
> "RobV" <robv@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> news:47670842$0$1409$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> larc-news@saturnlink.net wrote:
>>> While I realize there are better memory test programs than
>>> Memtest86, it's probably the best free one. So, any suggestions on
>>> how long or for how many passes I should run it?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your help.
>>> Larc
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, Memtest86+ (also free). Seriously, it recognizes more CPUs and
>> seems to be just as good, if not better than, Memtest86.
>> http://www.memtest.org/
>>
>> As mentioned, run it for at least a few full passes, which shouldn't
>> be more than a few hours, at most.
>>
> The latest Memtest86+ is 1.70. It has no problems with the latest
> multicore CPUs and motherboards.
"it recognizes more CPUs". I believe I said that...
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:47:21 -0800 (PST), yaugin <yaugin@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Time spent is completely irrelevant as the amount of testing done
>depends on system speed and the size of your memory (half the memory =
>twice as much testing per hour). The more memory you need to test, the
>more time you have to spend. Thus reliability should be measured
>solely in the number of passes, and how many to run depends on what
>margin of error you're willing to live with. Fortunately, problem
>areas aren't entirely random -- bad parts tend to produce errors
>quickly -- so you don't need to perform 10000 tests to have 99.99%
>reliability. A bad part will likely show up within the first few
>passes. I think most people do about 6 passes if they are waiting for
>the results. At most I would do 10 if you are under time constraints.
>Otherwise, assuming this is for your home PC, I recommend you just
>leave it running overnight and/or during a workday while you are away.
>This should be enough to give you a solid margin of error and does not
>impede on your schedule.
Overnight seems to be the consensus. I ran v3.0 for seven passes and
no errors, but I'll let a newer version go all night to see if results
with more passes are still good.
Memory is 2MB (4x512K) of Corsair XMS PC3200 running at CAS 2.
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
Larc wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:38:56 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote:
>
>> Larc wrote:
>>> Thanks very much for the help. I've already downloaded and installed
>>> Memtest86+ to a floppy and will try it later.
>>>
>>> BTW, I was using Memtest86 v3.0 but upgraded to the latest v3.4. I
>>> couldn't get it to work correctly on either computer I tried it on
>>> (both CD and floppy). All the tests would appear to run in about four
>>> seconds and then a summary of extensive errors in every test would
>>> come up. Had to drop back to v3.3. It works with no problems.
>>> Larc
>> Why not try the latest one from here ?
>>
>> http://www.memtest.org/
>
> Thanks. RobV had suggested that and I've already downloaded and made
> a floppy for later use.
>
> Larc
I'm sorry if I repeated what RobV suggested. The problem is, my USENET
server won't carry RobV's posts. Apparently there is a UDP for
roadrunner's USENET service, which means people using roadrunner for
USENET posts, won't necessarily have world-wide distribution.
My server (aioe) now has pretty heavy filtering, and if I really want to
follow a thread, the only way for me to do it, is to read the
newsgroups via Google interface. Which is something I hate.
The end result is, I won't know what RobV has said. Or any other
rr.com users.
> I'm sorry if I repeated what RobV suggested. The problem is, my USENET
> server won't carry RobV's posts. Apparently there is a UDP for
> roadrunner's USENET service, which means people using roadrunner for
> USENET posts, won't necessarily have world-wide distribution.
>
> My server (aioe) now has pretty heavy filtering, and if I really want
> to follow a thread, the only way for me to do it, is to read the
> newsgroups via Google interface. Which is something I hate.
> The end result is, I won't know what RobV has said. Or any other
> rr.com users.
>
> Paul
Never knew such a thing could happen. I was better off with Adelphia
and GigaNews (or, whatever it's called). I agree with you about Google;
don't blame you not wanting to go there. I wouldn't go there to read
what I say, either. ;-)
I can see your posts and will keep in mind you can't see mine.
If someone could respond to this so Paul will see it, it would be much
appreciated.
In message <uJ-dnSi3lYvis_ranZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@giganews.com> "Ian D"
<taurus@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
>news:joaem3pm0534stdnvrklcpsjuj0fn5e7dt@4ax.com.. .
>> In message <N6Cdndf_AKBOtPranZ2dnUVZ_qainZ2d@giganews.com> "Ian D"
>> <taurus@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The latest Memtest86+ is 1.70. It has no problems with the latest
>>>multicore CPUs and motherboards.
>>
>> Still x86 though, no x64 support, correct?
>
>The OS is irrelevant as it runs at machine language level and
>loads off a diskette with Memtest86+'s own bootloader.
>
A swing and a miss. I am speaking to the instruction set memtest86
itself uses, if it's x86 then it cannot address or test physical RAM
which overlaps address space allocated to hardware.
If you run a x86 OS, that's not a problem, the OS can't use the RAM
either. However, if you run a x64 OS, you may end up using RAM that a
x86 tester cannot test, and therefore the tester cannot give reliable
results.
In message <e9G9j.24999$4V6.9190@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net > John Doe
<jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>yaugin <yaugin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 17, 2:23 pm, larc-n...@saturnlink.net wrote:
>>> While I realize there are better memory test programs than
>>> Memtest86, it's probably the best free one. So, any suggestions
>>> on how long or for how many passes I should run it?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your help.
>>> Larc
>
>> Time spent is completely irrelevant
>
>Unless your time is valuable.
If you sit there and watch it, yes. Most of us who value are time would
not do that.
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:40:38 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote:
>I'm sorry if I repeated what RobV suggested. The problem is, my USENET
>server won't carry RobV's posts. Apparently there is a UDP for
>roadrunner's USENET service, which means people using roadrunner for
>USENET posts, won't necessarily have world-wide distribution.
>
>My server (aioe) now has pretty heavy filtering, and if I really want to
>follow a thread, the only way for me to do it, is to read the
>newsgroups via Google interface. Which is something I hate.
>The end result is, I won't know what RobV has said. Or any other
>rr.com users.
A second recommendation strengthens confidence for me. I still
appreciated it.
RobV asks that his reply to your message be passed on to you:
Never knew such a thing could happen. I was better off with Adelphia
and GigaNews (or, whatever it's called). I agree with you about
Google;
don't blame you not wanting to go there. I wouldn't go there to read
what I say, either. ;-)
I can see your posts and will keep in mind you can't see mine.
If someone could respond to this so Paul will see it, it would be much
appreciated.
RobV
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
Re: How long to run Memtest86? 
/
Linear Mode
