From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 14 18:40:59 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA41C16A420 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:40:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from hk@alogis.com) Received: from alogis.com (firewall.solit-ag.de [212.184.102.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BE143D4C for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:40:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from hk@alogis.com) Received: from alogis.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alogis.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k1EIegNr064367; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:40:42 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from hk@alogis.com) Received: (from hk@localhost) by alogis.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id k1EIegdX064366; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:40:42 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from hk) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:40:42 +0100 From: Holger Kipp To: Vladimir Konrad Message-ID: <20060214184042.GA64181@intserv.int1.b.intern> References: <1139938898.2050.70.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1139938898.2050.70.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:36:38 +0000 Cc: FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: memtest - an idea X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:40:59 -0000 On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 05:41:38PM +0000, Vladimir Konrad wrote: > is it viable to have a memtest like process running full-time (low > priority) or scheduled, on running FreeBSD system to discover bad memory > sooner than a later (without taking the system off-line)? Imho this is not the right way to do it. > being on the receiving end of a bad memory module (FreeBSD did random > reboots, checked the memory with memtest and there it was), it would be > nice if the OS could spot this. According to my experience, if memory goes bad slowly or does not match the mainboard specificatin (or vice versa), you might not find anything with memtest, whilst a buildworld might give signal 11 within a few minutes. Having said that, if you need a reliable plattform, then ECC-memory on a good server board - or even memory in Raid 1 - might be worth considering. Then you only need to monitor the hardware health to know if memory goes bad, and you still have some time to replace it. Regards, Holger Kipp