From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 7 22:41:22 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A9E716A41C for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 22:41:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from smtp-out6.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out6.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.9]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842EA43D45 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 22:41:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from [82.41.37.55] ([82.41.37.55]) by smtp-out6.blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 7 Jul 2005 23:42:03 +0100 Message-ID: <42CDAF8F.5080807@dial.pipex.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 23:41:19 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050530 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, pl MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tuc at T-B-O-H References: <200507072108.j67L81Vs018338@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> In-Reply-To: <200507072108.j67L81Vs018338@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2005 22:42:03.0191 (UTC) FILETIME=[18331470:01C58345] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problems since 5.3-RELEASE-p15 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:41:22 -0000 Tuc at T-B-O-H wrote: >>*If* there are intermittent memory errors, then it could be that SETI >>always happens to get them in the data it is dealing with, in which case >>it might run perfectly happily but just produce the wrong results. >>Memtest is dull, and stops you using your PC, but like Windows virus >>scans, it seems like a necessary evil in this case. >> >> >> > I did the standard tests for 24 hours (21 passes) and it didn't fail. >I ran the 90 minute fading one for 24 hours (8 runs) and it too didn't fail. > > It's almost a shame when a test like this passes. It's much easier to just replace some memory and get on with things than be stuck with an intermittent problem. Could something be overheating? Are you still getting random segfaults? Is there *any* pattern you can see? --Alex