Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:45:28 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Gordon Bergling <gbergling@0xfce3.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new motherboard - fsck_ufs died with signal 8 Message-ID: <20040622074528.GP1596@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20040621193259.GA673@nemesis.md.0xfce3.net> References: <20040621145538.GA968@nemesis.md.0xfce3.net> <20040621193259.GA673@nemesis.md.0xfce3.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2004-Jun-21 21:32:59 +0200, Gordon Bergling wrote: >It tried many times to get in complete build for an GENERIC based kernel >config, but I didn't get _one_ successfully build. Every build breaks on >a different position of the build process. Mostly asm-erros or gcc core >dumps. The strange thing is that the build of GENERIC runs successful. This smells very much like a hardware problem - buildworld and buildkernel have proven to be excellent system stress tests over time. Make sure the CPU & system cooling and power supply is up to scratch - it's not clear how much of your system is new but your old PSU might be a bit stressed running your new XP. >I had run memtest about 20 times and it didn't find any errors, so I >think the RAM should be okay. (I presume this is Memtest86 from www.memtest86.com). Whilst in-situ memory tests will pick up a stuck bit or badly out-of-tolerance memory, they are far less reliable at detecting marginal memory or pattern sensitivities. Can you exchange the DIMM or (temporarily) swap it with a known good one? Have you tried under-clocking your system or using less aggressive RAM timings? If that makes it stable, it's a fairly clear indication that your system is marginal. -- Peter Jeremy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040622074528.GP1596>