Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:43:33 -0500 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: rank1seeker@gmail.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS related panic (daily <-> find) Message-ID: <CA%2BtpaK23Wo8Nemi-xUy3-BZSUdeWkpWQh_o6Ws=mxi6jrbubvw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201310161650.52354.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20130719.174511.786.3@DOMY-PC> <201310071212.05281.jhb@freebsd.org> <20131016.104912.479.1@DOMY-PC> <201310161650.52354.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:50 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > Same drill as before, see what instruction this is. Actually, this looks > to > be in the same location as your last panic, so a NULL pointer is 0x1 > instead > of 0x0 again. In my experience, this would still indicate failing RAM to > me, > memtest86+ notwithstanding (memtest86+ is single threaded AFAIK, so it may > not stress the hardware quite the same, e.g. if the error is heat related, > etc.). memtest* cannot conclusively diagnose a dimm as good. Usually the only practical solution is to swap modules with known good ones. -- Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BtpaK23Wo8Nemi-xUy3-BZSUdeWkpWQh_o6Ws=mxi6jrbubvw>