[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: CPU-Test similar to Memtest?
bill davidsen wrote:
> In article <1067379433.6281.575.camel@tubarao>,
> Thayne Harbaugh <> wrote:
> | On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 09:05, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> | > I'm going to run MEMTEST today when I get home and get a chance to make
> | > a bootable CD
> |
> | Memtest86 is good, but it isn't as good as it could be. Many times I
> | have seen it run 24 hours without error even though the the system has
> | bad memory.
> |
> | > but I'm wondering if there might be a "CPUTEST" or such
> | > utility anyone knows of that'll poke and prod a dual athalon real well
> | > and make sure I don't have a flaky cpu.
> |
> | Run Linpack (or other computationally intensive program) while
> | monitoring ECC errors with either
> |
> | or
> |
> I agree with almost everything you said, but I have seen cases in which
> no CPU use would generate an error, but using heavy DMA io in addition
> triggered the problem. If all else fails add your favorite disk test.

Cpuburn is a good test to run on x86's. That said I've only seen it
fail in 2 systems out of ~20,000. Generally cpu erros will crash your
system before the error is printed to the screen.

Also compiling your kernel in a loop is a good way to shake loose
cpu, and memory issue. I've often found this finds errors much quicker
many memory tests.

You might want to try ctcs. "Make ; "./new-burn -t"
Once you have their hardware. Never give it back.
(The First Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory <>

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean