Can MEMTEST86+ check memory running at faster bus speed?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
it is ok under the new settings.

Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
tests before Windows is launched.

Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
frequency settings?

Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?


[ crossposted. relevant groups]
50 answers Last reply
More about memtest86 check memory running faster speed
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:50:30 +0100, Franklin wrote:

    > I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
    > by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
    > it is ok under the new settings.
    >
    > Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
    > tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
    > tests before Windows is launched.
    >
    > Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
    > frequency settings?
    >
    > Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
    > frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > [ crossposted. relevant groups]

    The BIOS controls the memory timing, the memory will run at whatever
    speed you've set it at. Memtest86 is as good a test as ay to see if your
    memory still works. Be advised that by overclocking your system you've
    given up timing margins. Just because it works when the room is cool or
    when you system is under light load doesn't mean it will work if the room
    gets 10 degrees warmer.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:50:30 +0100, Franklin
    <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote:

    >I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
    >by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
    >it is ok under the new settings.
    >
    >Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
    >tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
    >tests before Windows is launched.
    >
    >Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
    >frequency settings?
    >
    >Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
    >frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?
    >

    There is no such thing as "raw" testing that isn't dependant
    on the host device setting the memory bus speed. In other
    words, yes it tests "overclocked" settings, which to a
    memory module means just another (any particular) speed,
    it's all relative.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:50:30 +0100 There I was minding my own business
    and then Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote :

    >I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
    >by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
    >it is ok under the new settings.
    >
    >Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
    >tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
    >tests before Windows is launched.
    >
    >Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
    >frequency settings?
    >
    >Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
    >frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?

    No software RAM testers are that much use IMHO.Memtest86+ won't point
    out anything of relevance in overclocking,none of them will.
    My 0.2


    --
    Free Windows/PC help,
    http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
    remove obvious to reply
    email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
    Free songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
    http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:05:20 +0100, Shep© <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

    >On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:50:30 +0100 There I was minding my own business
    >and then Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote :
    >
    >>I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
    >>by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
    >>it is ok under the new settings.
    >>
    >>Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
    >>tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
    >>tests before Windows is launched.
    >>
    >>Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
    >>frequency settings?
    >>
    >>Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
    >>frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?
    >
    >No software RAM testers are that much use IMHO.Memtest86+ won't point
    >out anything of relevance in overclocking,none of them will.
    >My 0.2

    True that software testers are limited in their capabilities but to say
    that none will "point out anything of relevance" is absurd and
    ill-informed. Have you even tried it?

    Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based memory
    tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check that nothing is
    horribly awry and I consider it standard practice to run Memtest86+ for a
    couple of hours before attempting installation of an OS. IME, a system
    which has passed the checks - as well as a hard disk diagnostic - has
    always installed and run the OS without problems.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote:
    > Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly
    > chosen bus frequency settings?

    Yes, chipset/bus freq is set by the BIOS when the machine
    boots, not by the OS.

    memtest86 is a very good, extensive, memory tester.
    It is not a intensive (high bandwidth) as I would like,
    so I wrote some in my CPUburn package. Try `burnMMX`.

    -- Robert author `cpuburn` http://pages.sbcglobal.net/redelm
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On 15 Oct 2004, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com>
    > wrote:
    >> Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly
    >> chosen bus frequency settings?
    >
    > Yes, chipset/bus freq is set by the BIOS when the machine
    > boots, not by the OS.
    >
    > memtest86 is a very good, extensive, memory tester.
    > It is not a intensive (high bandwidth) as I would like,
    > so I wrote some in my CPUburn package. Try `burnMMX`.
    >
    > -- Robert author `cpuburn` http://pages.sbcglobal.net/redelm

    Looks neat.

    Does your CPUburn have any special points when compared to the cpu
    testers discussed at Radifed?

    Like Prime95, Motherboard Monitor's 'Heat Up', HotCPU Tester Pro
    Lite, etc.

    http://radified.com/Articles/stability_testing.htm
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Franklin" <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote:
    >
    > I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
    > by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
    > it is ok under the new settings.
    >
    > Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
    > tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
    > tests before Windows is launched.
    >
    > Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
    > frequency settings?
    >
    > Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
    > frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?
    >


    Has anyone tried Metabench? It is in late beta development and is still
    free.

    http://www.7byte.com/index.php?page=metabench

    Is it any good?
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips CrackerJack <binaryblobNOTTHIS@hotpop.com> wrote:
    > Does your CPUburn have any special points when compared to
    > the cpu testers discussed at Radifed?

    > Like Prime95, Motherboard Monitor's 'Heat Up', HotCPU Tester
    > Pro Lite, etc. http://radified.com/Articles/stability_testing.htm

    I really haven't had much time to look around. If I had the
    time, I'd be releasing `burnRAM` [need win32 port] and `burnP7`
    [needs some signals work].

    It's very easy to get "100% CPU utilization" according to
    the OS. `jmp $` or `while(1);` will do. The OS always has
    something to run (not the idle thread), so it thinks it's busy.
    If you can't get 100% (MS-Win9*), it's a priority issue.

    But this is only around 70% of max power draw. Not all the
    chip circuits are kept busy. I've crafted my burn* pgms in
    assembly (natch!) to try to keep as much busy as possible.
    Without any constraint of actually doing useful work!

    Some programs can keep the CPU 100% runnable but really not
    be compute-limited. Doing useful work is a bit of a limit.
    I stuff useless instructions in. SETI@home was notorious for
    very odd times for work unit completion (memory fetch bound).

    I _don't_ claim my pgms are the hottest possible. I'm sure
    that Intel and AMD use better ones as part of their CPU
    manufacturing testing. But those are deep dark secrets.
    Mine is Open Source.

    -- Robert author `cpuburn` http://pages.sbcglobal.net/redelm

    (email invalid, changed ISP -- you figure it out)
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Franklin wrote:
    > Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
    > tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
    > tests before Windows is launched.


    Press "c" "2" "3" "Enter" to run all eleven tests.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:42:07 -0400 There I was minding my own business
    and then George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote
    :

    >On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:05:20 +0100, Shep© <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:50:30 +0100 There I was minding my own business
    >>and then Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote :
    >>
    >>>I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
    >>>by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
    >>>it is ok under the new settings.
    >>>
    >>>Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
    >>>tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
    >>>tests before Windows is launched.
    >>>
    >>>Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
    >>>frequency settings?
    >>>
    >>>Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
    >>>frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?
    >>
    >>No software RAM testers are that much use IMHO.Memtest86+ won't point
    >>out anything of relevance in overclocking,none of them will.
    >>My 0.2
    >
    >True that software testers are limited in their capabilities but to say
    >that none will "point out anything of relevance" is absurd and
    >ill-informed. Have you even tried it?

    Yes.Next to useless and not worth the download let alone running.


    >Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based memory
    >tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check that nothing is
    >horribly awry and I consider it standard practice to run Memtest86+ for a
    >couple of hours before attempting installation of an OS. IME, a system
    >which has passed the checks - as well as a hard disk diagnostic - has
    >always installed and run the OS without problems.

    Window's itself is a good test of hardware memory.It will balk if
    there's anything wrong usually throwing up a,"Registry" fault.
    Why some people defend a piece of software that they get for free I'll
    never know.Hardware RAM testing machines run into the thousands.Go
    figure.
    PS
    Best RAM test if the user suspects a fault is to swap with a known
    good stick ;-)


    --
    Free Windows/PC help,
    http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
    remove obvious to reply
    email shep@obviouspartyheld.de
    Free songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
    http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:23:31 +0100, Shep© <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

    >Yes.Next to useless and not worth the download let alone running.

    Oddly enough I seem to recall a Shep from the K7S5A boards, where
    Memtest86 was the recommended tool to identify motherboards that had
    "issues" with the higher speed Athlon T-birds. Maybe a different guy...

    --
    Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Shep? <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
    > Window's itself is a good test of hardware memory. It
    > will balk if there's anything wrong usually throwing up
    > a,"Registry" fault.

    Defective software, drivers, and other MS-Windows
    cruft can also throw lockups, BSoD & Reg.errs

    When these happen, you don't know if it's hardware
    or software. Best to have some simple testers that
    can rule out hardware. Testers can usually be more
    intense than apps or OSes.

    -- Robert
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    George Macdonald wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:05:20 +0100, Shep© <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:50:30 +0100 There I was minding my own business
    >>and then Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote :
    >>
    >>
    >>>I have set my motherboard/BIOS to exceed the normal the bus frequency
    >>>by just a little bit. Now I would like to test my memory to see if
    >>>it is ok under the new settings.
    >>>
    >>>Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good memory
    >>>tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the floppy. So it
    >>>tests before Windows is launched.
    >>>
    >>>Does Memtest86+ test memory taking into account my newly chosen bus
    >>>frequency settings?
    >>>
    >>>Or does it somehow ignore most motherboard settings (like my
    >>>frequency increase) and test the memory "raw"?
    >>
    >>No software RAM testers are that much use IMHO.Memtest86+ won't point
    >>out anything of relevance in overclocking,none of them will.
    >>My 0.2
    >
    >
    > True that software testers are limited in their capabilities but to say
    > that none will "point out anything of relevance" is absurd and
    > ill-informed. Have you even tried it?

    Yes. Memtest86 performs a series of read writes to the memory and
    doesn't bugger about with clock speed as a 'problem detection' feature.
    If all the read/writes work, then it gets a pass, if not errors are
    reported. It doesn't say 'try lowering your clock speed and see if these
    errors go away'. You'll have to figure that yourself :-)

    >
    > Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based memory
    > tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check that nothing is
    > horribly awry and I consider it standard practice to run Memtest86+ for a
    > couple of hours before attempting installation of an OS. IME, a system
    > which has passed the checks - as well as a hard disk diagnostic - has
    > always installed and run the OS without problems.
    >
    > Rgds, George Macdonald
    >
    > "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??


    --
    spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

    I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
    neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. To jump to the end
    of the story, as a result of this I need a bone marrow transplant. Many
    people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant, too. Please
    volunteer to be a marrow donor:
    http://www.abmdr.org.au/
    http://www.marrow.org/
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > Yes.Next to useless and not worth the download let alone running.

    I had unstable system. I ran a Linux based memory tester which booted off a
    cdrw or 3.5" disk, and guess what? One of the Dual Channel modules was
    malfunctioning, I went to the shop (computeria.fi, mind you) and got
    replacement stick no questions asked. It worked flawlessly. Solved the
    problem for me.

    > Window's itself is a good test of hardware memory.It will balk if

    Yeah. So good. The system was unstable with defective ram, and guess what?
    The machine just froze completely randomly, after 2 minutes, 7 minutes.. but
    only if using a specific graphics intensive application. Initial reaction
    was that maybe the driver is faulty, since that is not unfamiliar thing to
    me after using ATI and nVidia products for years. So I switch driver. I
    switch card. I switch vendor. Still keeps crashing. For some reason after
    hours of tinkering, I somehow just know it is the ram, I download the
    tester, burn it to cdrw.. boot with hands trembling.. and what the hell,
    defective ram! After getting the sticks (dual channel kit!) replaced,
    everything works like charm and has ever since (posting from that very same
    system, A64 3000+ K8V DLX).

    Latest problem was SP2 upgrade, Windows XP kept bluescreening but MS KB had
    article about that, apparently the DEP / NX was broken in Windows XP SP2..
    now SP2 works well too thanks for asking. I wonder what breaks next. ;-)

    > Best RAM test if the user suspects a fault is to swap with a known
    > good stick ;-)

    Good idea. Next time I buy a new computer I will buy two dual channel 1GB
    memory kits, just in case. No damn, what am I saying.. I didn't listen to
    you at all, what I should do is to buy a spare "known good stick", how the
    hell I know a stick is a known good stick anyway until I test it? I would
    ASSUME that when I pay hundreds of bucks for a known Brand Name stick the
    manufacturer would have somekind of quality assurance and testing procedure,
    right? I don't know if they do, but sure as hell a defective sticks slipped
    through.

    So.. how you propose we know what stick is a good one and what isn't? Oh, by
    testing? A marvelous idea.. howcome we didn't think of that.. *slaps
    forehead* ..
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:23:31 +0100, Shep© <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

    >On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:42:07 -0400 There I was minding my own business
    >and then George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote
    >:

    >>True that software testers are limited in their capabilities but to say
    >>that none will "point out anything of relevance" is absurd and
    >>ill-informed. Have you even tried it?
    >
    >Yes.Next to useless and not worth the download let alone running.

    You do it your way - I'll do it mine and advise others accordingly.<shrug>

    >>Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based memory
    >>tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check that nothing is
    >>horribly awry and I consider it standard practice to run Memtest86+ for a
    >>couple of hours before attempting installation of an OS. IME, a system
    >>which has passed the checks - as well as a hard disk diagnostic - has
    >>always installed and run the OS without problems.
    >
    >Window's itself is a good test of hardware memory.

    Rubbish.

    >It will balk if
    >there's anything wrong usually throwing up a,"Registry" fault.

    A registry fault is a memory problem?<guffaw> There's a helluva lot of
    other things in both software and hardware which can cause instability in
    Windows... or any other OS for that matter.

    >Why some people defend a piece of software that they get for free I'll
    >never know.Hardware RAM testing machines run into the thousands.Go
    >figure.

    Memory testing software is nothing new - it was used on mainframes and
    minicomputers for years. It can generated crafted memory access patterns
    which may occur once a day or less in a running OS.

    >PS
    >Best RAM test if the user suspects a fault is to swap with a known
    >good stick ;-)

    With a memory tester, even a software one, you'll be closer to *knowing*
    that it's the memory. A couple of hours of intensive memory testing,
    *before* loading the OS, can save you a lot of grief and time.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On 15 Oct 2004, S.Heenan wrote:

    > Franklin wrote:
    >> Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good
    >> memory tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the
    >> floppy. So it tests before Windows is launched.
    >
    >
    > Press "c" "2" "3" "Enter" to run all eleven tests.

    ISTR there are now 12 tests. Right?
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    CrackerJack wrote:
    > On 15 Oct 2004, S.Heenan wrote:
    >
    >> Franklin wrote:
    >>> Memtest86+ from http://www.memtest.org/ looks like a good
    >>> memory tester. You make a special floppy and boot from the
    >>> floppy. So it tests before Windows is launched.
    >>
    >>
    >> Press "c" "2" "3" "Enter" to run all eleven tests.
    >
    > ISTR there are now 12 tests. Right?


    That may well be the case. I can not remember trying extended tests in the
    newest version.
    I imagine the same keystrokes apply.
    http://www.memtest.org/
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:23:06 -0400, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> put finger to keyboard and
    composed:

    >Memory testing software is nothing new - it was used on mainframes and
    >minicomputers for years. It can generated crafted memory access patterns
    >which may occur once a day or less in a running OS.

    I agree, but I recall one particularly troublesome memory board in a
    minicomputer during the 80's which was not faulted by regular
    diagnostic software. This software was very intensive, probably more
    so than Memtest-86. It generated many different patterns, and tested
    for interference between adjacent memory cells. I ran this software
    for several days but was not able to fault the board. However, the OS
    and/or application software would crash about once a day with a parity
    error. The OS was able to trap the address of this error, but could
    not identify the faulty bit. As each bit was stored in a different
    DRAM chip, I was facing the prospect of desoldering and replacing up
    to 17 chips (16 + parity). Fortunately I eventually narrowed down the
    faulty bit after writing a very simple diagnostic routine to exercise
    this one location in a tight loop.

    The one reservation I have with RAM testing software is that some
    appear to have no adequate test for refresh problems. Faulty refresh
    logic is more likely to show up in normal use, but not during a memory
    test when cells are accessed (and therefore refreshed) continuously.


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Franc Zabkar wrote:

    > On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:23:06 -0400, George Macdonald
    > <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> put finger to keyboard and
    > composed:
    >
    >
    >>Memory testing software is nothing new - it was used on mainframes and
    >>minicomputers for years. It can generated crafted memory access patterns
    >>which may occur once a day or less in a running OS.
    >
    >
    > I agree, but I recall one particularly troublesome memory board in a
    > minicomputer during the 80's which was not faulted by regular
    > diagnostic software. This software was very intensive, probably more
    > so than Memtest-86. It generated many different patterns, and tested
    > for interference between adjacent memory cells. I ran this software
    > for several days but was not able to fault the board. However, the OS
    > and/or application software would crash about once a day with a parity
    > error. The OS was able to trap the address of this error, but could
    > not identify the faulty bit. As each bit was stored in a different
    > DRAM chip, I was facing the prospect of desoldering and replacing up
    > to 17 chips (16 + parity). Fortunately I eventually narrowed down the
    > faulty bit after writing a very simple diagnostic routine to exercise
    > this one location in a tight loop.
    >
    > The one reservation I have with RAM testing software is that some
    > appear to have no adequate test for refresh problems. Faulty refresh
    > logic is more likely to show up in normal use, but not during a memory
    > test when cells are accessed (and therefore refreshed) continuously.
    >
    >
    > - Franc Zabkar

    I can recount a few stories about diagnostic software that missed a
    particular type of fault too but that doesn't mean they were useless.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    My MEMTEST (http://home/earthlink.net/~alegr/download/memtest.htm) allows to
    check for refresh, by inserting a delay between memory fill and pattern
    check runs. The delay can be specified in the command line. For every other
    pass it's 2 seconds default, every 63th pass it's 60 seconds by default.

    "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote in message
    news:ji64n0djrsu9st324c42sgmekga51g7ktm@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:23:06 -0400, George Macdonald
    > <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> put finger to keyboard and
    > composed:
    >
    >
    > The one reservation I have with RAM testing software is that some
    > appear to have no adequate test for refresh problems. Faulty refresh
    > logic is more likely to show up in normal use, but not during a memory
    > test when cells are accessed (and therefore refreshed) continuously.
    >
    >
    > - Franc Zabkar
    > --
    > Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On 15 Oct 2004, George Macdonald wrote:

    >>No software RAM testers are that much use IMHO.Memtest86+ won't
    >>point out anything of relevance in overclocking,none of them
    >>will. My 0.2
    >
    > True that software testers are limited in their capabilities but
    > to say that none will "point out anything of relevance" is
    > absurd and ill-informed. Have you even tried it?

    >
    > Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
    > memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
    > that nothing is horribly awry and I consider it standard
    > practice to run Memtest86+ for a couple of hours before
    > attempting installation of an OS. IME, a system which has
    > passed the checks - as well as a hard disk diagnostic - has
    > always installed and run the OS without problems.

    It certainly surprised me by how long it seemed to take to do a
    check. In fact I had to terminate it as I needed the machine back!

    I later tried WinMemTest but it seems very simple by comparision to
    Memtest86+.

    I want to know if my memory is going into error after I raised the
    bus speed.

    >
    > Rgds, George Macdonald
    >
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On 15 Oct 2004, Shep© wrote:

    >>True that software testers are limited in their capabilities but
    >>to say that none will "point out anything of relevance" is
    >>absurd and ill-informed. Have you even tried it?
    >
    > Yes.Next to useless and not worth the download let alone
    > running.

    I had heard it was one of the best testers.

    >>Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
    >>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
    >>that nothing is horribly awry and I consider it standard
    >>practice to run Memtest86+ for a couple of hours before
    >>attempting installation of an OS. IME, a system which has
    >>passed the checks - as well as a hard disk diagnostic - has
    >>always installed and run the OS without problems.
    >
    > Window's itself is a good test of hardware memory.

    But how much data corruption might have occurred before Windows
    throws up a BSOD? I can't really afford to run the risk of corrupt
    data just because I want to use Windows to test my memory in the way
    you mention.


    > It will balk
    > if there's anything wrong usually throwing up a,"Registry"
    > fault. Why some people defend a piece of software that they get
    > for free I'll never know.Hardware RAM testing machines run into
    > the thousands.Go figure.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
    > >>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check


    false sense of security

    But how much data corruption might have occurred before Windows
    > throws up a BSOD? I can't really afford to run the risk of corrupt
    > data just because I want to use Windows to test my memory in the way
    > you mention.


    if there were horrible things wrong with your memory you will know it
    long before you test with SW testers.

    BSOD tell the tale when they come up. If there are memory registers in
    the 'cause' line you will know its memory related.

    if you are that concerned about memory errors...use ECC memory
    only....

    the only way to know for certain is to remove the stick and take it to
    a hardware tester. There are memory controllers and many other things
    indirectly controlling memory, if this is the area of concern,
    software checkers are not up to snuff, and may give you memory errors
    that are not chip related, or NOT tell you and you replace mods for no
    reason.


    "Franklin" <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:9585B3DB2DE6F71F3M4@130.133.1.4...
    > On 15 Oct 2004, Shep© wrote:
    >
    > >>True that software testers are limited in their capabilities but
    > >>to say that none will "point out anything of relevance" is
    > >>absurd and ill-informed. Have you even tried it?
    > >
    > > Yes.Next to useless and not worth the download let alone
    > > running.
    >
    > I had heard it was one of the best testers.
    >
    > >>Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
    > >>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
    > >>that nothing is horribly awry and I consider it standard
    > >>practice to run Memtest86+ for a couple of hours before
    > >>attempting installation of an OS. IME, a system which has
    > >>passed the checks - as well as a hard disk diagnostic - has
    > >>always installed and run the OS without problems.
    > >
    > > Window's itself is a good test of hardware memory.
    >
    > But how much data corruption might have occurred before Windows
    > throws up a BSOD? I can't really afford to run the risk of corrupt
    > data just because I want to use Windows to test my memory in the way
    > you mention.
    >
    >
    >
    > > It will balk
    > > if there's anything wrong usually throwing up a,"Registry"
    > > fault. Why some people defend a piece of software that they get
    > > for free I'll never know.Hardware RAM testing machines run into
    > > the thousands.Go figure.
    >
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:22:09 -0700, "JAD"
    <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:

    >Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
    >> >>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
    >
    >
    >false sense of security
    >
    >But how much data corruption might have occurred before Windows
    >> throws up a BSOD? I can't really afford to run the risk of corrupt
    >> data just because I want to use Windows to test my memory in the way
    >> you mention.
    >
    >
    >if there were horrible things wrong with your memory you will know it
    >long before you test with SW testers.

    Not if you are wise. Wise tech never boots windows if the
    memory stability is in question. One single boot is enough
    to trash a windows install from memory errors.

    >
    >BSOD tell the tale when they come up. If there are memory registers in
    >the 'cause' line you will know its memory related.

    Nope, often registers are mentioned with no physical memory
    error... just had one the other day related to MS
    Messenger, which user had left enabled.

    >
    >if you are that concerned about memory errors...use ECC memory
    >only....

    .... and then there's the better-than-nothing approach, to at
    least make sure the box in front of you, as configured, has
    no errors before corrupting any data. "Best" is always nice
    but you wouldn't want to ignore testing the memory if it
    were ECC either.


    >the only way to know for certain is to remove the stick and take it to
    >a hardware tester. There are memory controllers and many other things
    >indirectly controlling memory, if this is the area of concern,
    >software checkers are not up to snuff, and may give you memory errors
    >that are not chip related, or NOT tell you and you replace mods for no
    >reason.

    True, but it doesn't necessarily matter. Memory module "X"
    won't work in board "Y", then it has to come out regardless
    of what's to blame. Within the expensive hardware tester
    another module is tried instead... It's pointless to even
    mention hardware memory testers since less than 0.1% of the
    techs out there have access to one.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:22:09 -0700, "JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:

    >Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
    >> >>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
    >
    >
    >false sense of security

    Snipping to create context you can argue with is a nasty Usenet habit.

    >But how much data corruption might have occurred before Windows
    >> throws up a BSOD? I can't really afford to run the risk of corrupt
    >> data just because I want to use Windows to test my memory in the way
    >> you mention.
    >
    >
    >if there were horrible things wrong with your memory you will know it
    >long before you test with SW testers.
    >
    >BSOD tell the tale when they come up. If there are memory registers in
    >the 'cause' line you will know its memory related.

    Again...RUBBISH!

    >if you are that concerned about memory errors...use ECC memory
    >only....

    Once "validated" through testing, diagnostics and a few days of running
    with an OS, modern memory modules are generally good for years of reliable
    use...IME. ECC has its place of course... which is slightly different from
    initial checking/validation.

    >the only way to know for certain is to remove the stick and take it to
    >a hardware tester.

    <sigh>We all have to start somewhere when dealing with a newly built system
    - memtest86 does a reasonable job and serves its purpose. It's simply part
    of a proactive approach to system integrity at time of build and
    installation.

    This is simple stuff: we have a mbrd from one supplier, a CPU form another
    and memory modules from a 3rd, all supplied with power from a 4th. Why
    anyone would want to argue with the concept of running some diagnostics as
    a first step beats me... possibly you rely on Dell to do that for you??ô_ô

    > There are memory controllers and many other things
    >indirectly controlling memory, if this is the area of concern,
    >software checkers are not up to snuff, and may give you memory errors
    >that are not chip related, or NOT tell you and you replace mods for no
    >reason.

    Hmm, seems to contradict what you just said about registers and memory
    errors.<shrug> Then again, it depends on the system - AMD64 systems have
    no "other things" between the CPU package and the memory, other than the
    mbrd traces and sockets.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    go ahead gmac play at it...


    "George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in
    message news:lp26n0tmv3so37rqfgg8hgo4pif4k60qhg@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:22:09 -0700, "JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com>
    wrote:
    >
    > >Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
    > >> >>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
    > >
    > >
    > >false sense of security
    >
    > Snipping to create context you can argue with is a nasty Usenet
    habit.
    >
    > >But how much data corruption might have occurred before Windows
    > >> throws up a BSOD? I can't really afford to run the risk of
    corrupt
    > >> data just because I want to use Windows to test my memory in the
    way
    > >> you mention.
    > >
    > >
    > >if there were horrible things wrong with your memory you will know
    it
    > >long before you test with SW testers.
    > >
    > >BSOD tell the tale when they come up. If there are memory registers
    in
    > >the 'cause' line you will know its memory related.
    >
    > Again...RUBBISH!
    >
    > >if you are that concerned about memory errors...use ECC memory
    > >only....
    >
    > Once "validated" through testing, diagnostics and a few days of
    running
    > with an OS, modern memory modules are generally good for years of
    reliable
    > use...IME. ECC has its place of course... which is slightly
    different from
    > initial checking/validation.
    >
    > >the only way to know for certain is to remove the stick and take it
    to
    > >a hardware tester.
    >
    > <sigh>We all have to start somewhere when dealing with a newly built
    system
    > - memtest86 does a reasonable job and serves its purpose. It's
    simply part
    > of a proactive approach to system integrity at time of build and
    > installation.
    >
    > This is simple stuff: we have a mbrd from one supplier, a CPU form
    another
    > and memory modules from a 3rd, all supplied with power from a 4th.
    Why
    > anyone would want to argue with the concept of running some
    diagnostics as
    > a first step beats me... possibly you rely on Dell to do that for
    you??ô_ô
    >
    > > There are memory controllers and many other things
    > >indirectly controlling memory, if this is the area of concern,
    > >software checkers are not up to snuff, and may give you memory
    errors
    > >that are not chip related, or NOT tell you and you replace mods for
    no
    > >reason.
    >
    > Hmm, seems to contradict what you just said about registers and
    memory
    > errors.<shrug> Then again, it depends on the system - AMD64 systems
    have
    > no "other things" between the CPU package and the memory, other than
    the
    > mbrd traces and sockets.
    >
    > Rgds, George Macdonald
    >
    > "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" -
    Who, me??
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:46:39 -0700, JAD wrote:

    > go ahead gmac play at it...

    Top-posting kidz. <yawn>

    --
    Keith
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    kieth the top posting thing is real old....... if that's all you have
    to say best just to keep it to yourself. You also insist that people
    read only a certain way? Or stop to think that maybe due to my
    accessibility settings and hardware, its more convenient for me to
    post this way?

    The nazis of the usenet never take into consideration the
    disabled....wonder why? You group yourself with them?


    "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
    news:pan.2004.10.18.02.38.16.846379@att.bizzzz...
    > On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:46:39 -0700, JAD wrote:
    >
    > > go ahead gmac play at it...
    >
    > Top-posting kidz. <yawn>
    >
    > --
    > Keith
    >
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
    >> >>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
    >
    > false sense of security

    Better than blind faith.


    > if there were horrible things wrong with your memory you will know it
    > long before you test with SW testers.

    Or you could corrupt what you write in the hard-drive installed on your
    system long before you find out you have a problem with your memory.

    > BSOD tell the tale when they come up. If there are memory registers in
    > the 'cause' line you will know its memory related.

    What makes you think you have any right to expect a bluescreen at all? I got
    a complete lockup as reward for my troubles half of the time, and half of
    the time, *blink*, a happy, quick reset. Testing the memory found the
    problem very quickly after hours of taking the new system apart. Should have
    done that first, not last.

    > if you are that concerned about memory errors...use ECC memory
    > only....

    No one is 'concerned' about memory errors, merely aware of the possible
    problem and following a good, solid practises to make sure that cheap
    consumer parts work as advertised. You just need to be in the shitty
    situation yourself, once, and you will not it find so easy to be clever
    afterwards when someone else had problems.. and this should be a no-brainer,
    since the solution was handed to you on a silver platter.

    Not everyone here owns, or has easy access to a hardware memory tester.
    Guess what? I don't have eeprom burner either here with me, shocked?

    > the only way to know for certain is to remove the stick and take it to
    > a hardware tester. There are memory controllers and many other things

    But not the only way to find problems. www.simmtester.com has following to
    say on the topic:

    "Hardware Memory testers are designed for PC service professional who need
    to test relatively high volume of modules and not for those who test only
    one or two modules. "

    > software checkers are not up to snuff, and may give you memory errors
    > that are not chip related, or NOT tell you and you replace mods for no
    > reason.

    Display driver trouble is wevy wevy wevy common in Windows(R) </Elmer Budd's
    voiceover>, from the symptoms you would think that it is hardware failure--
    software such as display driver can crash Microsoft Windows(R) and go to the
    nearest hardware tester. The hell you would, you would try to resolve this
    "software problem" first-- how many times you have had malfunctioning memory
    anyway? What have you done in one or two instances care to share with us?

    Don't tell me. You did go directly to the hardware memory tester only to
    find out that the memory works perfectly didn't you? :)
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    yeah and for every specific instance you named I could name others
    that support my views then you then me so on and so on..if you want to
    sit in front of a memory tester(software) because you fear your data
    may be corrupt in the future due to memory problems go for it. Let
    your machine be useless for that time...test the cooling of your
    memory and case..to find out that after all night of running it while
    you slept with your head on the desktop, drooling all over the mouse
    pad, the system rebooted and didn't save a log.

    "assaarpa" <redterminator@fap.net> wrote in message
    news:ckv9h4$fv3$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
    > > Memtest86+ is actually a good, if not the best, software based
    > >> >>memory tester. It is certainly a very good confidence check
    > >
    > > false sense of security
    >
    > Better than blind faith.
    >
    >
    > > if there were horrible things wrong with your memory you will know
    it
    > > long before you test with SW testers.
    >
    > Or you could corrupt what you write in the hard-drive installed on
    your
    > system long before you find out you have a problem with your memory.
    >
    > > BSOD tell the tale when they come up. If there are memory
    registers in
    > > the 'cause' line you will know its memory related.
    >
    > What makes you think you have any right to expect a bluescreen at
    all? I got
    > a complete lockup as reward for my troubles half of the time, and
    half of
    > the time, *blink*, a happy, quick reset. Testing the memory found
    the
    > problem very quickly after hours of taking the new system apart.
    Should have
    > done that first, not last.
    >
    > > if you are that concerned about memory errors...use ECC memory
    > > only....
    >
    > No one is 'concerned' about memory errors, merely aware of the
    possible
    > problem and following a good, solid practises to make sure that
    cheap
    > consumer parts work as advertised. You just need to be in the shitty
    > situation yourself, once, and you will not it find so easy to be
    clever
    > afterwards when someone else had problems.. and this should be a
    no-brainer,
    > since the solution was handed to you on a silver platter.
    >
    > Not everyone here owns, or has easy access to a hardware memory
    tester.
    > Guess what? I don't have eeprom burner either here with me, shocked?
    >
    > > the only way to know for certain is to remove the stick and take
    it to
    > > a hardware tester. There are memory controllers and many other
    things
    >
    > But not the only way to find problems. www.simmtester.com has
    following to
    > say on the topic:
    >
    > "Hardware Memory testers are designed for PC service professional
    who need
    > to test relatively high volume of modules and not for those who test
    only
    > one or two modules. "
    >
    > > software checkers are not up to snuff, and may give you memory
    errors
    > > that are not chip related, or NOT tell you and you replace mods
    for no
    > > reason.
    >
    > Display driver trouble is wevy wevy wevy common in Windows(R)
    </Elmer Budd's
    > voiceover>, from the symptoms you would think that it is hardware
    failure--
    > software such as display driver can crash Microsoft Windows(R) and
    go to the
    > nearest hardware tester. The hell you would, you would try to
    resolve this
    > "software problem" first-- how many times you have had
    malfunctioning memory
    > anyway? What have you done in one or two instances care to share
    with us?
    >
    > Don't tell me. You did go directly to the hardware memory tester
    only to
    > find out that the memory works perfectly didn't you? :)
    >
    >
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    from the symptoms you would think that it is hardware failure--
    > software such as display driver can crash Microsoft Windows(R) and
    go to the
    > nearest hardware tester. The hell you would, you would try to
    resolve this
    > "software problem" first-- how many times you have had
    malfunctioning memory
    > anyway? What have you done in one or two instances care to share
    with us?


    all kinds of immature ranting clipped

    exactly how many times is a BSOD caused by memory errors? (other
    than ACCESS errors CAUSED BY ill written SOFTWARE/DRIVERS)

    of course, if i suspected memory, I would be off to the hardware
    tester,, that would be the most effient way of handling it.... but
    again how many times have i needed to do that as related to BSOD's in
    any Windows OS? 2%.or less...........

    what your new presciption not available on your discount card? aarp
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:46:39 -0700, "JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:

    >go ahead gmac play at it...

    Whaaat? You want me to explain the difference between proactive and
    reactive?:-[]

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 04:10:44 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >Franc Zabkar wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:23:06 -0400, George Macdonald
    >> <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> put finger to keyboard and
    >> composed:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Memory testing software is nothing new - it was used on mainframes and
    >>>minicomputers for years. It can generated crafted memory access patterns
    >>>which may occur once a day or less in a running OS.
    >>
    >>
    >> I agree, but I recall one particularly troublesome memory board in a
    >> minicomputer during the 80's which was not faulted by regular
    >> diagnostic software. This software was very intensive, probably more
    >> so than Memtest-86. It generated many different patterns, and tested
    >> for interference between adjacent memory cells. I ran this software
    >> for several days but was not able to fault the board. However, the OS
    >> and/or application software would crash about once a day with a parity
    >> error. The OS was able to trap the address of this error, but could
    >> not identify the faulty bit. As each bit was stored in a different
    >> DRAM chip, I was facing the prospect of desoldering and replacing up
    >> to 17 chips (16 + parity). Fortunately I eventually narrowed down the
    >> faulty bit after writing a very simple diagnostic routine to exercise
    >> this one location in a tight loop.
    >>
    >> The one reservation I have with RAM testing software is that some
    >> appear to have no adequate test for refresh problems. Faulty refresh
    >> logic is more likely to show up in normal use, but not during a memory
    >> test when cells are accessed (and therefore refreshed) continuously.
    >>
    >>
    >> - Franc Zabkar
    >
    >I can recount a few stories about diagnostic software that missed a
    >particular type of fault too but that doesn't mean they were useless.

    I did not mean to imply that at all. My anecdote was intended to
    demonstrate that memory faults can be quirky and highly intermittent.
    The diagnostic software I was using was very thorough - it just wasn't
    "lucky" in this particular case.

    As for refresh problems, I notice that the latest version of
    Memtest-86 now has a "bit fade" test (test 12) which appears to target
    these types of faults. Unfortunately my system bombs early on in this
    test with an "unexpected interrupt error". :-(

    FWIW, the old minicomputer memory diagnostic also had a test which
    used the "Knaizuk algorithm". I haven't heard of this technique in
    modern software, though. Perhaps this algorithm is not as useful in
    testing modern DRAM architecture???


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Franc Zabkar wrote:

    > On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 04:10:44 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    > put finger to keyboard and composed:
    >
    >
    >>Franc Zabkar wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:23:06 -0400, George Macdonald
    >>><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> put finger to keyboard and
    >>>composed:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Memory testing software is nothing new - it was used on mainframes and
    >>>>minicomputers for years. It can generated crafted memory access patterns
    >>>>which may occur once a day or less in a running OS.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>I agree, but I recall one particularly troublesome memory board in a
    >>>minicomputer during the 80's which was not faulted by regular
    >>>diagnostic software. This software was very intensive, probably more
    >>>so than Memtest-86. It generated many different patterns, and tested
    >>>for interference between adjacent memory cells. I ran this software
    >>>for several days but was not able to fault the board. However, the OS
    >>>and/or application software would crash about once a day with a parity
    >>>error. The OS was able to trap the address of this error, but could
    >>>not identify the faulty bit. As each bit was stored in a different
    >>>DRAM chip, I was facing the prospect of desoldering and replacing up
    >>>to 17 chips (16 + parity). Fortunately I eventually narrowed down the
    >>>faulty bit after writing a very simple diagnostic routine to exercise
    >>>this one location in a tight loop.
    >>>
    >>>The one reservation I have with RAM testing software is that some
    >>>appear to have no adequate test for refresh problems. Faulty refresh
    >>>logic is more likely to show up in normal use, but not during a memory
    >>>test when cells are accessed (and therefore refreshed) continuously.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>- Franc Zabkar
    >>
    >>I can recount a few stories about diagnostic software that missed a
    >>particular type of fault too but that doesn't mean they were useless.
    >
    >
    > I did not mean to imply that at all.

    OK. I was looking at it in the context of other messages claiming that
    memory tests were useless and misinterpreted your intent.

    > My anecdote was intended to
    > demonstrate that memory faults can be quirky and highly intermittent.
    > The diagnostic software I was using was very thorough - it just wasn't
    > "lucky" in this particular case.

    Murphy's Law. hehe

    My 'un lucky' incident was while preparing a demonstration for a class on
    the memory diagnostic and it failed to find the defect. (woops).

    >
    > As for refresh problems, I notice that the latest version of
    > Memtest-86 now has a "bit fade" test (test 12) which appears to target
    > these types of faults. Unfortunately my system bombs early on in this
    > test with an "unexpected interrupt error". :-(
    >
    > FWIW, the old minicomputer memory diagnostic also had a test which
    > used the "Knaizuk algorithm". I haven't heard of this technique in
    > modern software, though. Perhaps this algorithm is not as useful in
    > testing modern DRAM architecture???

    Very possible since when the technology changes so do the failure modes.


    > - Franc Zabkar
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > yeah and for every specific instance you named I could name others
    > that support my views then you then me so on and so on..if you want to

    What you are saying is writing off software memory testers right out of the
    picture and actually RECOMMEND a hardware memory tester, not a particularly
    cheap piece of hardware. I got interested, please DO name a situation where
    it would make sense for a normal guy without access to hardware memory
    tester to explicitly start looking for one instead of simply using a
    software memory tester to eliminate one possible cause for BSOD.

    > sit in front of a memory tester(software) because you fear your data
    > may be corrupt in the future due to memory problems go for it. Let

    If you are not concerned about your data, why are you recommending a
    hardware memory tester, isn't that a stretch overkill if you wouldn't care?

    > your machine be useless for that time...test the cooling of your
    > memory and case..to find out that after all night of running it while

    Would have saved me hours of taking the system apart and little by little
    converging to the correct diagnosis. With your proposed method, wouldn't be
    the wiser what is causing the BSOD-- only thing I know for sure is that I
    have to either mail, or take the memory modules personally to the nearest
    place where I, or someone else, can perform a hardware memory test to very
    likely negative results.

    Also, if your machine time is to valuable wouldn't it make sense to have the
    problems diagnosed as quickly as possible? You just cannot hand advice like,
    "when Windows BSOD's and there is memory address mentioned as cause" to run
    for the nearest hardware memory tester. That is idiotic to say the least.
    Sure if the tester is in the same building maybe, beyond that, little
    judgment is required to put things into perspective. That requires something
    you seem to have a very short supply of.

    > you slept with your head on the desktop, drooling all over the mouse
    > pad, the system rebooted and didn't save a log.

    Nothing similiar to this took place, you're pretty desperate aren't you?
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > kieth the top posting thing is real old....... if that's all you have
    > to say best just to keep it to yourself.

    Like your previous creative avoiding the arguments he put down.

    >You also insist that people read only a certain way?

    Yeah! English is written left to right, top to bottom. Often people read
    English the same way it is written, why we might never learn the awful
    truth.

    > Or stop to think that maybe due to my
    > accessibility settings and hardware, its more convenient for me to
    > post this way?

    You are using Outlook and why you post that way is that you haven't mastered
    shift-cursor / delete yet, poor baby.

    > The nazis of the usenet never take into consideration the
    > disabled....wonder why? You group yourself with them?

    What, your delete button is broken?
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:31:22 GMT, "Alexander Grigoriev"
    <alegr@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >My MEMTEST (http://home/earthlink.net/~alegr/download/memtest.htm) allows to ...

    Your link appears to be broken. This link works for me:
    http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alegr/download/memtest.htm

    >... check for refresh, by inserting a delay between memory fill and pattern
    >check runs. The delay can be specified in the command line. For every other
    >pass it's 2 seconds default, every 63th pass it's 60 seconds by default.


    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    oops.. put a slash instead of period...

    "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote in message
    news:jnl5n0tpe83bg2v5mf3i28eocrlq72k9us@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:31:22 GMT, "Alexander Grigoriev"
    > <alegr@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed:
    >
    >>My MEMTEST (http://home/earthlink.net/~alegr/download/memtest.htm) allows
    >>to ...
    >
    > Your link appears to be broken. This link works for me:
    > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alegr/download/memtest.htm
    >
    >>... check for refresh, by inserting a delay between memory fill and
    >>pattern
    >>check runs. The delay can be specified in the command line. For every
    >>other
    >>pass it's 2 seconds default, every 63th pass it's 60 seconds by default.
    >
    >
    > - Franc Zabkar
    > --
    > Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:09:17 -0700, "JAD"
    <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:

    >kieth the top posting thing is real old....... if that's all you have
    >to say best just to keep it to yourself. You also insist that people
    >read only a certain way? Or stop to think that maybe due to my
    >accessibility settings and hardware, its more convenient for me to
    >post this way?
    >
    >The nazis of the usenet never take into consideration the
    >disabled....wonder why? You group yourself with them?
    >
    >

    Translation -

    You're using OE, which doesn't function correctly as a
    newsreader. It is not "real old".
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:55:11 -0700, "JAD"
    <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:

    >from the symptoms you would think that it is hardware failure--
    >> software such as display driver can crash Microsoft Windows(R) and
    >go to the
    >> nearest hardware tester. The hell you would, you would try to
    >resolve this
    >> "software problem" first-- how many times you have had
    >malfunctioning memory
    >> anyway? What have you done in one or two instances care to share
    >with us?
    >
    >
    >all kinds of immature ranting clipped
    >
    >exactly how many times is a BSOD caused by memory errors? (other
    >than ACCESS errors CAUSED BY ill written SOFTWARE/DRIVERS)
    >
    >of course, if i suspected memory, I would be off to the hardware
    >tester,, that would be the most effient way of handling it.... but
    >again how many times have i needed to do that as related to BSOD's in
    >any Windows OS? 2%.or less...........
    >
    >what your new presciption not available on your discount card? aarp
    >

    Sadly you still don't GET it.
    It is, to a certain extent, irrelevant if it passed in a
    (hardware) memory tester, if it fails in the system it's to
    be used in. Even if you do test the memory in a tester, you
    STILL _MUST_ test it in the machine it's in, else you've
    skipped the most important part. If i had a memory tester
    in front of me and had to choose testing ONLY in the tester
    or the target motherboard with memtest86, then memtest86
    would win hands down... only after a motherboard + software
    test fails is the hardware tester worth spending any time
    on.
  41. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    various pages NON bias non xinux non GNU web pages


    The software solutions don't work - it is constrained to test only at
    the speed it's controller works at and can't do the low or high
    voltage test

    But like many other memory testers out there, Memtest86 is unable to
    test 100 percent of a computer's memory.

    .. again, no diagnostics detected any errors. Finally, I set the CAS
    Latency to 2, and some errors began to pop up. RST, RST Pro and
    GoldMemory all identified the errors fairly quickly (though RST passed
    it in about half of its runs). MemTest86, however, never identified an
    error, even after running for 24 hours solid.

    MemTest86 is certainly more than adequate for the home user and
    hobbyist that does not keep extremely critical data on his/her system

    tested with only 2 RIMMs installed, just to make sure that the board
    itself and the memory would pass in an officially sanctioned
    configuration. None of the diagnostics detected any errors. I then
    installed the third RIMM, and threw the diagnostics at it. Both
    GoldMemory and MemTest86 ran for 24 hours without detecting a single
    error.

    GNU / linux that would figure and explains the obsession, NO WONDER
    there are the fanatics...............

    "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:ogt6n058ddvcjuuiv8n312rhtsbegqj0or@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:09:17 -0700, "JAD"
    > <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >kieth the top posting thing is real old....... if that's all you
    have
    > >to say best just to keep it to yourself. You also insist that
    people
    > >read only a certain way? Or stop to think that maybe due to my
    > >accessibility settings and hardware, its more convenient for me to
    > >post this way?
    > >
    > >The nazis of the usenet never take into consideration the
    > >disabled....wonder why? You group yourself with them?
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Translation -
    >
    > You're using OE, which doesn't function correctly as a
    > newsreader. It is not "real old".
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote in message
    news:10n6flhmaa482ac@corp.supernews.com...
    > from the symptoms you would think that it is hardware failure--
    > > software such as display driver can crash Microsoft Windows(R) and
    > go to the
    > > nearest hardware tester. The hell you would, you would try to

    <snip>

    I can't believe your all still arguing with this troll...

    - It's STUPID to use your working environment to test memory (ie, wait for
    BSOD while using Windows)
    - There is nothing wrong with running software like Memtest to actually test
    memory. If it finds an error, then you have something to work with. If it
    doesn't you may still have bad memory, but it's much less likely.
    - Having spare parts around is always helpful, especially when trying to
    diagnose an intermittent issue, but buying spare parts "just in case" when
    you get your PC is dumb (except in the case of mission critical servers)
    - Buy reasonable quality parts and you shouldn't have any major issues. If
    you do have issues, go slowly, doing the simple tests first and eliminating
    different subsystems. Memtest is GOOD for this.

    ....enough children!

    : )
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:51:12 -0700, "JAD"
    <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >various pages NON bias non xinux non GNU web pages
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >The software solutions don't work - it is constrained to test only at
    >the speed it's controller works at and can't do the low or high
    >voltage test
    >
    >But like many other memory testers out there, Memtest86 is unable to
    >test 100 percent of a computer's memory.
    >
    >. again, no diagnostics detected any errors. Finally, I set the CAS
    >Latency to 2, and some errors began to pop up. RST, RST Pro and
    >GoldMemory all identified the errors fairly quickly (though RST passed
    >it in about half of its runs). MemTest86, however, never identified an
    >error, even after running for 24 hours solid.
    >
    >MemTest86 is certainly more than adequate for the home user and
    >hobbyist that does not keep extremely critical data on his/her system
    >
    > tested with only 2 RIMMs installed, just to make sure that the board
    >itself and the memory would pass in an officially sanctioned
    >configuration. None of the diagnostics detected any errors. I then
    >installed the third RIMM, and threw the diagnostics at it. Both
    >GoldMemory and MemTest86 ran for 24 hours without detecting a single
    >error.
    >
    >GNU / linux that would figure and explains the obsession, NO WONDER
    >there are the fanatics...............
    >

    No software tester is perfect, nor is hardware testing
    without followup using software tests on the target system.
    Even so it is prudent to do so and many people catch errors
    they might've otherwise missed with software testers like
    memtest86.
  44. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:54:02 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

    > On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:46:39 -0700, "JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>go ahead gmac play at it...
    >
    > Whaaat? You want me to explain the difference between proactive and
    > reactive?:-[]

    Cat's got it's tongue.

    --
    Keith
  45. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips JAD <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:
    > Then I gave you some knowledge about why I'm a little stuck
    > with it, and you attack my disability

    It appears your physical disability has affected your emotions
    and mental processes. It compounds the tragedy, but you might
    be able to find some help in support groups. Otherwise, you just
    make your difficult life still moreso by aggression/alienation.

    My sincere sympathies,
    -- Robert
  46. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    no robert i let low lives bother me................that was the
    mistake.........and your 'under your breath'
    put downs makes you the same. Just because you have the ability cloud
    your rudeness in diplomacy doesn't make you any better. running for
    office?


    "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
    news:G0add.7522$Al3.4795@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips JAD <Kapasitor@coldmail.com>
    wrote:
    > > Then I gave you some knowledge about why I'm a little stuck
    > > with it, and you attack my disability
    >
    > It appears your physical disability has affected your emotions
    > and mental processes. It compounds the tragedy, but you might
    > be able to find some help in support groups. Otherwise, you just
    > make your difficult life still moreso by aggression/alienation.
    >
    > My sincere sympathies,
    > -- Robert
    >
  47. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips JAD <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote [reformatted]:
    > "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
    >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips JAD <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:
    >> > Then I gave you some knowledge about why I'm a little stuck
    >> > with it, and you attack my disability
    >>
    >> It appears your physical disability has affected your emotions
    >> and mental processes. It compounds the tragedy, but you might
    >> be able to find some help in support groups. Otherwise, you just
    >> make your difficult life still moreso by aggression/alienation.

    > no robert i let low lives bother me ................ that
    > was the mistake ......... and your 'under your breath'
    > put downs makes you the same. Just because you have the
    > ability cloud your rudeness in diplomacy doesn't make you
    > any better. running for office?

    Learning how not to be bothered by others is an important
    life-skill for everyone.

    I'm sorry you think you see "put downs" in my post.
    I assure you, none are intended.

    -- Robert
  48. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Robert Redelmeier wrote:
    >
    .... some PLONKEE wrote something or other ....
    >
    > Learning how not to be bothered by others is an important
    > life-skill for everyone.
    >
    > I'm sorry you think you see "put downs" in my post.
    > I assure you, none are intended.

    However I assure you I intend any put-downs, due the the PLONKEEs
    rudeness, crudity, and top-posting. It is obviously a fairly low
    life form.

    --
    "I support the Red Sox and any team that beats the Yankees"
    "Any baby snookums can be a Yankee fan, it takes real moral
    fiber to be a Red Sox fan"
    "I listened to Toronto come back from 3:0 in '42, I plan to
    watch Boston come back from 3:0 in 04"
  49. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:03:02 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips JAD <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:
    >> Then I gave you some knowledge about why I'm a little stuck
    >> with it, and you attack my disability
    >
    > It appears your physical disability has affected your emotions
    > and mental processes. It compounds the tragedy, but you might
    > be able to find some help in support groups. Otherwise, you just
    > make your difficult life still moreso by aggression/alienation.

    Physical disability? The only evidence I see of a disability is that
    he's in serious need of a check-up from the neck up. What a maroon.

    If he is physically disabled (I missed it), what's it got to do with
    ..chips, other than looking for sympathy or an excuse?

    --
    Keith
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware Memory