Hmmm, hadn't thought of that either. There's four slots and two sticks.
So I could move the two sticks to the free slots. I'm running another
mprime test at the mo, so I'll give that a go later.
Thanks,
Leo
On 17/05/15 12:06, Neil Stone wrote:
> What happens if you swap the ram slots (assume you have more than one
> ram stick) ?
>
> On 17 May 2015 12:02, "Leo" <linux@???
> <mailto:linux@fractal.me.uk>> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately none of my computers share the same RAM type so I'd
> have to purchase some more for that. So I thought I'd give this
> memory mapping a go first.
>
> Leo
>
> On 17/05/15 11:41, Neil Stone wrote:
>
> Damnit hit send too soon.
>
> Try testing ram in another system is another, and very
> conclusive, test.
>
> Enjoy
>
> On 17 May 2015 11:38, "Leo" <linux@???
> <mailto:linux@fractal.me.uk>
> <mailto:linux@fractal.me.uk <mailto:linux@fractal.me.uk>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 14/05/15 09:40, Gordon Scott wrote:
>
> I'd go along with that.
>
> The ones that normally go are the electrolytic types ..
> aluminium cans
> with black(usually) printing. The electrolyte is a
> liquid and
> tends to
> dry out over a number of years use in a warm
> environment. Swelling,
> (usually of the flat top), discolouration, oozing
> electrolyte.
>
> The next most likely candidates are tantalum
> capacitors, which
> tend to
> be little black rectangular block. When they fail, they
> tend to
> blow a
> corner off of the moulding, or sometimes just a small
> hole/crater.
>
> Most of the rest will be ceramics, which are usually
> trouble-free.
>
> Gordon.
>
>
> So I've had a look at the capacitors, and I can't see any
> that look
> broken. I've also done some more investigation and found the
> following: if the computer locks up and I then run memtest
> on reboot
> it finds errors in the same memory locations each time.
> However if I
> reboot cleanly it doesn't find errors. The fact it finds
> them in the
> same locations would indicate to me that it's a memory problem.
> However, I also ran the mprime torture test, and that
> failed on both
> the memory intensive test, and the test that doesn't use much
> memory. Which would tend to indicate that it's not a memory
> problem.
>
> I'm now trying a kernel parameter that should stop it using the
> "bad" memory to see if that fixes it...
>
> Leo
>
> --
> Please post to: Hampshire@???
> <mailto:Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk>
> <mailto:Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk
> <mailto:Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk>>
> Web Interface:
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
> LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> --
> Please post to: Hampshire@???
> <mailto:Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk>
> Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
> LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
--
Please post to: Hampshire@???
Web Interface:
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL:
http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
