kparal at redhat.com
Fri Aug 13 08:07:33 UTC 2010
----- "He Rui" <rhe at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 04:42 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > ----- "He Rui" <rhe at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > I don't intend to cover all the memtest features, but think we
> > > at
> > > least check if there's a test result shown to reflect the test,
> > > that's
> > > the main goal to run a memtest.
> > >
> > Ok, I have waited for the whole test cycle to complete (10 minutes
> on my
> > machine). It really prints "Pass complete, no errors, press Esc to
> > message. But - there is no report per se, the counter is just
> > (Pass +1). And it doesn't mean your RAM is ok. I have used memtest
> > years and checked a lot of faulty hardware with it. From my
> > you need at least 2 hours of memtest checking to be quite reasonable
> > your RAM is ok. 4 - 8 hours are better. That's also the reason why
> > continues over and over again.
> > Also, if some error is found, you don't have to wait to the end of
> > test cycle. It is printed right away.
> > The message printed after one pass is complete is really not a test
> > It's just a message how to exit the test. The test results are
> > continuously - the screen is blue, you're good, the screen is red,
> > not good. The longer you wait (measured in hours) the more trust you
> > in your hardware. So maybe that's the main misconception between
> Yes. I thought whether the memory test was passed or not depended on
> report "Pass complete, no errors,..." and I never met any failed one.
> if the error is printed right away, then this result is not that
> important and running a few moments is reasonable. Thanks for
I'm glad we finally understand each other. I've updated the test case.
Feel free to improve at your will.
More information about the test