John Reinke wrote: > > Well, I ran the memtest86 program on my computer, and it looks like I have > some bad memory. My question is: Is it normal (safe) to have one error on a > stick of RAM?
it's not normal but it is safe. you will have to do some modificaitons to the configuration of the system, i do remember seeing something on the linux-kernel mailing list about mods to the kernel(i think) that allowed systems to run with bad memory, the system just did not use those memory addresses. this was a bitch to track down but here's the website for the project - http://home.zonnet.nl/vanrein/badram/ Objective of the project My objective is to patch the Linux kernel in such a way that it can handle defective RAM modules. With defective RAM, I mean RAM which has some bits wrong at some (known) addresses. Normally, such RAM is considered useless and thrown away; the larger RAMs get, the higher the chances of failing addresses. With ever growing RAM sizes, it would therefore be pleasant to have an alternative to discarding of defective RAM chips. > only the 64 now, and I'll try to recreate the situation where Netscape > crashes the entire box this weekend. Hopefully, I won't have to replace the > 64. least now you know its a hardware problem :) linux is good like that..i like it's ability to be able to find questionable hardware rather quickly, once replaced the systems usually run better then ever. hth nate -- ::: ICQ: 75132336 http://www.aphroland.org/ http://www.linuxpowered.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
