From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:16:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:16:38 -0500 Received: from smtprelay.abs.adelphia.net ([64.8.20.11]:29910 "EHLO smtprelay1.abs.adelphia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:16:25 -0500 Message-ID: <3A7847B1.C8ABDDE1@adelphia.net> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:13:21 -0500 From: Stephen Wille Padnos X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76C-SGI [en] (X11; U; IRIX64 6.5 IP28) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Byron Stanoszek CC: "David D.W. Downey" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: VIA VT82C686X In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Byron Stanoszek wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, David D.W. Downey wrote: > > > I removed the ide and ata setting. System is running stably as in no > > kernel crashes, but I am getting daemon and shell crashes. With this > > current kernel I've had 1 kernel crash in about 3 hours as compared to 1 > > every 10 or 15 minutes. Crash, reboot, 10 minutes or so crash, reboot. ect > > ect. > > > > I'm wanting to test something else out. I'm wondering if there isn't some > > hardware issue with the RAM. This particular board will do 1GB of PC133, > > or 2.5GB of PC100. I'm wondering if there isn't something wrong with how > > it reads the speed and the appropriate limitation. It's running stably if > > I only run 768MB of PC133 RAM. But if I run a solid 1GB of PC133 I get > > segfaults and sig11 crashes constantly. All the RAM has been > > professionally tested and certified. > > That definitely sounds like a RAM problem. The system should perform the same > independent of how many RAM chips you put in there (segfault-wise). If you're > still in doubt, you can try booting up with memtest86 and run it for several > hours with only the memory chip that you think might be causing the problem. > Even though the motherboard *should* perform the same regardless of the amount of RAM, it may not. Physically, the refresh needs higher current drive when there are more modules. I have seen a BIOS option to set the DRAM refresh current (RAS, CAS settable to 10 or 16 mA each), but that was only on one motherboard that I can remember - you might want to check for this. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/