From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:22:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:22:12 -0500 Received: from inti.inf.utfsm.cl ([200.1.21.155]:34258 "EHLO inti.inf.utfsm.cl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:22:11 -0500 Message-Id: <200303070041.h270efZH007209@eeyore.valparaiso.cl> To: Jonathan Lundell cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux vs Windows temperature anomaly In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:52:16 -0800." Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:40:40 -0300 From: Horst von Brand Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Lundell said: > We've been seeing a curious phenomenon on some PIII/ServerWorks > CNB30-LE systems. > > The systems fail at relatively low temperatures. While the failures > are not specifically memory related (ECC errors are never a factor), > we have a memory test that's pretty good at triggering them. Data is > apparently getting corrupted on the front-side bus. > > Here's the curious thing: when we run the same memory test on a > Windows 2000 system (same hardware; we just swap the disk), we can > run the ambient temperature up to 60C with no problem at all; the > test will run for days. (It occurred to us to try Win2K because the > hardware vendor was using it to test systems at temperature without > seeing problems.) > > Swap in the Linux disk, and at that temperature it'll barely run at > all. The memory test fails quickly at 40C ambient. Linux gives the hardware a _much_ harder workout than Windows. My first PC was a P/100, overclocked to /120. WinNT worked fine, Linux wouldn't even finish booting. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513