From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263717AbTDTVp4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:45:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263718AbTDTVp4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:45:56 -0400 Received: from matrix01.home.net.pl ([212.85.112.31]:32523 "HELO matrix01.home.net.pl") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S263717AbTDTVpz (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:45:55 -0400 Message-ID: <3EA317F6.2000504@post.pl> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 23:58:14 +0200 From: "Leonard Milcin, Jr" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030327 Debian/1.3-4 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Satchell CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: (OT) md5sum proving to be an EXCELLENT memory test References: <6uwuhpl2u5.fsf@zork.zork.net> <6uwuhpl2u5.fsf@zork.zork.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030420132915.01d28c40@fluent2.pyramid.net> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030420132915.01d28c40@fluent2.pyramid.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Stephen Satchell wrote: > (...) > as perfect.) Perform md5sum on the files on the server and save the > results, and the signatures would be different from run to run on the > same files. > > Incompatible RAM. > (...) I had the same situation with some cheap mobo (ECS K7S5A+) of friend of mine. You don't need to check md5sums. Why is MD5 better than any other method? I just simply found, that when I copy file A to B, and then A to C, it is possible that B and C differs. Most of the time with one byte. The advice is to use some good memory test suite from time to time - it will do better its job than you just checking signatures on large files. Regards, Leonard