From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 27 16:14:18 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18D58E9C for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:14:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7FD01981 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:14:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YmlfQ-0000nX-Vl for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:13:57 +0200 Received: from pool-72-66-1-32.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([72.66.1.32]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:13:56 +0200 Received: from nightrecon by pool-72-66-1-32.washdc.fios.verizon.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:13:56 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Michael Powell Subject: Re: Debugging bad memory problems Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:13:41 -0400 Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <5480.69.209.235.143.1430078703.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> <5793.69.209.235.143.1430086547.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> <553D8452.9050601@gmail.com> Reply-To: nightrecon@hotmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-72-66-1-32.washdc.fios.verizon.net X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:14:18 -0000 jd1008 wrote: [snip] > One slight, and perhaps remote, possibility is that memory > is a hair slower than what the memory controller expects, > especially, as Valerie mentioned, under heavy memory load. > On systems where the cpu clocking is unlocked, one might > be able to slow down the cpu clock just slightly to see if the > problem is mitigated. Another consideration is the power supply. An aged power supply can be right on the raggedy edge ripple wise such that it seems OK when not under load. Place a load on it and the ripple shoots up. Easy to see with an oscilloscope. Not to mention the machine's behavior gets extremely erratic. If it works fine on a known good battery under battery only (pure DC), but flakes when plugged up to the AC mains... I only bring this up because I have chased my tail looking for memory problems when it turned out to be a power supply about to go south. I doubt this is his situation though. He's most likely right that it is memory. I just include this to get away from 'tunnel' vision. -Mike