In alt.lang.asm 599863331 599863331 <599863331@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in part:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:19:11 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>> I would like to have a memory test which tests each memory cell by
cell.
> You truly are a ****wit. Such a test is practically useless.
You must need the ad-hominem because you have no better argument.
Memory testing is _extremely_ im****tant in the [homebuilt]
PC world where ECC is only rarely used. If you look at the
server world, memory failures (presumably indicated by ECC
logs) are surprisingly common, just after hard disks and PSUs.
There are uncountable variations in components: memory
modules, motherboards, power supplies that can impact memory
reliability. Sure the modules are tested by special-purpose
intense machines. But that is no assurance of system performance.
I have seen errors in the 1 per two hour range. These are would
usually get blamed on the OS.
If they are working responsibly, the first tier PC mfrs (Dell,
HPaq, ...) should be exhaustively testing their base model
designs and some sampling of line production. Then they rely
on statistics for quality assurance of their production runs.
Unit testing let alone burn-in costs too much time [money].
In addition to the usual advantages of customizability and
often lower cost, a user-built PC can be more _RELIABLE_ than
name-brand if the builder pays attention to all the hidden
factors like case airflow, grounding, cable routing, etc.
The testing [burn-in] makes the difference -- instead of
statistical reliability, you get actual component testing
with the actual capacitors, traces, etc.
Put it this way: when I buy a name-brand, the first thing
I do is test it.
-- Robert
|
