Hey all,
I discovered today that there's a new replacement for memtest86+ that appears to even have UEFI support called PCMemTest[0].
The main reason I call out to this is because we don't have a memory tester offering in our UEFI boot variant for the Fedora live media, and this is actively maintained (unlike memtest86+, which we currently use...).
Mageia is shipping this starting with Mageia 8[1], and we should consider shipping this with Fedora 34.
[0]: https://github.com/martinwhitaker/pcmemtest [1]: https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Mageia_8_Release_Notes#PCMemTest
-- 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
On 2/7/21 10:07 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
Hey all,
I discovered today that there's a new replacement for memtest86+ that appears to even have UEFI support called PCMemTest[0].
It can only be an alternative, not a replacement, since it is dropping features:
«In particular, no attempt is made to measure the cache and main memory speed, or to identify and report the DRAM type.»
Regards.
On Sunday, February 7, 2021, Roberto Ragusa mail@robertoragusa.it wrote:
On 2/7/21 10:07 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
Hey all,
I discovered today that there's a new replacement for memtest86+ that appears to even have UEFI support called PCMemTest[0].
It can only be an alternative, not a replacement, since it is dropping features:
«In particular, no attempt is made to measure the cache and main memory speed, or to identify and report the DRAM type.»
Which is nice to have but not really the point of a memory tester ...
Regards.
Roberto Ragusa mail at robertoragusa.it _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org /en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.or g/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 2/7/21 12:16 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Sunday, February 7, 2021, Roberto Ragusa <mail@robertoragusa.it mailto:mail@robertoragusa.it> wrote:
It can only be an alternative, not a replacement, since it is dropping features: «In particular, no attempt is made to measure the cache and main memory speed, or to identify and report the DRAM type.»
Which is nice to have but not really the point of a memory tester ...
I'm pointing out that memtest86+ is not just a memory tester. Is there any other tool covering that functionality?
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 at 09:41, Roberto Ragusa mail@robertoragusa.it wrote:
On 2/7/21 12:16 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Sunday, February 7, 2021, Roberto Ragusa <mail@robertoragusa.it
mailto:mail@robertoragusa.it> wrote:
It can only be an alternative, not a replacement, since it is
dropping features:
«In particular, no attempt is made to measure the cache and main
memory speed,
or to identify and report the DRAM type.»
Which is nice to have but not really the point of a memory tester ...
I'm pointing out that memtest86+ is not just a memory tester. Is there any other tool covering that functionality?
Probably not because for more and more modern hardware it gets harder and harder to get that information. Heck even 'testing' memory is hard enough these days because a lot of hardware is built around covering up any problem with the hardware because it is expected to fail and the hardware itself will see that, mark it bad and set something else up as good.
On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 11:03:38AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 at 09:41, Roberto Ragusa mail@robertoragusa.it wrote:
On 2/7/21 12:16 PM, drago01 wrote:
It can only be an alternative, not a replacement, since it is
dropping features:
«In particular, no attempt is made to measure the cache and main
memory speed,
or to identify and report the DRAM type.»
Which is nice to have but not really the point of a memory tester ...
I'm pointing out that memtest86+ is not just a memory tester. Is there any other tool covering that functionality?
Memory type and speed information is available through dmi. In systemd we recently merged a patch [1] to make this information available to unprivileged users, so that gnome can display it in a pretty way:
$ udevadm info /sys/class/dmi/id/ P: /devices/virtual/dmi/id ... E: MODALIAS=dmi:bvnLENOVO:bvrN1FET68W(1.42):bd03/13/2019... ... E: MEMORY_ARRAY_LOCATION=System Board Or Motherboard E: MEMORY_ARRAY_NUM_DEVICES=2 ... E: MEMORY_DEVICE_0_SIZE=4294967296 E: MEMORY_DEVICE_0_FORM_FACTOR=Chip E: MEMORY_DEVICE_0_TYPE=LPDDR3 E: MEMORY_DEVICE_0_SPEED_MTS=1867 E: MEMORY_DEVICE_0_MANUFACTURER=Samsung E: MEMORY_DEVICE_0_PART_NUMBER=K4E6E304EE-EGCF ... E: MEMORY_DEVICE_1_SIZE=4294967296 E: MEMORY_DEVICE_1_FORM_FACTOR=SODIMM E: MEMORY_DEVICE_1_LOCATOR=ChannelB E: MEMORY_DEVICE_1_BANK_LOCATOR=BANK 2 E: MEMORY_DEVICE_1_TYPE=LPDDR3 ...
[1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/17837
This is just repeated from what the firmware gives us, not measured, but might be good enough.
Zbyszek
«In particular, no attempt is made to measure the cache and main memory speed, or to identify and report the DRAM type.»
Which is nice to have but not really the point of a memory tester ...
When the tester reports errors then it is handy to know as much as possible about where the errors lie, including the manufacturer and part number if an error can be isolated to an address range. For a system which added memory in mid-life using a different brand of RAM, it is helpful to confirm the brand which is failing. /usr/sbin/dmidecode reports what it knows, but that requires cross-referencing etc.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:08 AM Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
Hey all,
I discovered today that there's a new replacement for memtest86+ that appears to even have UEFI support called PCMemTest[0].
The main reason I call out to this is because we don't have a memory tester offering in our UEFI boot variant for the Fedora live media, and this is actively maintained (unlike memtest86+, which we currently use...).
Mageia is shipping this starting with Mageia 8[1], and we should consider shipping this with Fedora 34.
* A listed limitation: "When booted on a UEFI system, keyboard input will only be seen if the CSM is enabled in the BIOS. Without this, the test will run, but you will be unable to alter the configuration."
- How does a CSM provide keyboard input to an EFI application? Or does this mean with CSM enabled, we'd use the BIOS version of the memory tester; and with CSM disabled, we'd use the UEFI version of the memory tester?
- As far as I'm aware, enabling CSM requires disabling UEFI Secure Boot.
* Any UEFI memory tester needs to be signed with Fedora's signing key, same as grubx64.efi so that it works with UEFI Secure boot enabled.
Being devils advocate, but should we have the memtest86 or similar by default? I have certainly not used this feature in my 10+ yeas with Fedora.
Vít
Dne 07. 02. 21 v 10:07 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
Hey all,
I discovered today that there's a new replacement for memtest86+ that appears to even have UEFI support called PCMemTest[0].
The main reason I call out to this is because we don't have a memory tester offering in our UEFI boot variant for the Fedora live media, and this is actively maintained (unlike memtest86+, which we currently use...).
Mageia is shipping this starting with Mageia 8[1], and we should consider shipping this with Fedora 34.
-- 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:46 AM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Being devils advocate, but should we have the memtest86 or similar by default? I have certainly not used this feature in my 10+ yeas with Fedora.
You mean get rid of it (from media and installations)? Because we install it unconditionally already, even though it's a BIOS only utility and there isn't a boot entry for it in the bootloader.
It's a bit obscure how to use it, given there's no menu entry for it.
On 2/8/21 2:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:46 AM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Being devils advocate, but should we have the memtest86 or similar by default? I have certainly not used this feature in my 10+ yeas with Fedora.
You mean get rid of it (from media and installations)? Because we install it unconditionally already, even though it's a BIOS only utility and there isn't a boot entry for it in the bootloader.
It's a bit obscure how to use it, given there's no menu entry for it.
There's also the fact it doesn't seem to work real well with modern hardware[0][1].
[0] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815742 [1] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869211
Dne 08. 02. 21 v 21:44 Chris Murphy napsal(a):
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:46 AM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Being devils advocate, but should we have the memtest86 or similar by default? I have certainly not used this feature in my 10+ yeas with Fedora.
You mean get rid of it (from media and installations)?
Yes, that is my proposal.
Because we install it unconditionally already, even though it's a BIOS only utility and there isn't a boot entry for it in the bootloader.
It's a bit obscure how to use it, given there's no menu entry for it.
Ah, good to know that I have it on my system. I'm going to remove it right now.
I don't think this is utility, which is targets typical Fedora user. Here is PR proposing the removal:
https://pagure.io/fedora-kickstarts/pull-request/754
Vít
On 2/9/21 10:53 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 08. 02. 21 v 21:44 Chris Murphy napsal(a):
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:46 AM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Being devils advocate, but should we have the memtest86 or similar by default? I have certainly not used this feature in my 10+ yeas with Fedora.
You mean get rid of it (from media and installations)?
Yes, that is my proposal.
Because we install it unconditionally already, even though it's a BIOS only utility and there isn't a boot entry for it in the bootloader.
It's a bit obscure how to use it, given there's no menu entry for it.
Ah, good to know that I have it on my system. I'm going to remove it right now.
Enjoy the 357 KB space savings. :)
I don't think this is utility, which is targets typical Fedora user. Here is PR proposing the removal:
A memory testing utility is certainly something useful in ruling out hardware reasons for system crashes. Even Microsoft has included one in recent versions of Windows. Being BIOS only is a problem, yes, but that makes it even more useful to have on the installation media, because I can enable the legacy BIOS CSM and boot the installation DVD on my UEFI systems, while I can't really install it on my hard drive and enable it in the GRUB menu if I have an UEFI install. Now, I would need to use a different installation media to run this tool for the sake of reducing the >2GB installation image by several kilobytes. Doesn't sound like a great idea to me.
I agree it should not be installed by default on UEFI systems and I think it should probably have been enabled by default in the GRUB menu on BIOS systems. I also agree an alternative like PCMemTest is needed for UEFI systems, because not all systems have legacy BIOS CSMs.
Nikolay
On 2/8/21 10:46 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Being devils advocate, but should we have the memtest86 or similar by default? I have certainly not used this feature in my 10+ yeas with Fedora.
I've not used GNOME in my 18 years with Fedora (plus 5 pre-Fedora). Can we consider removing it?
Having memtest86 saved my life just a few months ago: random crashes, apparently caused by pressing in the middle of the keyboard.
It was able to demonstrate _live_ that the pressure was causing bit flips. Press, errors, don't press, no more errors (including appearance/disappearance of vertical bands in the display, because of integrated chipset, VRAM=RAM).
Opened the laptop, reseated two DIMMs, TESTED AGAIN, TESTED AGAIN, shaken the laptop, TESTED AGAIN, no problem anymore since then.
Regards.
Dne 09. 02. 21 v 10:08 Roberto Ragusa napsal(a):
On 2/8/21 10:46 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Being devils advocate, but should we have the memtest86 or similar by default? I have certainly not used this feature in my 10+ yeas with Fedora.
I've not used GNOME in my 18 years with Fedora (plus 5 pre-Fedora). Can we consider removing it?
Have you installed Gnome by default? You probably went with KDE spin or some other spins so Gnome was never part of your system.
Better example would be if you argued that KDE should be installed for every Gnome user even though they don't use it.
Vít
(Apologies if you are using some other desktop or if you are not using desktop at all. I just picked up KDE as the second most popular desktop choice).
Having memtest86 saved my life just a few months ago: random crashes, apparently caused by pressing in the middle of the keyboard.
It was able to demonstrate _live_ that the pressure was causing bit flips. Press, errors, don't press, no more errors (including appearance/disappearance of vertical bands in the display, because of integrated chipset, VRAM=RAM).
Opened the laptop, reseated two DIMMs, TESTED AGAIN, TESTED AGAIN, shaken the laptop, TESTED AGAIN, no problem anymore since then.
Regards.