Re: Impression of 2.2.14 vs. 2.2.15-pre

[Michael Loftis]

Last time my 486 had 'bad memory' it was actually an Ethernet card which 
had mapped it's buffers at D000 (32k or 64k worth) and I'd get wierd 
network errors and errors gunzipping and such ehehe :)

Anyway, something to check.  I had no idea that the thing was mapped and 
indeed it ran fine most of the time with it like this, just it seemed to 
show up onece in a while as corrupt .zip/.gz's or a compile that went 
wonky.

My $.02 worth.
--
Michael Loftis
ICQ: 15648280  AIM: DyJailBait
Funny quip of the moment just happens to be....
Linux is like a tent:
no gates, no windows, and an Apache inside!

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul <[e-mail]>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jan 2000 20:26:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Impression of 2.2.14 vs. 2.2.15-pre

> 	One other thing 2.2.15pre did was completely expose my bad 
memory:)
> Under 2.2.14, I had one suspicious compiler segfault in weeks up
> uptime
> and lots and lots of building. Right away on 2.2.15pre, I had a
> tarball
> untar with a character off by a bit, corrupt gcc tmp files, etc. I
> did
> some testing on my mem, and it is definitely flakey.... because of
> this, my testing was of limited duration...
>