Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:10:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:10:22 -0500 Received: from spike2.i405.net ([63.229.23.90]:44293 "EHLO spike2.i405.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:10:07 -0500 Message-ID: <0066CB04D783714B88D83397CCBCA0CD49AF@spike2.i405.net> From: "Stephen Gutknecht (linux-kernel)" To: "'David Lang'" , David Riley Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Better testing of hardware (was: Defective Read Hat) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 13:39:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Part of the issue is that there exists no "easy to use" standardized test software. Full 32-bit concurrent use of many devices can reveal problems that users do not often see in normal applications. One major hardware review site found stability problems with the Intel Pentium 3 1130Mhz processor that ultimately lead to Intel delaying the release -- it passed all tests but not a compile of the Linux Kernel! This was on more than 3 different processors. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q3/0008281/pentiumiii-04.html A Linux Kernel compile test does a really good job of testing the hard disk, RAM, and CPU... as it executes all types of instructions and the final output depends on all prior steps completing correctly. On a really fast system (> 900Mhz) might make sense to run it twice, once to "warm up" the CPU and other components. Most "benchmarks" just test speed, not the actual stability or data integrity (they write results to a device but don't check for data corruption, or they test only one device at a time, not all at once). What a Linux kernel compile DOESN'T test is the network interfaces and video cards. Yes, there are "stand alone" test programs -- but something that uses the actual OS interfaces and drivers (like a kernel compile) is the best way! I think the Linux Community could really jump over Microsoft who suffers from the same problem. Many OS-reported problems stem from hardware that is marginal (especially CPU, RAM, and PCI/AGP bus)... works at most level, but thrown in some heavy tasks... and odd software faults show up. A very simple but well designed test program run for 15 minutes would detect such problems. It is just foolish that Microsoft hasn't delivered this... as it has to cost them 100x more to deal with it as a support problem! You will find that most Overlockers run their favorite game in a loop for 10 or 20 minutes as the best test they have found. This often does Video+Ram+CPU+Sound board (PCI) at full tilt. What is needed is a _standardized test_ that really goes after everything (including network). What "system test" programs exist for Linux today? Any active projects? Just image a good "consumer distro" that has this as part of the setup! I come from an OS/2, WinNT, Win2K background... believe me, the problem has been here in the "PC platform" all along... and every OS vendor (and even application vendor) pays for this oversight. Linux really could take the lead! Before every kernel problem report, require "supertest" to be run for 10 minutes. Stephen Gutknecht -----Original Message----- From: David Lang [mailto:david.lang@digitalinsight.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:05 PM To: David Riley Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Defective Red Hat Distribution poorly represents Linux David, usually when it turns out that Linux finds hardware problems the underlying cause is that linux makes more effective use of the component, and as such something that was marginal under windows fails under linux as the correct timing is used. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/