"TLB parity error in virtual array; TLB error 'instruction"?

Ant wrote in part:
So far, nothing interesting in my logs or any crashes. Just a very slow
Debian/Linux! Also, the HDD light was very busy. And top shows swap
usage. I checked iotop and saw:

$ iotop

Total DISK READ: 3.02 M/s | Total DISK WRITE: 1259.75 K/s
TID PRIO USER DISK READ DISK WRITE SWAPIN IO COMMAND

31 be/4 root 0.00 B/s 0.00 B/s 0.00 % 99.99 % [kswapd0]
1045 be/4 root 0.00 B/s 38.17 K/s 0.00 % 46.36 % [kjournald]
1465 be/4 ant 690.95 K/s 76.35 K/s 50.71 % 4.72 % ruby
./launch_here.rb -b
1844 be/7 ant 580.25 K/s 0.00 B/s 99.99 % 0.00 % ./burnMMX P
1859 be/7 ant 255.77 K/s 0.00 B/s 92.82 % 0.00 % ./burnMMX P
1860 be/7 ant 209.96 K/s 0.00 B/s 99.99 % 0.00 % ./burnMMX P
1874 be/7 ant 427.55 K/s 0.00 B/s 63.77 % 0.00 % ./burnMMX P
1875 be/7 ant 244.31 K/s 0.00 B/s 99.99 % 0.00 % ./burnMMX P
1880 be/7 ant 454.27 K/s 0.00 B/s 99.99 % 0.00 % ./burnMMX P
1840 be/7 ant 263.40 K/s 0.00 B/s 99.99 % 0.00 % ./burnMMX P
1 be/4 root 0.00 B/s 0.00 B/s 0.00 % 0.00 % init [2]
2 be/4 root 0.00 B/s 0.00 B/s 0.00 % 0.00 % [kthreadd]
3 rt/4 root 0.00 B/s 0.00 B/s 0.00 % 0.00 % [migration/0]
4 be/4 root 0.00 B/s 0.00 B/s 0.00 % 0.00 % [ksoftirqd/0]
5 rt/4 root 0.00 B/s 0.00 B/s 0.00 % 0.00 % [watchdog/0]
6 rt/4 root 0.00 B/s 0.00 B/s 0.00 % 0.00 % [migration/1]
7 be/4 root 0.00 B/s 0.00 B/s 0.00 % 0.00 % [ksoftirqd/1]
8 rt/4 root 0.00 B/s 0.00 B/s 0.00 % 0.00 % [watchdog/1]
...

Are you sure it is not supposed to use swap? I am not even running X.
Do I need to run this overnight or something?


You have less free RAM than I expected. 7 of the 40 burnMMX are
hitting swap (which should be avoided). Run only 32. A small swapout
at startup is OK, but thrashing (as above) is not and only reduces
severity. Better to run one burnMMX too light than one too many.


-- Robert

Ant wrote in part:
$ top
top - 07:35:06 up 1 day, 23:52, 1 user, load average: 42.33, 37.41, 20.82
Tasks: 188 total, 37 running, 151 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
...

Do I need to run this overnight or something?

Looking at your process list more closely, I notice big gaps in
the PIDs. Either you have very active daemons, or you tried to
start burnMMX and they quickly abended (very, very bad sign).
Please run under `time` so you can spot these quick terminations.

Running overnight would give you some assurance, since I
have seen rare errors (2-3/day) produce unstable systems.


-- Robert

On 3/10/2010 12:37 PM PT, Robert Redelmeier typed:

wrote in part:
$ top
top - 07:35:06 up 1 day, 23:52, 1 user, load average: 42.33, 37.41, 20.82
Tasks: 188 total, 37 running, 151 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
...

Do I need to run this overnight or something?

Looking at your process list more closely, I notice big gaps in
the PIDs. Either you have very active daemons, or you tried to
start burnMMX and they quickly abended (very, very bad sign).
Please run under `time` so you can spot these quick terminations.

Running overnight would give you some assurance, since I
have seen rare errors (2-3/day) produce unstable systems.

I made a text file with 40 of these lines:
time nice -19 ./burnMMX P &

And then ran it.

Here's with seven of them after about three minutes:
Tasks: 122 total, 8 running, 114 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu0 : 0.1%us, 0.1%sy, 0.5%ni, 98.4%id, 0.9%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
0.0%st
Cpu1 : 0.1%us, 0.0%sy, 0.5%ni, 99.3%id, 0.1%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
0.0%st
Mem: 2595064k total, 1174968k used, 1420096k free, 123336k buffers
Swap: 2361512k total, 0k used, 2361512k free, 453880k cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND

5914 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 51 2.5 0:47.73 burnMMX

5908 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 35 2.5 0:47.66 burnMMX

5917 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 27 2.5 0:45.95 burnMMX

5916 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 23 2.5 0:48.26 burnMMX

5913 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 20 2.5 0:46.34 burnMMX

5919 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 20 2.5 0:49.24 burnMMX

5918 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 16 2.5 0:47.99 burnMMX

5929 ant 40 0 2460 1076 804 R 4 0.0 0:00.02 top

4174 ant 40 0 57972 43m 4700 S 2 1.7 0:22.89
launch_here.rb
1 root 40 0 2036 704 604 S 0 0.0 0:00.97 init

2 root 40 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 kthreadd

3 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00
migration/0
4 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00
ksoftirqd/0
5 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 watchdog/0

6 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00
migration/1
7 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.01
ksoftirqd/1
8 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 watchdog/1

9 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 events/0

10 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 events/1

11 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 cpuset

12 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 khelper

13 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 netns

14 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 async/mgr
--
"Now I have you where I want you... where is my jar of Bull ants?" --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil./Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: NT
( ) or
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

On 3/10/2010 12:19 PM PT, Robert Redelmeier typed:

You have less free RAM than I expected. 7 of the 40 burnMMX are
hitting swap (which should be avoided). Run only 32. A small swapout
at startup is OK, but thrashing (as above) is not and only reduces
severity. Better to run one burnMMX too light than one too many.

Yeah. 2.5 GB of RAM. I used to have three (512 MB), but it came out bad
memtest86+ v4.00 when I tested it last month. I thought that was the
problem, but I still have kernel panics.

I will keep it running all day. I might need to kill them if I need to
use the box at full speed. I did have another kernel after midnight
while idling.

I started the test at about 8:57 AM PST. After about ten minutes, I saw:

$ sensors -f
acpitz-virtual-0
Adapter: Virtual device
temp1: +71.2°F (crit = +206.2°F)

k8temp-pci-00c3
Adapter: PCI adapter
Core0 Temp: +122.0°F
Core1 Temp: +95.0°F


$ top - 09:07:52 up 8:40, 1 user, load average: 6.99, 6.16, 3.49
Tasks: 122 total, 8 running, 114 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu0 : 0.0%us, 0.2%sy, 74.9%ni, 24.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
0.0%st
Cpu1 : 0.0%us, 0.2%sy, 74.8%ni, 25.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
0.0%st
Mem: 2595064k total, 1178604k used, 1416460k free, 124472k buffers
Swap: 2361512k total, 0k used, 2361512k free, 455528k cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND

5919 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 39 2.5 3:08.23 burnMMX

5908 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 37 2.5 3:01.57 burnMMX

5913 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 26 2.5 3:00.80 burnMMX

5917 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 26 2.5 2:59.61 burnMMX

5916 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 25 2.5 3:06.34 burnMMX

5914 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 24 2.5 3:02.03 burnMMX

5918 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 23 2.5 3:07.14 burnMMX

4174 ant 40 0 60260 44m 4700 S 0 1.8 0:26.20
launch_here.rb
1 root 40 0 2036 704 604 S 0 0.0 0:00.97 init

2 root 40 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 kthreadd

3 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00
migration/0
4 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00
ksoftirqd/0
5 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 watchdog/0

6 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00
migration/1
7 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.01
ksoftirqd/1
8 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 watchdog/1

9 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 events/0

10 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 events/1

11 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 cpuset

12 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 khelper

13 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 netns

14 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 async/mgr

15 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 pm
....

I will follow-up later. BTW, how long should I run these nonstop? All day?
--
"Where there is sugar, there are bound to be ants." --Malay Proverb
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil./Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: NT
( ) or
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

Ant wrote in part:
$ top - 09:07:52 up 8:40, 1 user, load average: 6.99, 6.16, 3.49
Tasks: 122 total, 8 running, 114 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu0 : 0.0%us, 0.2%sy, 74.9%ni, 24.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
Cpu1 : 0.0%us, 0.2%sy, 74.8%ni, 25.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
Mem: 2595064k total, 1178604k used, 1416460k free, 124472k buffers
Swap: 2361512k total, 0k used, 2361512k free, 455528k cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5919 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 39 2.5 3:08.23 burnMMX
5908 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 37 2.5 3:01.57 burnMMX
5913 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 26 2.5 3:00.80 burnMMX
5917 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 26 2.5 2:59.61 burnMMX
5916 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 25 2.5 3:06.34 burnMMX
5914 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 24 2.5 3:02.03 burnMMX
5918 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 23 2.5 3:07.14 burnMMX


You started _40_ and only _7_ are left running? Bad news.
What happened to PIDs 5909-12, 5915, 5920-47 ? The seven
running might be mapped to non-defective areas/TLB.

They might have abended when the memory the kernel mapped
either produced a segfault, TLB fault, or memory error.
Each burnMMX has its' own pages and mmap and stomps them all.

I will follow-up later. BTW, how long should I run these nonstop? All day?

As long as you can. Min 2h . But if you are getting early
abends, then you have just confirmed a hardware problem.

To get exit status, you could try
nice -19 ./burnMMX | echo $? &

burnMMX typically exits 127 when it encounters a memory error.
It could do this withing the first second if there is a problem
with memory mapping (hardware does not obey kernel instructions).


-- Robert

$ top - 09:07:52 up 8:40, 1 user, load average: 6.99, 6.16, 3.49
Tasks: 122 total, 8 running, 114 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu0 : 0.0%us, 0.2%sy, 74.9%ni, 24.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
Cpu1 : 0.0%us, 0.2%sy, 74.8%ni, 25.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
Mem: 2595064k total, 1178604k used, 1416460k free, 124472k buffers
Swap: 2361512k total, 0k used, 2361512k free, 455528k cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5919 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 39 2.5 3:08.23 burnMMX
5908 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 37 2.5 3:01.57 burnMMX
5913 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 26 2.5 3:00.80 burnMMX
5917 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 26 2.5 2:59.61 burnMMX
5916 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 25 2.5 3:06.34 burnMMX
5914 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 24 2.5 3:02.03 burnMMX
5918 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 23 2.5 3:07.14 burnMMX


You started _40_ and only _7_ are left running? Bad news.

No, you told me to do seven instead of 40. I think I had all 40 when I aborted yesterday.


I will follow-up later. BTW, how long should I run these nonstop? All day?

As long as you can. Min 2h . But if you are getting early
abends, then you have just confirmed a hardware problem.

Still running seven and not hogging my HDD like yesterday's 40:

Tasks: 129 total, 8 running, 121 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu0 : 0.0%us, 0.5%sy, 74.6%ni, 24.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Cpu1 : 0.0%us, 1.0%sy, 74.2%ni, 24.8%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 2595064k total, 1352692k used, 1242372k free, 144940k buffers
Swap: 2361512k total, 0k used, 2361512k free, 536844k cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5914 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 33 2.5 46:37.13 burnMMX
5908 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 33 2.5 46:18.56 burnMMX
5917 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 30 2.5 46:32.14 burnMMX
5916 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 27 2.5 46:27.77 burnMMX
5918 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 27 2.5 46:39.00 burnMMX
5919 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 24 2.5 46:21.80 burnMMX
5913 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 24 2.5 46:38.61 burnMMX
4174 ant 40 0 61304 44m 4700 S 1 1.8 1:22.50 launch_here.rb
6152 ant 40 0 2464 1172 888 R 1 0.0 0:00.03 top
2532 root 40 0 2704 924 792 S 0 0.0 0:00.17 syslogd
3211 root 40 0 3392 1116 972 S 0 0.0 0:02.03 hald-addon-stor
1 root 40 0 2036 704 604 S 0 0.0 0:00.97 init
2 root 40 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 kthreadd
....

Nothing unusual in my dmesg. So far, so good.


To get exit status, you could try
nice -19 ./burnMMX | echo $? &

burnMMX typically exits 127 when it encounters a memory error.
It could do this withing the first second if there is a problem
with memory mapping (hardware does not obey kernel instructions).

Ah, I will try that if I need to run it. I am not aborting the seven
processes now.
--
"We are anthill men upon an anthill world." --Ray Bradbury
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phillip (Ant) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Please remove ANT if replying by e-mail.
( )

$ top
top - 07:35:06 up 1 day, 23:52, 1 user, load average: 42.33, 37.41, 20.82
Tasks: 188 total, 37 running, 151 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
...

Do I need to run this overnight or something?

Looking at your process list more closely, I notice big gaps in
the PIDs. Either you have very active daemons, or you tried to
start burnMMX and they quickly abended (very, very bad sign).
Please run under `time` so you can spot these quick terminations.

Running overnight would give you some assurance, since I
have seen rare errors (2-3/day) produce unstable systems.

So far no errors (no TLB errors and crashes within eight hours. I will
keep it running for another 3-4 hours and then I am going to killall
those processes so I can use the machine.

It seems like the issue only comes up if my box is not idled? What the
frak?
--
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phillip (Ant) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Please remove ANT if replying by e-mail.
( )

wrote in part:
No, you told me to do seven instead of 40. I think I had all 40 when I aborted yesterday.

No, I believe I told you to run 7 _less_ , so 33 iso 40.
This still does not explain the odd PID numbering unless
you are slow on the kbd or have very active daemons.

Ah, I will try that if I need to run it. I am not aborting
the seven processes now.

Fine. Nothing stops you from launching another 26 . You want
to use as much RAM as possible without thrashing. More TLB
reloads with more tag patterns.


-- Robert

No, you told me to do seven instead of 40. I think I had all 40 when I aborted yesterday.

No, I believe I told you to run 7 _less_ , so 33 iso 40.

Aww crap. You're right. I misread that and I just woke up that time. I
will have to run them again tomorrow! Funny, you said do seven less
and 32 (wrong math). LOL!


This still does not explain the odd PID numbering unless
you are slow on the kbd or have very active daemons.

Nope, I ran a test script that had all those "time nice -19 ./burnMMX P
&" lines.


Ah, I will try that if I need to run it. I am not aborting
the seven processes now.

Fine. Nothing stops you from launching another 26 . You want
to use as much RAM as possible without thrashing. More TLB
reloads with more tag patterns.

OK, I just stopped my seven processes earlier so I can use it and no
machine check errors in logs and crashes after about 12.25 hours
nonstop. SO weird!

I am going to try to run memtest86+ v4.00's test #9 during my sleep. And
then try 33 burnMMX processes tomorrow while working.
--
"We are anthill men upon an anthill world." --Ray Bradbury
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phillip (Ant) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Please remove ANT if replying by e-mail.
( )

On 3/11/2010 9:40 PM PT, typed:

This still does not explain the odd PID numbering unless
you are slow on the kbd or have very active daemons.

Nope, I ran a test script that had all those "time nice -19 ./burnMMX P
&" lines.

... OK, I just stopped my seven processes earlier so I can use it and no
machine check errors in logs and crashes after about 12.25 hours
nonstop. SO weird!

I am going to try to run memtest86+ v4.00's test #9 during my sleep. And
then try 33 burnMMX processes tomorrow while working.

Memtest86+ v4.00's test #9 passed after 3.25 hours. I am not sure if I
need to run more of it. I will wait for more replies about in my
http://forum.canardpc.com/showthread.php?p=3021104 forum thread.

I just started 33 "time nice -19 ./burnMMX P &" processes from an
executable script text file in bash. After a few minutes, its top showed
(note that I just booted it up and not running X):

$ top
top - 06:08:53 up 23 min, 1 user, load average: 33.05, 28.65, 15.85
Tasks: 173 total, 34 running, 139 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu0 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 75.1%ni, 24.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
0.0%st
Cpu1 : 0.7%us, 0.3%sy, 99.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
0.0%st
Mem: 2595064k total, 2520296k used, 74768k free, 39504k buffers
Swap: 2361512k total, 2376k used, 2359136k free, 196776k cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND

4189 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 15 2.5 0:37.57 burnMMX

4170 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 12 2.5 0:38.69 burnMMX

4151 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 9 2.5 0:38.01 burnMMX

4145 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 8 2.5 0:38.04 burnMMX

4148 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 8 2.5 0:38.09 burnMMX

4164 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 8 2.5 0:36.95 burnMMX

4192 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 8 2.5 0:36.19 burnMMX

4135 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 7 2.5 0:36.08 burnMMX

4150 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 7 2.5 0:34.74 burnMMX

4167 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 7 2.5 0:36.15 burnMMX

4169 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 7 2.5 0:39.14 burnMMX

4193 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 7 2.5 0:35.66 burnMMX

4153 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 6 2.5 0:37.67 burnMMX

4163 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 6 2.5 0:33.46 burnMMX

4186 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 6 2.5 0:35.52 burnMMX

4190 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 6 2.5 0:33.59 burnMMX

4149 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 6 2.5 0:36.19 burnMMX

4165 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 6 2.5 0:35.24 burnMMX

4171 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 6 2.5 0:38.67 burnMMX

4191 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 6 2.5 0:36.90 burnMMX

4194 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 6 2.5 0:38.18 burnMMX

4168 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 5 2.5 0:37.40 burnMMX

4152 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 4 2.5 0:35.72 burnMMX

4195 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 4 2.5 0:34.68 burnMMX

4198 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 4 2.5 0:36.17 burnMMX

4162 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 4 2.5 0:37.35 burnMMX

4187 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 4 2.5 0:36.55 burnMMX

4196 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 4 2.5 0:37.77 burnMMX

4142 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 3 2.5 0:37.45 burnMMX

4188 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 3 2.5 0:35.61 burnMMX

4197 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 3 2.5 0:37.66 burnMMX

4139 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 3 2.5 0:35.24 burnMMX

4166 ant 39 19 65632 64m 4 R 3 2.5 0:34.89 burnMMX

4249 ant 40 0 2464 1204 888 R 1 0.0 0:00.04 top

2876 ant 40 0 58428 43m 4692 S 0 1.7 0:11.61
launch_here.rb
1 root 40 0 2036 640 604 S 0 0.0 0:00.81 init

2 root 40 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 kthreadd

3 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00
migration/0
4 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00
ksoftirqd/0
5 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 watchdog/0

6 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00
migration/1
7 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00
ksoftirqd/1
8 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 watchdog/1

9 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 events/0
....

$ sensors -f
acpitz-virtual-0
Adapter: Virtual device
temp1: +71.2°F (crit = +206.2°F)

k8temp-pci-00c3
Adapter: PCI adapter
Core0 Temp: +125.6°F
Core1 Temp: +100.4°F

I am planning to leave them running for about 15 hours straight until I
need to use the box locally again tonight. I am curious if I will get no
errors and crashes like yesterday's seven processes test.
--
"We are anthill men upon an anthill world." --Ray Bradbury
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil./Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: NT
( ) or
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.