Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are these addresses safe to be blocked?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are these addresses safe to be blocked?

    Summary
    Report Date 2021-08-27 10:03:52
    Generated by MemTest86 V9.2 Free (64-bit)
    Visit MemTest86.com to Upgrade to Pro
    Result FAIL
    System Information
    EFI Specifications 2.70
    System
    Manufacturer Micro-Star International Co., Ltd.
    Product Name MS-7B89
    Version 1.0
    Serial Number To be filled by O.E.M.
    BIOS
    Vendor American Megatrends International, LLC.
    Version 1.H3
    Release Date 04/20/2021
    Baseboard
    Manufacturer Micro-Star International Co., Ltd.
    Product Name B450M MORTAR (MS-7B89)
    Version 1.0
    Serial Number I816011555
    CPU Type AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Six-Core
    CPU Clock 3340 MHz [Turbo: 4150.4 MHz]
    # Logical Processors 12 (6 enabled for testing)
    L1 Cache 12 x 96K (73784 MB/s)
    L2 Cache 12 x 512K (53761 MB/s)
    L3 Cache 1 x 16384K (27608 MB/s)
    Memory 32710M (14761 MB/s)
    Number of RAM SPDs detected 4
    SPD #0 8GB DDR4 XMP PC4-25600
    G Skill Intl / F4-3200C16-8GTZR
    16-18-18-38 / 3200 MHz / 1.350V
    SPD #1 8GB DDR4 XMP PC4-25600
    G Skill Intl / F4-3200C16-8GTZR
    16-18-18-38 / 3200 MHz / 1.350V
    SPD #2 8GB DDR4 XMP PC4-25600
    G Skill Intl / F4-3200C16-8GTZR
    16-18-18-38 / 3200 MHz / 1.350V
    SPD #3 8GB DDR4 XMP PC4-25600
    G Skill Intl / F4-3200C16-8GTZR
    16-18-18-38 / 3200 MHz / 1.350V
    Number of RAM slots 4
    Number of RAM modules 4
    DIMM Slot #0 8GB DDR4 PC4-17000
    Unknown / F4-3200C16-8GTZR / 00000000
    2133 MHz
    DIMM Slot #1 8GB DDR4 PC4-17000
    Unknown / F4-3200C16-8GTZR / 00000000
    2133 MHz
    DIMM Slot #2 8GB DDR4 PC4-17000
    Unknown / F4-3200C16-8GTZR / 00000000
    2133 MHz
    DIMM Slot #3 8GB DDR4 PC4-17000
    Unknown / F4-3200C16-8GTZR / 00000000
    2133 MHz
    Result summary
    Test Start Time 2021-08-27 01:51:33
    Elapsed Time 7:28:52
    Memory Range Tested 0x0 - 840000000 (33792MB)
    CPU Selection Mode Parallel (All CPUs)
    CPU Temperature Min/Max/Ave 45C/63C/52C
    RAM Temperature Min/Max/Ave 41C/47C/44C
    # Tests Passed 45/48 (93%)
    Lowest Error Address 0x440371140 (17411MB)
    Highest Error Address 0x782F432C8 (30767MB)
    Bits in Error Mask 0000000000000680
    Bits in Error 3
    Max Contiguous Errors 1
    CPUs that detected memory errors { 2, 6, 10 }
    Bits in Error
    63 0
    Test # Tests Passed Errors
    Test 0 [Address test, walking ones, 1 CPU] 4/4 (100%) 0
    Test 1 [Address test, own address, 1 CPU] 4/4 (100%) 0
    Test 2 [Address test, own address] 4/4 (100%) 0
    Test 3 [Moving inversions, ones & zeroes] 4/4 (100%) 0
    Test 4 [Moving inversions, 8-bit pattern] 4/4 (100%) 0
    Test 5 [Moving inversions, random pattern] 4/4 (100%) 0
    Test 6 [Block move, 64-byte blocks] 4/4 (100%) 0
    Test 7 [Moving inversions, 32-bit pattern] 4/4 (100%) 0
    Test 8 [Random number sequence] 4/4 (100%) 0
    Test 9 [Modulo 20, ones & zeros] 1/4 (25%) 20
    Test 10 [Bit fade test, 2 patterns, 1 CPU] 4/4 (100%) 0
    Test 13 [Hammer test] 4/4 (100%) 0
    Last 10 Errors
    2021-08-27 08:17:28 - [Data Error] Test: 9, CPU: 6, Address: 782F432C8, Expected: 85BF5FA1, Actual: 85BF5F21
    2021-08-27 08:10:22 - [Data Error] Test: 9, CPU: 2, Address: 440371140, Expected: 9DC35EB8, Actual: 9DC35CB8
    2021-08-27 08:10:21 - [Data Error] Test: 9, CPU: 2, Address: 440374E10, Expected: 64E75EA6, Actual: 64E75CA6
    2021-08-27 08:10:20 - [Data Error] Test: 9, CPU: 2, Address: 440377B88, Expected: 64E75EA6, Actual: 64E75AA6
    2021-08-27 08:10:20 - [Data Error] Test: 9, CPU: 2, Address: 440371140, Expected: 64E75EA6, Actual: 64E75CA6
    2021-08-27 08:10:17 - [Data Error] Test: 9, CPU: 2, Address: 440374E10, Expected: 06446E31, Actual: 06446C31
    2021-08-27 08:10:17 - [Data Error] Test: 9, CPU: 2, Address: 440377B88, Expected: 06446E31, Actual: 06446A31
    2021-08-27 08:10:16 - [Data Error] Test: 9, CPU: 2, Address: 440371140, Expected: 06446E31, Actual: 06446C31
    2021-08-27 06:08:43 - [Data Error] Test: 9, CPU: 10, Address: 440377B88, Expected: E1719E24, Actual: E1719A24
    2021-08-27 06:08:43 - [Data Error] Test: 9, CPU: 10, Address: 440371140, Expected: E1719E24, Actual: E1719C24
    As the title says, is it safe to block this addresses from Windows 10? I'm assuming that as long as their blocked, Windows won't use these, is that correct?

  • #2
    Lowest Error Address 0x440371140 (17411MB)
    Highest Error Address 0x782F432C8 (30767MB)
    This is a huge range of addresses. Almost 50% of your RAM. So it doesn't make to block them all.
    Better to find the bad stick and replace it.

    See also
    https://www.memtest86.com/troubleshooting.htm

    Comment


    • #3
      I was actually thinking just blocking the actual addresses listed in the errors section. Is it not possible?

      Comment


      • #4
        Most RAM has a lifetime warranty. So it is basically free to replace once you are sure it is bad. And the above report shows pretty conclusively that it is bad.

        By default only the last 10 errors are listed in the MemTest86 report. So there might be other addresses. Also if it low quality RAM, it would not be surprising to find another group of bad addresses even if you block these.

        Details about black listing addresses can be found here
        https://www.memtest86.com/blacklist-...emorylist.html

        In Linux it is fairly straight forward. In Windows there are a bunch of quirks which make it hard.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'll have to resort to blocking the addresses for now. The shop where I bought the modules only offer 1-year shop warranty and they are not in the list of "authorized G.SKILL retailer or reseller" and doing an RMA would be more of a hassle than buying a new one. I might just buy a new one, but not really that urgent.

          One question though, I sort of removed the faulty modules but I forgot which module was from which slot. Will the addresses reported be the same if ever I returned them to the wrong slots compared when I did the test?

          Comment


          • #6
            I've decided to just run the tests again but just the test with the one with errors. So I'll get the address properly.

            Comment


            • #7
              Will the addresses reported be the same if ever I returned them to the wrong slots compared when I did the test?
              No. The addresses will change if the slot order was changed. Interleaving addresses in dual channel mode causes this.

              Comment


              • #8
                Figured, I just ran the test again and fortunately, I put them in the same slots.

                I've blocked the faulty addresses now and seems to be working fine so far.

                Comment

                Working...
                X