[SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

Ron · 2022-02-05 19:18:31

I've been getting a lot of browser crashes. Here's the details. I did not have this problem on Devuan 2, but I have it on Devuan 3, and now on Devuan 4 (this is all via Miyo) since day 1. It happens with both browsers I use. On Pale Moon, it mostly happens when I have a handful of yahoo news tabs opened; yahoo news stories usually have playing video. On Vivaldi, I get crashes when watching youtube videos. So I'm guessing it has something to do with videos being played, along with something that must have changed between Devuan 2 and 3/4. Below are my computer's specs. Any ideas what the problem is and if anything can be done about it?

System:
  Kernel: 5.10.0-11-amd64 x86_64 bits: 64 compiler: gcc v: 10.2.1
    Desktop: MATE 1.24.1 Distro: Devuan GNU/Linux 4 (chimaera)
Machine:
  Type: Desktop System: ASUS product: All Series v: N/A
    serial: <superuser required>
  Mobo: ASUSTeK model: H81M-C v: Rev X.0x serial: <superuser required>
    BIOS: American Megatrends v: 3602 date: 03/26/2018
CPU:
  Info: dual core model: Intel Pentium G3220 bits: 64 type: MCP arch: Haswell
    rev: 3 cache: L1: 128 KiB L2: 512 KiB L3: 3 MiB
  Speed (MHz): avg: 2993 min/max: 800/3000 cores: 1: 2993 2: 2993
    bogomips: 11972
  Flags: ht lm nx pae sse sse2 sse3 sse4_1 sse4_2 ssse3
Graphics:
  Device-1: Intel Xeon E3-1200 v3/4th Gen Core Processor Integrated Graphics
    vendor: ASUSTeK driver: i915 v: kernel bus-ID: 00:02.0
  Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.11 driver: loaded: modesetting
    unloaded: fbdev,vesa resolution: 1920x1080~60Hz
  OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Intel HD Graphics (HSW GT1) v: 4.5 Mesa 20.3.5
    direct render: Yes
Audio:
  Device-1: Intel 8 Series/C220 Series High Definition Audio vendor: ASUSTeK
    driver: snd_hda_intel v: kernel bus-ID: 00:1b.0
  Sound Server-1: ALSA v: k5.10.0-11-amd64 running: yes
  Sound Server-2: PulseAudio v: 14.2 running: yes
  Sound Server-3: PipeWire v: 0.3.19 running: no
Network:
  Device-1: Realtek RTL8111/8168/8411 PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet
    vendor: ASUSTeK H81M-C driver: r8169 v: kernel port: e000 bus-ID: 03:00.0
  IF: eth0 state: up speed: 1000 Mbps duplex: full mac: <filter>
Drives:
  Local Storage: total: 387.53 GiB used: 90.54 GiB (23.4%)
  ID-1: /dev/sda vendor: Crucial model: CT256MX100SSD1 size: 238.47 GiB
  ID-2: /dev/sdb vendor: Seagate model: ST3160815AS size: 149.05 GiB
Partition:
  ID-1: / size: 233.66 GiB used: 5.9 GiB (2.5%) fs: ext4 dev: /dev/sda5
Swap:
  ID-1: swap-1 type: file size: 256 MiB used: 0 KiB (0.0%) file: /swapfile
Sensors:
  System Temperatures: cpu: 29.8 C mobo: 27.8 C
  Fan Speeds (RPM): N/A
Info:
  Processes: 154 Uptime: 5h 24m Memory: 3.71 GiB used: 1.59 GiB (43.0%)
  Init: SysVinit runlevel: 2 Compilers: gcc: 10.2.1 Packages: 1597
  Shell: Bash v: 5.1.4 inxi: 3.3.12

Last edited by Ron (2022-02-18 03:07:39)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-02-06 11:55:29

Ron wrote:

Pale Moon[...]Vivaldi

So are those Steve Pusser's and Vivaldi's own .deb packages, respectively?

They both bundle their own libraries in flagrant violation of Debian policy[1] so I would advise trying a browser from the Devuan repositories instead. The firefox-esr package tends to stay up to date better than chromium so I would (and do) use that. Report back if that also crashes.

If an "official" browser remains stable then perhaps take your chances on the Pale Moon forums. If you do that then please share a link, I have some popcorn ready...

[1] Yes, I have read https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=23706 but it is my opinion that "Moonchild" and that fat **** Tobin don't have a ****ing clue what they're doing, especially in respect of Linux.

Ron · 2022-02-06 14:11:43

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

So are those Steve Pusser's and Vivaldi's own .deb packages, respectively?
They both bundle their own libraries in flagrant violation of Debian policy[1] so I would advise trying a browser from the Devuan repositories instead. The firefox-esr package tends to stay up to date better than chromium so I would (and do) use that. Report back if that also crashes.
If an "official" browser remains stable then perhaps take your chances on the Pale Moon forums. If you do that then please share a link, I have some popcorn ready...

For Vivaldi, yes I use its own .deb packages, for Pale Moon I download the tarball direct off the Pale Moon's site, I don't use Steve's packages. I will download Chromium (I don't like FF lately) for testing purposes (only to test Youtube). Will report back here if I get crashes on it or not.

Note: installed Chromium as I was typing this. How to get a menu bar? I hate it already.

Last edited by Ron (2022-02-06 14:26:04)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-02-06 14:58:29

Try the three vertically-placed dots at the top-right, just underneath the window close button.

Ron · 2022-02-06 17:58:17

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

Try the three vertically-placed dots at the top-right, just underneath the window close button.

Looked all through there. It doesn't look like Chromium has an option for a menu bar, which doesn't surprise me.
Anyway, so far, no crashes on it; but haven't tested long enough yet to my satisfaction.

If the problem is indeed PM and Vivaldi are using their own libraries, then the first question that comes to my mind is then why didn't I experience so many crashes when I was running Devuan 2.1 (i.e., the Miyo version based on 2.1)?

Last edited by Ron (2022-02-06 17:59:18)

Ron · 2022-02-07 17:41:27

After playing a handful of youtube videos on Chromium it hasn't crashed at all yet, unlike Vivaldi where I'd get crashes on just about every other video (and sometimes multiple crashes on the same video). FTR, Chromium did crash on me once, but there were no videos playing at the time.

So, I'm guessing there really isn't anything that can be done about this? I'd really prefer using Vivaldi over Chromium for youtube watching.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-02-07 17:52:34

You could report the issue to the Vivaldi developers, perhaps they can do something about it.

The real problem here is that Google are now driving website development through their browser dominance. Classic EEE behaviour. That's why I use Firefox even though Mozilla make *terrible* management decisions — it's the only real alternative to a standards monopoly.

Ron · 2022-02-12 14:29:38

I was able to get a crash after opening Pale Moon in via the terminal. After the crash the terminal said Segmentation Fault. Question: would adding more RAM fix this, or is the problem deeper than merely adding RAM? I have 4gigs RAM.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-02-12 16:08:52

Can you share the full error?

4GiB is certainly enough for Firefox, even for my Arch box with 32GiB of RAM available:

737.1 MiB +   1.0 GiB =   1.7 GiB	firefox (15)

I think you'll have to tell the Pale Moon developers about their broken POS software

You can generate a stack trace for them by following https://wiki.debian.org/HowToGetABacktrace but I don't know about the relevant debug symbols. Ask on their forums.

Ron · 2022-02-12 17:45:54

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

Can you share the full error?

That's all the terminal said. Is there a log somewhere that has documented this?

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

You can generate a stack trace for them by following https://wiki.debian.org/HowToGetABacktrace but I don't know about the relevant debug symbols. Ask on their forums.

I see this link mentions gdb. In my searches about this problem I came across this app being recommended. Honestly though I'm getting tired of this issue.

I should add I also did a memory test (during which I had Pale Moon opened and during the test it crashed). Here's the results, and I have no idea what 137 means:

ron@ron:~$ sudo memtester 3700 5
[sudo] password for ron:
memtester version 4.5.0 (64-bit)
Copyright (C) 2001-2020 Charles Cazabon.
Licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2 (only).

pagesize is 4096
pagesizemask is 0xfffffffffffff000
want 3700MB (3879731200 bytes)
got  3700MB (3879731200 bytes), trying mlock ...Killed
ron@ron:~$ echo $?
137

Last edited by Ron (2022-02-12 17:49:10)

andyprough · 2022-02-12 19:39:43

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

I think you'll have to tell the Pale Moon developers about their broken POS software

We've been discussing it with Ron on the palemoon forum. The rest of us who use that "broken POS software" don't seem to have the same problem. But, if Ron is able to provide enough information and wants to persist in finding a solution, we'll probably get there eventually.

You'll be relieved to hear that "that fat **** Tobin" is gone from the forum by the way. His millions of adoring fans are in mourning.

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

So are those Steve Pusser's and Vivaldi's own .deb packages, respectively?
They both bundle their own libraries in flagrant violation of Debian policy[1] so I would advise trying a browser from the Devuan repositories instead.

This is a good point. I hadn't mentioned it to Ron, but on 64-bit systems I use the official LInux tar-ball from the palemoon website instead of Steve Pusser's .deb package: http://linux.palemoon.org/download/mainline/

For 32-bit, there's no tarball so I do use Steve's .deb.

I was not aware that Steve may be bundling libraries in a manner that violates The Debian Way(TM). I'm surprised he hasn't been summarily executed for his capital offense. If Ron is using the .deb packages, he may want to try switching to the tarball from the website. Instructions are all there for getting it "installed" [linking the binary] and getting it to update itself: http://linux.palemoon.org/help/installation/

If I recall from past usage, if you switch back and forth between the tarball binary and the .deb package, you get to keep your profile and your extensions and bookmarks and so forth. So it's a pretty easy thing to try switching. It runs quite well for me, especially the most recent version which seems to have quite a few performance enhancements.

Ron · 2022-02-12 20:06:58

andyprough wrote:

If Ron is using the .deb packages, he may want to try switching to the tarball from the website.

I was using the tarball, and a few days ago switched to Steve's .deb. It doesn't appear to make a difference. I'm beginning to wonder if I have bad RAM, but I'm not knowledgeable of myself to know whether that's the case or not.

andyprough wrote:

You'll be relieved to hear that "that fat **** Tobin" is gone from the forum by the way. His millions of adoring fans are in mourning.

Actually, that's not true. While his last post was Dec 22, he was in fact active on the forum just today.

And at risk of repeating myself, here's the results of a memory test I did, and of which I don't know how to decipher:

ron@ron:~$ sudo memtester 3700 5
[sudo] password for ron:
memtester version 4.5.0 (64-bit)
Copyright (C) 2001-2020 Charles Cazabon.
Licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2 (only).

pagesize is 4096
pagesizemask is 0xfffffffffffff000
want 3700MB (3879731200 bytes)
got  3700MB (3879731200 bytes), trying mlock ...Killed
ron@ron:~$ echo $?
137

Last edited by Ron (2022-02-12 20:09:00)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-02-12 20:22:58

Ron wrote:

ron@ron:~$ echo $?
137

Do you actually have 3700MB? The kernel & video card will allocate some of your 4GB to themselves so check free to see how much is left. Anyway I don't think this is a memory shortage issue.

andyprough wrote:

I was not aware that Steve may be bundling libraries in a manner that violates The Debian Way

He has to do that because the Pale Moon licence doesn't allow otherwise. If Pale Moon were to be packaged using system libraries it would have to be de-branded and re-named.

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2022-02-12 20:23:28)

Ron · 2022-02-12 22:02:18

Is the below correct? From what I've read it should return "0" but I got a "1".

ron@ron:~$ sudo memtester free 5
[sudo] password for ron: 
memtester version 4.5.0 (64-bit)
Copyright (C) 2001-2020 Charles Cazabon.
Licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2 (only).

pagesize is 4096
pagesizemask is 0xfffffffffffff000

Usage: memtester [-p physaddrbase [-d device]] <mem>[B|K|M|G] [loops]
ron@ron:~$ echo $?
1

andyprough · 2022-02-12 23:13:25

Ron wrote:

Is the below correct? From what I've read it should return "0" but I got a "1".
ron@ron:~$ sudo memtester free 5

No, your memtester command is not correct.

First, run the "free" command to see how much memory you have free:

free

It will give you a number under the "available" column of something like 3376352.

If that were your "available" number, then you would run memtester like so:

sudo memtester 3376 5

or with a number a bit less than 3376.

The reason why your earlier memtester command of 'sudo memtester 3700 5' was killed was because you had less than 3.7G of "available" memory. You want to make sure that you don't ask memtester to test more memory than you currently have "available" according to the 'free' command.

Ron · 2022-02-12 23:32:13

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. There are a lot of failures. Are they meaningless, or are they a problem?

ron@ron:~$ sudo memtester 1800 5
memtester version 4.5.0 (64-bit)
Copyright (C) 2001-2020 Charles Cazabon.
Licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2 (only).

pagesize is 4096
pagesizemask is 0xfffffffffffff000
want 1800MB (1887436800 bytes)
got  1800MB (1887436800 bytes), trying mlock ...locked.
Loop 1/5:
  Stuck Address       : testing   2FAILURE: possible bad address line at offset 0x3601ff60.
Skipping to next test...
  Random Value        : ok
  Compare XOR         : ok
FAILURE: 0x81e016f420806686 != 0x81e016f420846686 at offset 0x00ac6f50.
  Compare SUB         :   Compare MUL         : ok
  Compare DIV         : ok
  Compare OR          : ok
  Compare AND         : ok
  Sequential Increment: ok
  Solid Bits          : testing   8FAILURE: 0x00000000 != 0x00040000 at offset 0x027e6b28.
FAILURE: 0x00000000 != 0x00040000 at offset 0x14cdcb28.
  Block Sequential    : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00000000 != 0x00040000 at offset 0x2527eb28.
FAILURE: 0x00040000 != 0x00000000 at offset 0x351a9b38.
  Checkerboard        : testing   4FAILURE: 0x5555555555555555 != 0x5555555555515555 at offset 0x168f27e0.
  Bit Spread          : testing 111FAILURE: 0xfffffffffffaffff != 0xfffffffffffeffff at offset 0x027e6b28.
  Bit Flip            : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00040001 != 0x00000001 at offset 0x351a9b38.
  Walking Ones        : ok         
  Walking Zeroes      : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00040001 != 0x00000001 at offset 0x351a9b38.
  8-bit Writes        : ok
  16-bit Writes       : ok

Loop 2/5:
  Stuck Address       : testing   0FAILURE: possible bad address line at offset 0x67b5fb38.
Skipping to next test...
  Random Value        : ok
  Compare XOR         : ok
FAILURE: 0x210a71e31169926a != 0x210a71e3116d926a at offset 0x024f8b28.
FAILURE: 0x210a71e31169926a != 0x210a71e3116d926a at offset 0x0e7d4b28.
  Compare SUB         :   Compare MUL         : ok
  Compare DIV         : ok
  Compare OR          : ok
  Compare AND         : ok
  Sequential Increment: ok
  Solid Bits          : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00000000 != 0x00040000 at offset 0x027e6b28.
FAILURE: 0x00000000 != 0x00040000 at offset 0x027fab28.
  Block Sequential    : testing  16FAILURE: 0x1010101010101010 != 0x1010101010141010 at offset 0x00ac6b28.
  Checkerboard        : testing  17FAILURE: 0xaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa != 0xaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaa at offset 0x020b6f50.
  Bit Spread          : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00000005 != 0x00040005 at offset 0x0eabcf50.
FAILURE: 0x00000005 != 0x00040005 at offset 0x2f660f50.
  Bit Flip            : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00000001 != 0x00040001 at offset 0x12856b28.
  Walking Ones        : testing 109FAILURE: 0xfffffffffffbffff != 0xffffffffffffffff at offset 0x14cdcb28.
  Walking Zeroes      : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00000001 != 0x00040001 at offset 0x0eabcb28.
FAILURE: 0x00000001 != 0x00040001 at offset 0x2f642f50.
  8-bit Writes        : ok
  16-bit Writes       : ok

Loop 3/5:
  Stuck Address       : testing   0FAILURE: possible bad address line at offset 0x3abe5b38.
Skipping to next test...
  Random Value        : ok
FAILURE: 0x849452d58100b80b != 0x849452d58104b80b at offset 0x027e6b28.
  Compare XOR         : FAILURE: 0xe030724480962f6d != 0xe030724480922f6d at offset 0x323bfb38.
  Compare SUB         :   Compare MUL         : ok
FAILURE: 0x00000001 != 0x00040001 at offset 0x027e6b28.
  Compare DIV         :   Compare OR          : ok
  Compare AND         : ok
  Sequential Increment: ok
  Solid Bits          : testing   1FAILURE: 0x00000000 != 0x00040000 at offset 0x2f660f50.
  Block Sequential    : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00000000 != 0x00040000 at offset 0x027e6b28.
FAILURE: 0x00000000 != 0x00040000 at offset 0x073d6b28.
FAILURE: 0x00000000 != 0x00040000 at offset 0x2f67eb28.
  Checkerboard        : testing   4FAILURE: 0x5555555555555555 != 0x5555555555515555 at offset 0x12856820.
  Bit Spread          : testing  19FAILURE: 0x00280000 != 0x002c0000 at offset 0x2d2f8f50.
  Bit Flip            : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00000001 != 0x00040001 at offset 0x0e7d4b28.
  Walking Ones        : ok         
  Walking Zeroes      : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00000001 != 0x00040001 at offset 0x0e814f50.
  8-bit Writes        : ok
  16-bit Writes       : ok

Loop 4/5:
  Stuck Address       : testing   0FAILURE: possible bad address line at offset 0x32509f60.
Skipping to next test...
  Random Value        : ok
  Compare XOR         : ok
FAILURE: 0x58011009044c94b4 != 0x58011009044894b4 at offset 0x351a9b38.
  Compare SUB         : FAILURE: 0xf81ce9a8d028b00f != 0xf81ce9a8d02cb00f at offset 0x12856f50.
FAILURE: 0xf81ce9a8d028b00f != 0xf81ce9a8d02cb00f at offset 0x2f67eb28.
  Compare MUL         :   Compare DIV         : ok
  Compare OR          : ok
  Compare AND         : ok
FAILURE: 0xcefd860afce107b3 != 0xcefd860afce507b3 at offset 0x0d134b28.
FAILURE: 0xcefd860afdd85838 != 0xcefd860afddc5838 at offset 0x14cdcf50.
  Sequential Increment:   Solid Bits          : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00000000 != 0x00040000 at offset 0x0d0f6b28.
FAILURE: 0x00040000 != 0x00000000 at offset 0x351a9b38.
  Block Sequential    : testing   8FAILURE: 0x808080808080808 != 0x8080808080c0808 at offset 0x0e814b28.
  Checkerboard        : testing   4FAILURE: 0x5555555555555555 != 0x5555555555515555 at offset 0x027e6820.
  Bit Spread          : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00000005 != 0x00040005 at offset 0x14cdcf50.
  Bit Flip            : testing   7FAILURE: 0x00040001 != 0x00000001 at offset 0x32661f60.
  Walking Ones        : ok         
  Walking Zeroes      : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00040001 != 0x00000001 at offset 0x351a9b38.
  8-bit Writes        : ok
  16-bit Writes       : -FAILURE: 0x768fbe9efbf3a928 != 0x768fbe9efbf7a928 at offset 0x0eabcf50.

Loop 5/5:
  Stuck Address       : testing   0FAILURE: possible bad address line at offset 0x3abe5b38.
Skipping to next test...
  Random Value        : ok
FAILURE: 0xaa4c2f2dd8405405 != 0xaa4c2f2dd8445405 at offset 0x23486f50.
  Compare XOR         :   Compare SUB         : ok
  Compare MUL         : ok
  Compare DIV         : ok
  Compare OR          : ok
  Compare AND         : ok
FAILURE: 0xdaa76f56fa99a191 != 0xdaa76f56fa9da191 at offset 0x14cdcb28.
  Sequential Increment:   Solid Bits          : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00000000 != 0x00040000 at offset 0x12856b28.
  Block Sequential    : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00000000 != 0x00040000 at offset 0x00ac6b28.
FAILURE: 0x00000000 != 0x00040000 at offset 0x027e6b28.
FAILURE: 0x00000000 != 0x00040000 at offset 0x14cdcb28.
FAILURE: 0x00040000 != 0x00000000 at offset 0x352a9b38.
  Checkerboard        : testing   4FAILURE: 0xaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa != 0xaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaa at offset 0x027e6b28.
  Bit Spread          : testing   0FAILURE: 0x00000005 != 0x00040005 at offset 0x0eabcf50.
FAILURE: 0x00000005 != 0x00040005 at offset 0x1528cf50.
  Bit Flip            : testing   2FAILURE: 0x00000001 != 0x00040001 at offset 0x12856b28.
  Walking Ones        : ok         
  Walking Zeroes      : ok         
  8-bit Writes        : ok
  16-bit Writes       : ok

Done.
ron@ron:~$ echo $?
6

Last edited by Ron (2022-02-12 23:32:48)

andyprough · 2022-02-12 23:39:19

Ron wrote:

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. There are a lot of failures. Are they meaningless, or are they a problem?

I'm not sure, I'm no expert with memtester. I ran it on my machine today to get a better idea of how it works, and I did not get errors.

Hopefully HOAS will pop back into the discussion and give you some advice.

In the meantime, if you have 2 removable sticks of ram, you might want to power off and remove one and run memtester on the other one, then switch them, testing each stick by itself. That's what we used to do to find a bad stick. Remember to run 'free' first each time to get that "available" number.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-02-13 10:48:53

Probably better to use memtest86 and/or memtest86+ instead because it doesn't rely on the operating system API and it tests all of the memory rather than just that available in user space.

Ron wrote:

why didn't I experience so many crashes when I was running Devuan 2.1

I'm just guessing here but as Pale Moon is based on a very old version of Firefox code rot might be a factor.

It is important to remember that FF & Chrome are developed by very large teams with massive experience and huge funding whereas Pale Moon is the work of a few developers and seems to be a hobby project rather than a professional operation.

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2022-02-13 11:00:00)

andyprough · 2022-02-13 14:10:33

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

Ron wrote:
why didn't I experience so many crashes when I was running Devuan 2.1
I'm just guessing here but as Pale Moon is based on a very old version of Firefox code rot might be a factor.
It is important to remember that FF & Chrome are developed by very large teams with massive experience and huge funding whereas Pale Moon is the work of a few developers and seems to be a hobby project rather than a professional operation.

Ahh, good stuff HOAS, the old "intelligent code rot" problem that smartly skips alternating generations of the underlying distro, and the "only two angry men ever look at the code" argument. You are only missing the "Moonchild is a sellout to the evil DuckDuckGo corporation" to hit the daily trifecta.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-02-13 14:36:48

Does Pale Moon really only have two developers? That's even worse than I thought...

Ron · 2022-02-13 19:11:50

So I installed memtest86+ and ran it. How long is it supposed to run? I cut it off after 2 hours and 46 minutes. I took three pics as it ran, one at 40 minutes, the second at 65 minutes, and the last at 2 hours and 46 minutes. Here they are. It doesn't look good, but I don't know how to decipher what it means:

andyprough · 2022-02-13 20:00:16

Ron wrote:

So I installed memtest86+ and ran it. How long is it supposed to run? I cut it off after 2 hours and 46 minutes. I took three pics as it ran, one at 40 minutes, the second at 65 minutes, and the last at 2 hours and 46 minutes. Here they are. It doesn't look good, but I don't know how to decipher what it means

You've got a lot of errors. In the first picture, you have 8,192 errors, 2nd picture 12,288, and 3rd picture you have 30,464. You can see the # of errors count on the far right side of the display, kind of in the lower part of the blue box on top. You did 4 passes (when running memtest86+ just run it for one full pass and then hit the Escape key to exit), so you were averaging about 7,000-8,000 errors per pass.

Did you determine if you have 1 or 2 removable sticks of memory? As I said before, if you have 2 removable sticks, you could test each stick one at a time by itself and determine if you only need to replace one of them.

On the positive side, you have a nice CPU and your temperatures were looking good, so if you get some new ram you should notice a nice overall improvement.

Last edited by andyprough (2022-02-13 20:02:43)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2022-02-13 20:45:09

Ouch. Perhaps I was wrong about that broken POS software...

Ron · 2022-02-13 21:49:26

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

Ouch. Perhaps I was wrong about that broken POS software...

So the RAM is bad and needs replacing, I presume. I'll see if I can get it done tomorrow. One question, how come the bad RAM is only affecting the browsers and nothing else?

xinomilo · 2022-02-14 07:01:16

browser is really heavy on ram.. if you try some other ram-hungry app you'll probably notice segfaults there too.

The officially official Devuan Forum!

#1 2022-02-05 19:18:31

[SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#2 2022-02-06 11:55:29

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#3 2022-02-06 14:11:43

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#4 2022-02-06 14:58:29

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#5 2022-02-06 17:58:17

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#6 2022-02-07 17:41:27

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#7 2022-02-07 17:52:34

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#8 2022-02-12 14:29:38

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#9 2022-02-12 16:08:52

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#10 2022-02-12 17:45:54

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#11 2022-02-12 19:39:43

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#12 2022-02-12 20:06:58

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#13 2022-02-12 20:22:58

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#14 2022-02-12 22:02:18

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#15 2022-02-12 23:13:25

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#16 2022-02-12 23:32:13

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#17 2022-02-12 23:39:19

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#18 2022-02-13 10:48:53

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#19 2022-02-13 14:10:33

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#20 2022-02-13 14:36:48

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#21 2022-02-13 19:11:50

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#22 2022-02-13 20:00:16

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#23 2022-02-13 20:45:09

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#24 2022-02-13 21:49:26

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

#25 2022-02-14 07:01:16

Re: [SOLVED-BAD RAM] Browser crashes on Devuan 3 and 4,...

Board footer