Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:48:36 -0700
From:      "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com>
To:        "Bsd Newbie" <bsdneophyte@yahoo.com>, <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   RE: overclocking and FreeBSD stablity...
Message-ID:  <010301c132a9$be1518c0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20010901044138.13952.qmail@web20107.mail.yahoo.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
>[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Bsd Newbie
>Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 9:42 PM
>To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
>Subject: RE: overclocking and FreeBSD stablity...
>
>
>
>--- Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>>
>> My $0.02 is that the base of the troubles is the machine code that the
>> compiler produces.  I suspect that when a CPU is overclocked that unless
>> the parts are good that the CPU is unable to execute SOME of it's
>> opcodes,
>> opcodes that produce certain electrical patterns inside of the CPU that
>> may ring and generate electrical wave colissions.  While I'm not an EE
>> I do know that lengths of traces and such inside of a CPU are held to
>> precise tolerances in order to deal with clock propagations and such.
>> It's
>> not just the cooling but when you overclock the CPU you can have signals
>> arriving at internal parts of the CPU earlier than the designer
>> intended.
>
>I installed the OS with the processor running on default settings.
>
>The Celeron 300a was processor that really introduced overclocking to the
>masses (relatively speaking)... it's a very stable processor at 450mhz.
>And the board i'm using, the Abit BX-6, was the board that most people
>used to overclock this processor because it was also super stable (read
>the reviews on www.anandtech.com).
>
>I've had no problem with this combo and Win98se, Win2k and Redhat... but
>i've had nothing but problems with Solaris.
>
>So much for my trial with Solaris... I think Solaris is best suited for a
>Sparc platform... and not an x86 system.
>

No - Solaris is best suited for a SERVER hardware platform.  It is extremely
intolerant of hardware that has the least little problem with it.

I've run Solaris on hardware from a clone 486/66 ISA box to a P3, and as long
as I selected hardware that was solid stone, it was fine.  But, attempt things
like running it on a 486DX100 plugged into an old 486 motherboard, or a junky
clone made out of unnamed Taiwanese components, and your asking for trouble.
Unfortunately, there's way too many people out there in businesses that insist
on using junky cheap clone hardware for their servers and just dealing with
the routine fits, starts, and reboots that Solaris x86 never was able to get
the kind of market share it needed.


Ted Mittelstaedt                                       tedm@toybox.placo.com
Author of:                           The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide
Book website:                          http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?010301c132a9$be1518c0$1401a8c0>