Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 17:40:22 -0400 From: "Andrew C. Hornback" <achornback@worldnet.att.net> To: "Bsd Newbie" <bsdneophyte@yahoo.com>, <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: overclocking and FreeBSD stablity... Message-ID: <006101c1332e$b43a0ce0$0e00000a@tomcat> 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: Saturday, September 01, 2001 12:42 AM > 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. Hmm... personally speaking, I think it's the overclocking. That and the aBit motherboard (I've had relatively bad experiences with every aBit MB I've gotten between my grubby little paws). Just because you and 10, 20, 50, 100 other people have had good experiences with the hardware doesn't override the fact that I've had bad experiences with it. And you're welcome to view it from you point of view as well. But, on another note, slamming Solaris on the x86 platform. *shakes his head* Realize that the Department of Defense is one of the major consumers of Solaris on that platform. Now, while I know that everything goes to the lowest bidder as far as contracts go with the DoD, if it didn't work and work well, they wouldn't be using it. To sum up, overclocking is bad... Solaris is picky about hardware at times (less so than RedHat and FreeBSD as I've seen demonstrated in my own lab) and Solaris is better suited to hardware that doesn't require overclocking for decent performance... --- Andy 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?006101c1332e$b43a0ce0$0e00000a>