1 |
2007/6/28, Daniel Gryniewicz <dang@g.o>: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 12:16 +0200, Florian Philipp wrote: |
4 |
> > Am Donnerstag 28 Juni 2007 08:05 schrieb Hemmann, Volker Armin: |
5 |
> > > On Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2007, Fernando Boaglio wrote: |
6 |
> > > > Hi guys, |
7 |
> > > > |
8 |
> > > > I bought a new X2 4000 processor and I have 2 questions: |
9 |
> > > > |
10 |
> > > > -- can I use the same cooler (my processor uses the deprecated |
11 |
> Socket |
12 |
> > > > 939) ? |
13 |
> > > |
14 |
> > > no. Btw, the if you buy 'the real thing' the dual cores come with a |
15 |
> nice |
16 |
> > > self-regulating cooler. And this boxed cpus are not much more |
17 |
> expensive |
18 |
> > > than a single cpu. |
19 |
> > > |
20 |
> > > > -- should I change a lot of attributes in my kernel .config file? |
21 |
> > > |
22 |
> > > enable smp. The rest should be fine. You can but don't have to enable |
23 |
> > > multicore support. Don't enable numa. Have acpi enabled. |
24 |
> > |
25 |
> > Shouldn't he set the timer frequency to 250 or 300 as well? |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Not if it's going to be a desktop. Hires timers are not common in |
28 |
> x86_64 in the kernel yet (no tickless support) so for now 1000 is still |
29 |
> best for desktops. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> Daniel |
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
for what i know on dual core 1000 isn't suited cause it makes the system |
36 |
unstable.... the suggested is 100 or max 250 if you want a low latency |
37 |
desktop.... also, the 1000 on single core 64bit is very unsable and the |
38 |
processore state has a very great shift around.... i experimented that |
39 |
single core amd64 should have the best timer freq or 250 for a normal |
40 |
desktop and a dual core amd64 should have 100.... but anyone is free to try |
41 |
and use other freqs as they like most.... |
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
> gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
45 |
> |
46 |
> |
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
-- |
50 |
beso |
51 |
|
52 |
d-_-b |