Headers problems

Tijnema tijnema at gmail.com
Sat Jun 9 11:46:24 PDT 2007


On 6/9/07, Wit <WitlessIdiot at triad.rr.com> wrote:
> Tijnema wrote:
> > On 6/8/07, Ken Moffat <ken at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:46:11AM +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> >>
> >>>>  <snip>
>
> >>> ... I'm only at a good old single core AMD
> >>> Athlon XP system, which is clocked down to 1.15Ghz with 512MB SD
> >>>
> Having followed the complete thread, I thought I would throw this in.
>
> First, feeling the CPU by hand (how when the HSF is on top?) is not a
> really reliable thing. At the time you are feeling it, it could have
> cooled *substantiall* from the point at which heat was driven too high
> by heavy load.

Yes, it is definitely not a way to be sure it's cool or not, but it
atleast indicates an approximate value.
>
> I suggest doing your kernel with CONFIG_ACPI=y and CONFIG_ACPI_THERMAL=y
> if you mobo support acpi. Then you can cat
> /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/THRM/temperature
> in a loop to get a more accurate reading.
I've compiled kernel (2.6.17.11) with both options, and my motherboard
does support ACPI, (I can see in dmesg log too), but the folder
/proc/acpi/thermal_zone is empty for me.
>
> Have you ever upgraded your BIOS? Often a BIOS upgrade fixes some boot
> issues related to modern OSs.
>
> Have tried booting with acpi-off or noapic? This might let you boot at
> full speed. However, if you have cooling issues at the reduced clocking,
> I would expect them to be exacerbated at the higher clocking.
>
> PS may be undersized. I had a SIS-based mobo that ran fine with a 300
> wat PS, but the EPOX I tried (VIA chipset) would not work with that.
> User's manual warned that 300 was minimum, 350 recommended. Since it was
> reasonably loaded, I threw in a 575 watt and problem disappeared.
>
> This *should* be most noticable at boot time. That's when the drives are
> spinning up, etc. Since it booted at reduced clocking (indicating the
> power requirements are reduced), this seems a possibility. One way might
> be to boot at full clocking, it freezes (or whatever) and then hit the
> reset button. Or hit reset before that. Since HDs will be up to full
> speed, maybe load is reduced enough to run full speed for a short while.
>
> Another test: remove everything you can and see if boot succeeds at full
> clocking. Then add items back in, one at time. The power requirements
> listed on various devices may let you calculate the maximum load with
> doing all this remove/re-insert.

Are you sure you read the whole thread? I said that when I set my CPU
speed to the original speed, the whole PC wouldn't start, nor the fans
started spinning...
I tried to boot the PC with only CPU+Motherboard+RAM+PS, but even then
the fans didn't start to spin.
>
> Have you checked that all memory, PCI cards, power connectors are
> well-seated?
Yes, I've 2x256MB RAM, and i tried to boot with only 1, or the other,
no luck. I tried removing all PCI/AGP cards, no luck either. And yes,
the power connectors are fine.
>
> Have you tried hooking "high-load" items (like disks) on different
> "legs" of the PS? Have you looked at the PS label to see what the limits
> are for 12/5 and that-other-thing-I-can never-remember-what-its-called?
> That other thing is often very undersized relative to the total PS capacity.
>
> Does your BIOS have settings to delay spin-up of the HDs to reduce peak
> load?

When downclocked, booting isn't a problem. It's just in a regular
environment. Normal clocked won't even get to spin up hard drives...
I've 300W Qtec PSU, I know it isn't that good, but it worked before
with that PSU, so I don't see any reason it's too weak, and btw, I
tried without hard drives, and that didn't work too.
>
> >>> <snip>
>
> > I hate old versions :P I want to keep my system up to date, so when I
> > want to install a small app, i don't need to reinstall my complete
> > system because glibc is outdated :P
> >
>
> Keep in mind that glibc provides the ABI between kernel and outside. You
> only don't have a new feature if the kernel/userspace change requires a
> new ABI definition to support the feature. This is a relatively seldom
> occurrence. As pointed out elsewhere, the glibc must remain the one with
> which the system is built to avoid breaking everything that depends on
> the ABI. Of course, a point release may be save, but one would need to
> watch the glibc lists and comprehend the nature of the changes to make
> an informed decision as to the safety of the upgrade.
>
> That's more effort/knowledge required than most of us would find
> worthwhile (IMO) for the very small gains.

I still don't really get the point with new versions, do they really break BC?
I don't think they break BC for 2.3->2.6, So, what's the problem then?
Glibc is loaded statically, so that means it doesn't make sense which
version is loaded, as long as they contain the same functions (with
same syntax), right?
>
> > <snip the stuff about resets: addressed above>
> >
>
> >> ... which regularly reports temperatures around 48°C even on
> >> a cool day).
>
> # cat /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/THRM/temperature
> temperature: 36 C
>
> But this is on an AMD PR2200+ with a nice little Zallman FHS setup. On
> my 3200+ with just a standard HSF rated for the CPU, I get 40 C. Both of
> these are very lightly loaded units in a room temperature of about 75 F.
> The slow one has the covers on, the other has covers off right now.
>
> If it is heat, try running with covers on for awhile.

I've built my own case, it's more like a wooden block :P No covers or
such, but I can get front and back off it, both are bigger than a
regular cover :P
>
> Reinforcing what was said by another, I stress that the heat sink *must*
> have sufficient colling area and the fan must move enough air.

I think it does, but...
>
> Keep in mind about your CPU speed rating: these are determined not by
> how fast the CPU can go, but haw fast it can go and still dissipate heat
> sufficiently fast enough to not overheat. As the units are tested, the
> expected capacity of the HSF combination is taken into consideration and
> the CPU is then rated for the speed at which it can run and remain cool
> enough to be reliable.
>
> Also, use a quality thermal paste. Quicksilver or equivalent. Must have
> even application with just enough to fill the micropeaks and valleys.
>
> >> <snip>
>
> HTH
> --
> Wit


Thermal paste must be dryed out, but that doesn't mean it should reset
automatically...
I remember the time when I bought this motherboard, it was a quite
useless motherboard because there are quite a lot condensators very
close to the CPU cooling block, which makes it very hard to place the
CPU cooling block. When it's on, it actually pushes to the
condensators next to it. really worse situation, but it's te only way
i can get the cooling block on. Also, the cooling block is not
symetric, it makes sense how it's placed (differs ~ 20 degrees C),
I've took the block off a few times, so I might turned it back on last
time, but when the cooling block is on, I can actually touch the CPU
itself a little bit, and it doesn't feel too hot...

Tijnema



More information about the lfs-support mailing list