On Sunday 23 Mar 2003 7:37 pm, Jack Coates wrote: > On Sun, 2003-03-23 at 11:21, Anne Wilson wrote: > > On Sunday 23 Mar 2003 7:14 pm, Jack Coates wrote: > > > On Sun, 2003-03-23 at 11:02, Gonzalo Avaria wrote: > > > > > > Mar 23 11:01:19 felix sensord: SYS Temp: 37.1 C (limit = 80.5 C, > > > hysteresis = > > > 69.8 C) > > > Mar 23 11:01:19 felix sensord: CPU Temp: 34.9 C (limit = 59.9 C, > > > hysteresis = > > > 55.1 C) > > > > This intrigued me. Many years ago, when fdds and hdds were much less > > reliable, I was recommended to test for hysteresis, which was defined to > > me as even-ness of spin, lack of wobble, I guess. I was told that the > > most common cause of fdds failing to read previously written files was > > that hysteresis had slipped. Now here we are, with the same word in a > > very different context! > > > > Anne > > Sounds like a humorous use of the word in disk context :-) Looks like > there is good grounding for it though: > http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/sethna/hysteresis/WhatIsHysteresis.html > That's an interesting article. I think the definition given to me was 'loose' to say the least. There was a kit sold that had a special 5 1/4" disk and a special 3 1/2" disk which was used to measure 'hysteresis'. Basically, if it said you were out of alignment it was as well to ditch the fdd asap.
> In the lm_sensors context, I think the intent is more closely linked to > hysteria, as it is the threshold at which alarm warnings start. LOL Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
