On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Dave Cinege wrote:
> "Robert G. Brown" wrote:
> >
> > If your system is unstable, then DON'T overclock it!
> >
> > ...and even if it is stable, DON'T overclock.
>
> Intel lacky go home...
Curiously, I actually AM home right now...;-)
I do fail to see why believing fairly passionately that overclocking is
a fairly stupid thing to do (certainly in a production environment)
makes me an Intel lackey. I appreciate your irritation at their yanking
the hardware "standards" world around just as dispassionately as MS
yanks around the software "standards" world to try to gain advantage
over their competitors. But overclocking is a different issue
altogether -- it has been discussed repeatedly on linux-smp and beowulf
lists and I'd say that the consensus of pros (people whose jobs and work
depend on a system being up, stable, warranty repairable, and RELIABLY
GIVING THE RIGHT ANSWERS) is that overclocking is just Russian Roulette
-- the question isn't if you'll lose, just when. To give you a very
BRIEF idea why, my calculations involve a number of operations that
approaches uncomfortably close to Avogadro's number from below. I'd
like to get a reproducible answer. I leave it to you just how far I can
afford to push the statistical probability of failure...anything over
"zero" is way too big and of course even WITHOUT overclocking it isn't
quite zero.
rgb
Robert G. Brown http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/
Duke University Dept. of Physics, Box 90305
Durham, N.C. 27708-0305
Phone: 1-919-660-2567 Fax: 919-660-2525 email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/mentre/smp-faq/
To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
