George Woltman writes, in reply to Mikus Grinbergs:
> I don't know how to make the self-test any more strenuous. I suspect
> short FFTs are just as hard on the CPU and cache as the large FFTs.
> The large FFTs will access a little more memory.
Most modern motherboards contain case and/or CPU temperature
sensors which can be read by software. I believe the hardware
interface is a de-facto standard, so portability shouldn't be a major
concern. I suppose it would be possible to log the temperatures at
which the tests were run & re-test if the temperature during a "live"
run was found to be higher. But whether it's worth the effort is
disputable - the same boards also have a high temperature alarm
which will trigger if the temperature exceeds a limit (set in the
BIOS) - my (Supermicro) board also comes with a Win 9x/NT utility
(runs in the background, using about 0.5% CPU) which will sound
"warnings" for high temperature, low fan speed, etc, etc. It has its
own setup file, therefore does not require a reboot via BIOS Setup
to change the settings.
When I built my dual PII system I did find I had a potential
overheating problem, on Prime95 self-test one of the processors
was triggerring the high temperature warning, nevertheless the
reliability was OK. I fitted a case fan and the processor
temperature dropped by about 10C, well out of the danger zone.
I get the impression that plastic cases with "tinfoil" screening need
more assistance with ventilation than cases made of painted metal.
Incidentally the reason one processor runs hotter than the other is
that the airflow in its vicinity is compromised by a bunch of
HDD/FDD cables, so that processor fan tends to drag in "dirty" air.
If anyone has any ideas as to how the self-test could be made
more rigorous, without taking forever, we'd sure like to hear them.
Regards
Brian Beesley
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
