When pentium pro 200's were the hot new processor
(in speed, more so than in wattage),
I began running some dual-ppro-200 systems with two prime95 instances each.
Those processors are still running it.
I've never had to replace a cpu or motherboard
(though occasionally a motherboard power connector
had to be replaced because it burned up).
I'm not sure but I think that's three years.
Uptimes for these NT systems were averaging 6 months
between reboots, though that has dropped some
since the UPSes that power them are aging and so
power is less reliable now.
I've had a dual-pentium-200-mmx running NT4, and dual
prime95 instances, 2 years solid also;
the last boot of that system was August 12.
I'm sure you'll hear from others, that these durations
are not remarkable. Some may advocate other OS's.
(I've also run Vaxes for 6-9 months uptime, and
power and hardware reliability & application of OS updates
was similarly controlling there. Even network switches
will occasionally get in funny modes after some months.)
The error detection built into prime95 has been useful
in identifying some systems where memory simms or
motherboards were going flaky, months before the end
user noticed it.
Ken
At 08:24 AM 4/18/2000 +0100, you wrote:
>I'm just curious really, but how durable are Intel
>processors to continuous number crunching, in other words
>has anyone been able to keep the same processor running for
>2, 3 or even more years, on a 24/7 basis. I do realise that
>Windows itself needs to be rebooted from time to time, but
>what about other O/S? Anyone care to throw a few stats in?
>
>Tony Gott
>Shetland
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
>Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
>
_________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
