I have just upgraded a Proliant 2500 from dual PPro 200's to dual Pentium II
333 overdrive processors.
According to Intel's website this is supported. Also Compaq offers this
upgrade.
Now before I upgraded, I was running double check's on 2 exponents, 668xxxx.
I was getting about .515 second iteration times.
Now that I have upgraded, I am only getting .448 second iteration times.
Yes, the affinity is set properly.
I have set the switches on the I/O board for 66/333 speed.
I believe my problem stems from having the wrong ROM chips.
The server, when booting, says the BIOS is version E24 which is associated
with the PPro 200 processors.
I went to Compaq's web site and found that the E50 version is for PII 333's.
Downloaded the ROMPaq but it will not flash. It says there isn't a valid ROM
Image on the floppy disk for the installed device.
After searching Compaq's web site (with their lousy search engine I might
add) I found an article that say's I probably need to replace the physical
ROM chips.
Now for my question.
Has anyone here done this with this server (upgraded processors and had to
change the ROM chips)?? I want to know if this will fix the problem, or is
there something else going on?
Interesting note here.
If I run just 1 copy of Prime on either CPU I get .325 second iteration
times. It doesn't matter which copy of the program
or which CPU I run it on.
It is only when I run both copies that it slows down to .448 seconds. BTW I
am running Windows 2000 Server with the latest SSD from Compaq.
This is what I have done to the server to try and resolve this:
1.) Ran Smart Start and used the system erase utility, then reconfigured the
server, drive array etc.
2.) Reloaded Windows 2000 Server.
3.) Reinstalled Prime (both instances) and then brought my saved work back
in.
4.) Flashed the BIOS to the newest version for the E24. I was hoping this
might change something and let me flash with the ROMPaq I need, but it
didn't work out that way.
5.) I also have stopped all unneeded services running in the background,
such as IIS, Compaq agents, etc.
Do you think Windows 2000 could just be stealing this many cpu cycles for
itself? This box is not in a production environment. It is in my home. It
isn't running Active Directory either. When I run just 1 copy though, task
manager does show 3 to 7% activity on the idle processor.
Hmmmmmm, maybe I should try NT Server 4.0 and see what happens.
Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
