Hello SuSE people,
Been trying to get my sensors.conf file to report accurately on my system.
got most of it squared away except for two alarm conditions. In the second
column of the 3.3V line it shows +0.45V. The -12V line shows +0.80V. Why is
that? Are they supposed to be the actual voltages?
There is only 0ne solution, you have to find out what's wrong and what's
right.
Use a calibrated voltmeter and measure the voltages on your motherboard.
The sensors on your motherboard are not calibrated ,have a tolerance and
are aproximately right.
Have a nice day, Hans
Bob S wrote:
Hello
Sorry wrong answer, I did't notice the value's of approx zero !
Hans defaber wrote:
There is only 0ne solution, you have to find out what's wrong and
what's right.
Use a calibrated voltmeter and measure the voltages on your motherboard.
The sensors on your motherboard are not calibrated ,have a
On Sunday 15 July 2007 00:26, Bob S wrote:
> Hello SuSE people,
>
> Been trying to get my sensors.conf file to report accurately on my system.
> got most of it squared away except for two alarm conditions. In the second
> column of the 3.3V line it shows +0.45V. The -12V line shows +0.80V. Why is
On Sunday 15 July 2007 10:21:32 Rajko M. wrote:
> On Sunday 15 July 2007 00:26, Bob S wrote:
> > Hello SuSE people,
> >
> > Been trying to get my sensors.conf file to report accurately on my
> > system.
.
> It would be good to read
> http://www.lm-sensors.org/wiki/FAQ
> section 3. Pro
On Tuesday 17 July 2007 17:01, Bob S wrote:
> On Sunday 15 July 2007 10:21:32 Rajko M. wrote:
> > On Sunday 15 July 2007 00:26, Bob S wrote:
> > > Hello SuSE people,
> > >
> > > Been trying to get my sensors.conf file to report accurately on my
> > > system.
.
> > It would be good to read
> >
This was my direct answer to you, but it that was bounced, so I'll repost this
to mail list.
On Friday 20 July 2007 01:07, Bob S wrote:
,,,
> Then, when I run sensors I get the following:
...
> in0: +1.53 V (min = +0.70 V, max = +1.87 V)
> in1: +3.23 V (min = +2.05 V, max = +1.
On Saturday 21 July 2007 15:46, Rajko M. wrote:
> As mentioned before:
> set vrm 2.4
> is what you need. Than we should go and correct values if some is not good.
> According to lm-sensors web page changing default vrm 9.0 to one that you
> need should be supported in driver for your chip.
The
On Saturday 21 July 2007 17:10:07 Rajko M. wrote:
> On Saturday 21 July 2007 15:46, Rajko M. wrote:
> > As mentioned before:
> > set vrm 2.4
> > is what you need. Than we should go and correct values if some is not
> > good. According to lm-sensors web page changing default vrm 9.0 to one
> > th
On Sunday 22 July 2007 14:35:07 Rajko M. wrote:
> On Saturday 21 July 2007 22:24, you wrote:
>
OK Rajko, I am going to trim this post quite a bit. All read over several
times and thoroughly digested. I hope that won't mess you up. I will confine
it to providing information and questions.
OK
On Monday 23 July 2007 22:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sunday 22 July 2007 14:35:07 Rajko M. wrote:
> > On Saturday 21 July 2007 22:24, you wrote:
> >
>
> OK Rajko, I am going to trim this post quite a bit. All read over several
> times and thoroughly digested. I hope that won't mess you
On Tuesday 24 July 2007 20:03:04 Rajko M. wrote:
> On Monday 23 July 2007 22:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 July 2007 14:35:07 Rajko M. wrote:
> > > On Saturday 21 July 2007 22:24, you wrote:
> > >
> >
> > OK Rajko, I am going to trim this post quite a bit. All read over several
12 matches
Mail list logo
