[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:48:56 +0100 John Daragon <john@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In my limited experience (I've only attempted this 3 times, although I've run a number of multiprocessor machines...) the "matching"(*) of procesors is critical. I've *never* managed to upgrade a uniprocessor to dual unless I've used a processor of the same spec *bought at more or less the same time as the original*. jd (*) In quotes, because I'm not really sure what it means in this context. Two perfectly functional processors that look the same but were sourced independently have failed for me before now, but I've *never* had a failure when I bought the processors at the same time. YMMV.
Ok, cheers. I was getting my hopes up because of what was written in the docs: "If you are installing two CPU's, we recommend that you follow the guidelines below: Use CPU's of the same family type. Use CPU's of the same revision stepping (i.e., A0, A1, B0). Use CPU's of the same FSB frequency (i.e., 66MHz vs. 100MHz). Use CPU's of the same L2 cache size (i.e., 256KB vs. 512KB). Use CPU's of the same L2 cachetype (i.e., ECC vs. nonECC). Use CPU's of the same L2 cacheable address range (i.e., 512MB vs. 4GB). NOTE: If the two processors differ in any of the above categories, the system may still appear to run correctly, but consistent behavior cannot be guaranteed". Hey ho. Cheers. -- Artificial intelligence is no match for nuratal stidutipy. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.