[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       freebsd-ppc
Subject:    Re: Heat-death of the last of the 2-socket/2-cores-each PowerMac G5s that I have access to
From:       Mark Millard via freebsd-ppc <freebsd-ppc () freebsd ! org>
Date:       2021-02-03 5:23:03
Message-ID: 330EC96A-6234-4558-A409-3B1BE7768B69 () yahoo ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 2021-Jan-11, at 20:38, Mark Millard <marklmi at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2021-Jan-11, at 17:42, Mark Millard <marklmi at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> The last of the 4-core PowerMac G5s that I have access to now shuts
>> down for "CPU B0 DIODE TEMP" that "exceeds critical temperature
>> (90.0 C)" when I try to rebuild/update ports or such. The other
>> 4-core G5 failed for such reasons in similar contexts a few months
>> ago.,Interestingly, the two G5s have very different liquid cooling
>> systems despite the similar time frame for the failures.
>> 
>> Without the faster G5s, I may just use cross-built world/kernel
>> material and see if there is a tolerable but minimal set of ports
>> for supporting boot testing/dump inspection and basic operation of
>> the slower 2-socket/1-core-each and 1-socket/1-core-each PowerMacs
>> that I have access to, avoid things like building devel/llvm*
>> ports that take so long. (I have fairly strong time preferences.)
> 
> I've done some more testing and, while use as a (full load/speed)
> builder machine is a no-go, it looks like this 4-core G5 can
> still be used for boot testing and basic operation without
> overheating. The prior failing machine overheated more easily
> but might have a similar status if I test it just for such use.
> 
> How long the recently failed G5 will be useful for boot and basic
> operation testing, I do not know. But probably longer than for
> the originally-failing G5.


Looks like the problem has progressed quickly, so booting
without instead overheating is now unlikely. It does not
appear that I'll be able to provide any testing of
2-socket/2-core-each G5 contexts any more.



As for the 2-socket/1-core-each G5, care to guess which goes
with which machine, G5 vs. Rock64 (Cortex-A53, not RockPro64),
allowing as many cpus to be used for the job as the executing
machine has (2 vs. 4):

[00:15:31] [01] [00:10:57] Finished ports-mgmt/pkg | pkg-1.15.10: Success
vs.:
[00:12:27] [01] [00:10:35] Finished ports-mgmt/pkg | pkg-1.15.10: Success

Yep, the Rock64 configuration that I use takes about the same
time to build pkg as the G5 does, although the Rock64 is a little
faster than the G5 for that activity.

(pkg builds by itself, so there is no competing job in the
above.)

The RPi4B configuration (Cortex-A72), MACCHIATObin Double Shot
configuration (Cortex-A72), and the OverDrive 1000 configuration
(Cortex-A57) that I use are all faster than the
2-socket/1-core-each G5 for doing self-hosted, parallel builds.
All 3 are faster than the Rock64 for such activity. The
OverDrive 1000 is the fastest of these machines at doing
parallel builds, apparently largely due to RAM caching
differences and other memory subsystem distinctions. (The cpu
clock rate is slower than the A72 configurations are using.)

(For doing aarch64 and armv7 port builds, I generally build
on the OverDrive and the MACCHIATObin. Of the configurations
reported on above, the MACCHIATObin one is the 2nd fastest for
parallel builds.)

===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com
( dsl-only.net went
away in early 2018-Mar)

_______________________________________________
freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ppc
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ppc-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]