On Mon, 09 May 2011 13:50:41 -0600, Harry G McGavran Jr wrote: > On Mon, 9 May 2011 21:42:31 +0200 Jean Delvare wrote: > > This is a valuable observation. I presume that these CPUs are too old > > to be multicore, best they could have it hyperthreading. Harry, can you > > please share the contents of /proc/cpuinfo? > > Attached below ... processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 15 model : 4 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.00GHz stepping : 10 cpu MHz : 2992.603 cache size : 2048 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 1 core id : 0 cpu cores : 1 apicid : 0 initial apicid : 0 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 5 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc up pebs bts pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl cid cx16 xtpr lahf_lm bogomips : 5985.20 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 128 address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: Interesting... Your CPU is slightly more recent than Jeff's (stepping 10 instead of 1), both advertise HT but yours has it disabled. Maybe there's an option in the BIOS to enable or disable HT? Or maybe Linux didn't like HT for some reason (in which case it should say so in the boot messages.) It also seems like Jeff has CPUfreq enabled on his system and you do not. It's unrelated to hardware monitoring, but for the sake of power savings, it might be worth investigating. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
