SUMMARY: An interesting psrinfo output!

From: Syed Zaeem Hosain (Syed.Hosain_at_aeris.net) <(Syed.Hosain_at_aeris.net)>
Date: Mon Nov 15 2010 - 13:27:04 EST
Hi, all.

The general consensus is that this is nothing to worry about.

The T2 processor can have up to 8 cores, so if all are the cores are
not-functional, then that is okay, since some may be skipped in a 4 core
delivered system (like a T5120).

This causes the numbering to be altered, but the systems will work normally.
So, in the single T5120 that is showing this symptom below, it is likely that
the particular core was faulty (did not work on the chip at all from the
beginning perhaps), so it was deactivated in favor of one of the other core.

Thanks to all who responded.

Z

-----Original Message-----
From: sunmanagers-bounces@sunmanagers.org
[mailto:sunmanagers-bounces@sunmanagers.org] On Behalf Of Syed Zaeem Hosain
(Syed.Hosain@aeris.net)
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 6:21 PM
To: sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
Subject: An interesting psrinfo output!

Hi, all.

Even after clean reboots, I have one T5120 that is showing the following
output for the psrinfo command:

# psrinfo
0       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:21
1       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:23
2       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:23
3       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
4       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
5       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
6       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
7       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
8       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
9       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
10      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
11      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
12      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
13      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
14      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
15      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
16      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
17      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
18      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
19      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
20      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
21      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
22      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
23      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
24      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
25      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
26      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
27      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
28      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
29      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
30      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24
31      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:12:24

And another T5120 (that is supposed to be an identical machine) that shows
psrinfo output as follows:

# psrinfo
0       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:19
1       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
2       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
3       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
4       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
5       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
6       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
7       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
8       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
9       on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
10      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
11      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
12      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
13      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
14      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
15      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
24      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
25      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
26      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
27      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
28      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
29      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
30      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
31      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
32      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
33      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
34      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
35      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
36      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
37      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
38      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21
39      on-line   since 11/12/2010 18:11:21

Yes, the number of virtual processors is correct (at 32), but the processor
"numbering" skips from 15 to 24 ... is this normal? Unexpected? Something
that
can fixed? Is it likely to cause problems with use of those other virtual
processors, etc.?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Z
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers
Received on Mon Nov 15 13:28:39 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 03 2016 - 06:44:17 EST