In message <19980611104126.1246.qmail at chaos.resnet.gatech.edu>, Lex
Spoon <lex at cc.gatech.edu> writes
>Where's the graph come from, by the way?  I know my load meter goes
>from 0 up to 1 when I run Squeak for a while, because it's constantly
>running and hogging *CPU*.  Could you be looking at a load meter by
>any chance?
-could well be; I was just guessing. The fact that it takes _some time_
to ramp up (~10's of seconds) suggested to me that it was RAM rather
than CPU. If it's a CPU load meter, it averages over quite a long time
period.
>
>Also, the times when Squeak terminates without hanging the whole
>system, can you see what the error message is?
I haven't seen one so far.
>

>
>Maybe some piece of hardware is flaking out when you run something CPU
>intensive for a while?  Do you run any other CPU intensive stuff
>(like, say, quake :))
That's an interesting idea; I 've run both NT 3.51 and NT 4.0 on this
machine, and 4.0 is very flakey whereas 3.51 is pretty solid. This has
always suggested some hardware dependency.

Squeak is probably the toughest test so far - though it runs noticeably
faster on linux than on W95 on the same machine.

Not quake, no; I'm of too nervous and delicate a disposition ;-)

>
>
>
>Squeak rules, crashes suck.

especially the devil M$, the Lord of Crashes.


-- 
Greg Lewin