Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 13:38:25 -0400 From: Quartz <quartz@sneakertech.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best console hardware monitor pkg? Message-ID: <55981A11.8090300@sneakertech.com> In-Reply-To: <20150704180726.b46748f7.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <559760A3.7000901@sneakertech.com> <20150704150742.cd7c045a.freebsd@edvax.de> <20150704092041.03767068@seibercom.net> <5597F233.7090201@sneakertech.com> <20150704170548.fc12bd39.freebsd@edvax.de> <20150704161736.7025b3e187c9efbe119b1cc6@sohara.org> <5597FACB.3050506@sneakertech.com> <5597FBCD.2060001@hiwaay.net> <55980239.9010601@sneakertech.com> <20150704180726.b46748f7.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> It would probably have made more sense to call the combined > package simply mbmon, with a "make configure" step if you > wanted it with X support - which means that the list of > runtime dependencies would grow. The "x" in "xmobon" package > naming therefore is a bit confusing, as it refers to the > option of X support, not a default X support... Hmm.... ok, well I guess as long as it's deliberate it's probably ok. > To expand a bit, mbmon & healthd seem to agree on (chipset ?) temp, as > distinct from amdtemp. However both only report for 2 CPU's (cores ?), > while amdtemp reports (wrongly, IMHO) for all 4 (in my case) .... If > healthd &/or mbmon would report (accurately) for all 4 cores, I'd love > them more :-) .... Maybe mbmon and healthd are confused about hyperthreading and think you only have two real cores? That's the only thing I can think of.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55981A11.8090300>