What is the Sonnet X Tuneup doing? |
October, 06, 2002 8:34 PM |
developer |
I tried to use the Sonnet 800 MHz G4 in a Umax S900. First of all - the IMS TwinTurbo 128 8MB is NOT compatible, so I had to get a Radeon 7000 which works fine. After I got the whole thing running I had the bad idea to put the Sonnet X Tune Up 1.2.5 onto the MacOS X Server (10.1.5) install which was running fine with XPostFacto. The machine went instable like hell, loosing ethernet - and it got worse: after some time I couldn't start Apps anymore. So I decided to go back to the 604 with the IMS TwinTurbo install (need the machine as my backup server). Because I saw the Vise Installer displaying some filenames similar to XPostFacto I decided to remove all KEXTs not in the standard Apple install and use XPostFacto again (of course I ran Disk Utility first and repaired some never seen before errors). This worked so far and the machine is running. At least I lost some prefs, but it could have been worse... I'm giving the Sonnet card a second try the next days. So here's my question: anyone with similar experiences? Is the Sonnet X Tuneup buggy? Some reports here suggest to use the PowerLogix Cache Control - any bad experiences with that too? Also: is the X Tuneup using a modified version of OpenDarwins XPostFacto project? If so, wondering that they don't state that (OpenDarwin license??)... Thanks! |
. |
RE: What is the Sonnet X Tuneup doing? |
October, 12, 2002 3:25 PM |
paul_findley |
. |
I found that it was important to reinstall the kernel extensions from xPostFacto after the Sonnet X tuneup (not using Sonnet's X-installer, for which you wouldn't need that step I guess). That leaves Sonnet's cache enabler in place, but makes for better stability, and Classic mode functionality. |
. |
RE: What is the Sonnet X Tuneup doing? |
October, 08, 2002 9:32 AM |
OSXGuru |
. |
I believe that the kernel extensions which the Sonnet X Tuneup installs are based on code from Darwin, as are the XPostFacto extensions. In fact, they may well be using some of the XPostFacto extensions, since they are open-source and licensed under the APSL, as Darwin itself is. So that would be OK. They should probably document that somewhere, though. |
. |
RE: What is the Sonnet X Tuneup doing? |
October, 07, 2002 4:46 PM |
marcush |
. |
I'd like to know too.I've switched between X Tuneup and Cache Control X several times in an attempt to determine if one is faster than the other. Both seem to work equally well on my machine so I don't have any problems to report. I like Cache Control better because of it's comand line interface and the GUI app. I tried X Tuneup because I began to wonder if it was enabling the 256k secondary cache at full speed. I notice in OS 9.2.2 that Powerlogix's L3 Cache Enabler init would enable the secondary cache of the Sonnet G4 800 but only at 50Mhz. Same as the bus speed. In OS 9.1 the Sonnet Extensions enable the secodary cache at 800Mhz as reported by Metronome. I think there's probably a different story under OS X because scores from Xbench are within 3-4 points of each other with the Sonnet and Powerlogix cache software. The Powerlogix software is the one that give the lower scores but I don't see any difference performance wise in real world situations. I would still like to verify that the secondary cache is running at full speed with the Powerlogix software though. You just can't tell because it does not detect the secondary cache. |