C8000 cpu upgrade problem

C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[Mikulas Patocka]

Hi

I have a C8000 workstation with one PA8800 900MHz CPU (the motherboard has 
two sockets), I installed Linux via serial console on it and it seems to 
be running quite fine (I had to plug a PCI serial card because Linux 
doesn't recognize the on-board serial ports or videocard).

When I inserted anober PA8800 900MHz CPU (taken from another workstation) 
to the second socket on the motherboard, the boot firmware writes a 
warning "Too many CPUs for this system.", drops into the boot menu and 
refuses to load an operating system.

Do you have some idea how to solve it? I.e. switch something in the 
firmware, load new firmware (I have FW 2.13 BMC 02.32), or get some tool 
from HP that can allow the second processor on this workstation?

(note, this is not Linux kernel problem at all because the firmware 
doesn't even start Linux)

Mikulas

Re: C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[Carlos O'Donell]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Mikulas Patocka
<mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> wrote:
> I have a C8000 workstation with one PA8800 900MHz CPU (the motherboard has
> two sockets), I installed Linux via serial console on it and it seems to
> be running quite fine (I had to plug a PCI serial card because Linux
> doesn't recognize the on-board serial ports or videocard).
>
> When I inserted anober PA8800 900MHz CPU (taken from another workstation)
> to the second socket on the motherboard, the boot firmware writes a
> warning "Too many CPUs for this system.", drops into the boot menu and
> refuses to load an operating system.
>
> Do you have some idea how to solve it? I.e. switch something in the
> firmware, load new firmware (I have FW 2.13 BMC 02.32), or get some tool
> from HP that can allow the second processor on this workstation?
>
> (note, this is not Linux kernel problem at all because the firmware
> doesn't even start Linux)

AFAIK you can't add a second CPU without an HP technician enabling the
firmware for a second CPU.

The same goes for enabling additional PCI slots.

Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Mikulas Patocka
> <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> wrote:
> > I have a C8000 workstation with one PA8800 900MHz CPU (the motherboard has
> > two sockets), I installed Linux via serial console on it and it seems to
> > be running quite fine (I had to plug a PCI serial card because Linux
> > doesn't recognize the on-board serial ports or videocard).
> >
> > When I inserted anober PA8800 900MHz CPU (taken from another workstation)
> > to the second socket on the motherboard, the boot firmware writes a
> > warning "Too many CPUs for this system.", drops into the boot menu and
> > refuses to load an operating system.
> >
> > Do you have some idea how to solve it? I.e. switch something in the
> > firmware, load new firmware (I have FW 2.13 BMC 02.32), or get some tool
> > from HP that can allow the second processor on this workstation?
> >
> > (note, this is not Linux kernel problem at all because the firmware
> > doesn't even start Linux)
> 
> AFAIK you can't add a second CPU without an HP technician enabling the
> firmware for a second CPU.
> 
> The same goes for enabling additional PCI slots.
> 
> Cheers,
> Carlos.

And is there some hack that enables it?

It looks quite dishonest to me when the machine is advertised as capable 
of two dual-core CPUs, 32GB RAM, 4 PCI-X slots ... and you get this 
advertised capability only if you buy expensive support contract :-(

Mikulas

Re: C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[Carlos O'Donell]

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Mikulas Patocka
<mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> AFAIK you can't add a second CPU without an HP technician enabling the
>> firmware for a second CPU.
>>
>> The same goes for enabling additional PCI slots.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Carlos.
>
> And is there some hack that enables it?
>
> It looks quite dishonest to me when the machine is advertised as capable
> of two dual-core CPUs, 32GB RAM, 4 PCI-X slots ... and you get this
> advertised capability only if you buy expensive support contract :-(

I know of no hack.

It is not dishonest, the original purchase contract for the machine
probably said "1 active CPU slot" and "1 active PCI-X slot."

Cheers,
Carlos.

False advertising (was: C8000 cpu upgrade problem)

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Mikulas Patocka
> <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> >> AFAIK you can't add a second CPU without an HP technician enabling the
> >> firmware for a second CPU.
> >>
> >> The same goes for enabling additional PCI slots.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Carlos.
> >
> > And is there some hack that enables it?
> >
> > It looks quite dishonest to me when the machine is advertised as capable
> > of two dual-core CPUs, 32GB RAM, 4 PCI-X slots ... and you get this
> > advertised capability only if you buy expensive support contract :-(
> 
> I know of no hack.
> 
> It is not dishonest, the original purchase contract for the machine
> probably said "1 active CPU slot" and "1 active PCI-X slot."
> 
> Cheers,
> Carlos.

It looks like false advertising to me. It is immoral (and in many 
countries illegal) to advertise the product having some capabilities and 
then selling the product not having the capabilities. Purchase contract is 
irelevant, what is relevant are the public statements about the product 
and the real status of the product.

HP claims that c8000 workstation is extendible to two processors. Such 
claims are implicit (feature lists, listing up to two dual core 1.1GHz 
processors) and explicit (citing 
http://www.hp.com/workstations/white_papers/docs/hp_workstation_c8000_po.pdf 
"Robust expansion capabilities, including two processor sockets and four 
disk bays, let you grow and configure the system as needed").

HP sells a computer that it claims to be c8000 and that the user cannot 
expand to two processors, contrary to the claims in the whitepaper.

These claims really deceive users, both me and the person who sold me the 
CPU were deceived by them.

Anyone living in the US and wanting to file a complain to FTC about these 
computers falsely advertised as expandable? :)

Mikulas

Re: C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[Matt Turner]

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Carlos O'Donell
<carlos@systemhalted.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Mikulas Patocka
> <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> AFAIK you can't add a second CPU without an HP technician enabling the
>>> firmware for a second CPU.
>>>
>>> The same goes for enabling additional PCI slots.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Carlos.
>>
>> And is there some hack that enables it?
>>
>> It looks quite dishonest to me when the machine is advertised as capable
>> of two dual-core CPUs, 32GB RAM, 4 PCI-X slots ... and you get this
>> advertised capability only if you buy expensive support contract :-(
>
> I know of no hack.
>
> It is not dishonest, the original purchase contract for the machine
> probably said "1 active CPU slot" and "1 active PCI-X slot."
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos.

It _is_ dishonest, and deceptive at that. When was the last time you
bought a multisocket system and couldn't add a second processor
because you needed a support contract? I've never encountered such a
thing and I've got multisocket x86, Alpha, and SPARC systems.

This whole license-to-use-hardware thing is bullshit. Mikulas bought
the hardware, and thus he should be able to use it. I'm struggling to
find any information about this problem online. I can't even find
anyone else who has reported that adding a second CPU doesn't just
work.

Are we absolutely sure you've got to jump through some licensing
bullshit to enable the CPU? Maybe it's just a missed setting in PDC?

> The same goes for enabling additional PCI slots.

You've got to be kidding me.

I'd been planning to grab a cheap C8000 and help Linux/PARISC. But no.
I'll never use hardware like this on principle.

Matt

Re: C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[John David Anglin]

> I have a C8000 workstation with one PA8800 900MHz CPU (the motherboard has 
> two sockets), I installed Linux via serial console on it and it seems to 
> be running quite fine (I had to plug a PCI serial card because Linux 
> doesn't recognize the on-board serial ports or videocard).
> 
> When I inserted anober PA8800 900MHz CPU (taken from another workstation) 
> to the second socket on the motherboard, the boot firmware writes a 
> warning "Too many CPUs for this system.", drops into the boot menu and 
> refuses to load an operating system.

It looks like it should be possible to add a second processor.  See
Technical Reference Guide HP workstation c8000, Document Part Number:
5969-3188.

Did you install second CPU power module?

> Do you have some idea how to solve it? I.e. switch something in the 
> firmware, load new firmware (I have FW 2.13 BMC 02.32), or get some tool 
> from HP that can allow the second processor on this workstation?

I don't have any specific knowledge about the c8000.  It appears CPUs
are configured in the BCH configuration menu with the CPUconfig command.
Based on my experience with rp3440, you have to do a hard reboot
after configuring a CPU.  If a CPU gets deconfigured or it doesn't appear
when you type CPUconfig, there is probably a hardware problem.

2.13 seems to be latest firmware.

Dave
-- 
J. David Anglin                                  dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
National Research Council of Canada              (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)

Re: C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, John David Anglin wrote:

> > I have a C8000 workstation with one PA8800 900MHz CPU (the motherboard has 
> > two sockets), I installed Linux via serial console on it and it seems to 
> > be running quite fine (I had to plug a PCI serial card because Linux 
> > doesn't recognize the on-board serial ports or videocard).
> > 
> > When I inserted anober PA8800 900MHz CPU (taken from another workstation) 
> > to the second socket on the motherboard, the boot firmware writes a 
> > warning "Too many CPUs for this system.", drops into the boot menu and 
> > refuses to load an operating system.
> 
> It looks like it should be possible to add a second processor.  See
> Technical Reference Guide HP workstation c8000, Document Part Number:
> 5969-3188.

I used this guide when adding the new CPU. I bought the torx screwdriver 
and the hex tool (as described in the guide) from the local hardware 
store.

> Did you install second CPU power module?

Yes.

> > Do you have some idea how to solve it? I.e. switch something in the 
> > firmware, load new firmware (I have FW 2.13 BMC 02.32), or get some tool 
> > from HP that can allow the second processor on this workstation?
> 
> I don't have any specific knowledge about the c8000.  It appears CPUs
> are configured in the BCH configuration menu with the CPUconfig command.
> Based on my experience with rp3440, you have to do a hard reboot
> after configuring a CPU.  If a CPU gets deconfigured or it doesn't appear
> when you type CPUconfig, there is probably a hardware problem.
> 
> 2.13 seems to be latest firmware.
> 
> Dave

It showed "WARNING: Too many CPUs for this system." and the new cpu wasn't 
shown in "IN PR" command. Also, "BO" command refused to boot becuase of 
the warning.

Mikulas

Re: C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Matt Turner wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Carlos O'Donell
> <carlos@systemhalted.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Mikulas Patocka
> > <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> >>> AFAIK you can't add a second CPU without an HP technician enabling the
> >>> firmware for a second CPU.
> >>>
> >>> The same goes for enabling additional PCI slots.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Carlos.
> >>
> >> And is there some hack that enables it?
> >>
> >> It looks quite dishonest to me when the machine is advertised as capable
> >> of two dual-core CPUs, 32GB RAM, 4 PCI-X slots ... and you get this
> >> advertised capability only if you buy expensive support contract :-(
> >
> > I know of no hack.
> >
> > It is not dishonest, the original purchase contract for the machine
> > probably said "1 active CPU slot" and "1 active PCI-X slot."
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Carlos.
> 
> It _is_ dishonest, and deceptive at that. When was the last time you
> bought a multisocket system and couldn't add a second processor
> because you needed a support contract? I've never encountered such a
> thing and I've got multisocket x86, Alpha, and SPARC systems.
> 
> This whole license-to-use-hardware thing is bullshit. Mikulas bought
> the hardware, and thus he should be able to use it. I'm struggling to
> find any information about this problem online. I can't even find
> anyone else who has reported that adding a second CPU doesn't just
> work.

I searched extensively (first, I also thought that it's my fault and I've 
forgotten something) and found this:

http://forums13.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?admit=109447627+1287849831841+28353475&threadId=1251754 
--- some person replaces a mainboard, gets warnings about invalid serial 
number, too many CPUs (the same as me), CPU speed limit exceeded, 6GB 
memory limit exceeded. The advice was to contact HP to change the serial 
numbers :-(

http://sql.ru/forum/actualthread.aspx?tid=726002 --- the same warning, in 
Russian, no response

http://3000newswire.blogs.com/3000_newswire/2007/08/programs-off-li.html
--- considerations about some programs that can remove limits, nothing 
specific

http://3000newswire.blogs.com/3000_newswire/2007/08/helpful-program.html 
--- some more moaning about HP locking some diagnostic programs

http://3000newswire.blogs.com/3000_newswire/2010/10/indie-resets-of-3000-system-ids-still-available.html 
--- some company that can supposedly reset the serial numbers and allow 
upgrades. The only problem is that sending the workstation to them is 
likely more expensive than the price of the workstation itself :-(

> Are we absolutely sure you've got to jump through some licensing
> bullshit to enable the CPU? Maybe it's just a missed setting in PDC?

I went through the whole PDC menu, didn't find anything. I tried to clear 
all logs, reset it to defaults, etc., but no help.

> > The same goes for enabling additional PCI slots.
> 
> You've got to be kidding me.
> 
> I'd been planning to grab a cheap C8000 and help Linux/PARISC. But no.
> I'll never use hardware like this on principle.
> 
> Matt

I wouldn't buy even a laptop from HP after this experience. What would I 
have to do if I needed a bigger hard drive or more memory? Be forced to 
call HP "award winning" support, pay for the work that I can do myself and 
be forced to upgrade it with overpriced "original" parts?

BTW. I added another 1GB memory to that C8000 workstation (it had 2GB 
before) and it works. But knowing that there may be memory limits in the 
firmware too, I'm just scared how much can I buy and add before hitting 
some of them :-( The leaflet says that the maximum is 32GB, but we know 
that it doesn't tell the truth about the number of CPUs.

Mikulas

Re: False advertising (was: C8000 cpu upgrade problem)

[James Bottomley]

On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 16:46 +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Mikulas Patocka
> > <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > >> AFAIK you can't add a second CPU without an HP technician enabling the
> > >> firmware for a second CPU.
> > >>
> > >> The same goes for enabling additional PCI slots.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Carlos.
> > >
> > > And is there some hack that enables it?
> > >
> > > It looks quite dishonest to me when the machine is advertised as capable
> > > of two dual-core CPUs, 32GB RAM, 4 PCI-X slots ... and you get this
> > > advertised capability only if you buy expensive support contract :-(
> > 
> > I know of no hack.
> > 
> > It is not dishonest, the original purchase contract for the machine
> > probably said "1 active CPU slot" and "1 active PCI-X slot."
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Carlos.
> 
> It looks like false advertising to me. It is immoral (and in many 
> countries illegal) to advertise the product having some capabilities and 
> then selling the product not having the capabilities. Purchase contract is 
> irelevant, what is relevant are the public statements about the product 
> and the real status of the product.

It's fairly standard for the enterprise space:  Both HP and IBM actually
sell boxes fully loaded but disable unpaid for capabilities in the
firmware (i.e. sell you a 2-cpu box that really contains 4 cpus so they
then sell a firmware upgrade as two extra cpus); enterprise users
actually like the convenience of not having to haul away and replace the
box.

> HP claims that c8000 workstation is extendible to two processors. Such 
> claims are implicit (feature lists, listing up to two dual core 1.1GHz 
> processors) and explicit (citing 
> http://www.hp.com/workstations/white_papers/docs/hp_workstation_c8000_po.pdf 
> "Robust expansion capabilities, including two processor sockets and four 
> disk bays, let you grow and configure the system as needed").

My garage is extensible too ... but I'd still have to pay a builder to
build the extension.

> HP sells a computer that it claims to be c8000 and that the user cannot 
> expand to two processors, contrary to the claims in the whitepaper.

The whitepaper only claims they are extensible (which they are) it
doesn't claim the user can do the extension (because they can't).

> These claims really deceive users, both me and the person who sold me the 
> CPU were deceived by them.
> 
> Anyone living in the US and wanting to file a complain to FTC about these 
> computers falsely advertised as expandable? :)

The FTC would take the view that it's standard industry practise and
that you didn't do due diligence ... 

However, why don't you try what we usually do?  That's ask HP nicely
(via someone in their linux department) for the firmware upgrade; it's
mostly worked in the past ... assuming you haven't antagonised them too
much by calling them liars and cheats, that is ...

James

Re: False advertising (was: C8000 cpu upgrade problem)

[Matt Turner]

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 12:57 PM, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 16:46 +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Mikulas Patocka
>> > <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> > >> AFAIK you can't add a second CPU without an HP technician enabl=
ing the
>> > >> firmware for a second CPU.
>> > >>
>> > >> The same goes for enabling additional PCI slots.
>> > >>
>> > >> Cheers,
>> > >> Carlos.
>> > >
>> > > And is there some hack that enables it?
>> > >
>> > > It looks quite dishonest to me when the machine is advertised as=
 capable
>> > > of two dual-core CPUs, 32GB RAM, 4 PCI-X slots ... and you get t=
his
>> > > advertised capability only if you buy expensive support contract=
 :-(
>> >
>> > I know of no hack.
>> >
>> > It is not dishonest, the original purchase contract for the machin=
e
>> > probably said "1 active CPU slot" and "1 active PCI-X slot."
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Carlos.
>>
>> It looks like false advertising to me. It is immoral (and in many
>> countries illegal) to advertise the product having some capabilities=
 and
>> then selling the product not having the capabilities. Purchase contr=
act is
>> irelevant, what is relevant are the public statements about the prod=
uct
>> and the real status of the product.
>
> It's fairly standard for the enterprise space: =A0Both HP and IBM act=
ually
> sell boxes fully loaded but disable unpaid for capabilities in the
> firmware (i.e. sell you a 2-cpu box that really contains 4 cpus so th=
ey
> then sell a firmware upgrade as two extra cpus); enterprise users
> actually like the convenience of not having to haul away and replace =
the
> box.
>
>> HP claims that c8000 workstation is extendible to two processors. Su=
ch
>> claims are implicit (feature lists, listing up to two dual core 1.1G=
Hz
>> processors) and explicit (citing
>> http://www.hp.com/workstations/white_papers/docs/hp_workstation_c800=
0_po.pdf
>> "Robust expansion capabilities, including two processor sockets and =
four
>> disk bays, let you grow and configure the system as needed").
>
> My garage is extensible too ... but I'd still have to pay a builder t=
o
> build the extension.

You forgot the part where you have to buy a support contract with the
builder for a one-off project.

Oh, and the part where you're more than capable of doing the building
yourself, but you can't because the builder hasn't approved the lumber
you bought to work with your particular mode of garage.

>> HP sells a computer that it claims to be c8000 and that the user can=
not
>> expand to two processors, contrary to the claims in the whitepaper.
>
> The whitepaper only claims they are extensible (which they are) it
> doesn't claim the user can do the extension (because they can't).
>
>> These claims really deceive users, both me and the person who sold m=
e the
>> CPU were deceived by them.
>>
>> Anyone living in the US and wanting to file a complain to FTC about =
these
>> computers falsely advertised as expandable? :)
>
> The FTC would take the view that it's standard industry practise and
> that you didn't do due diligence ...
>
> However, why don't you try what we usually do? =A0That's ask HP nicel=
y
> (via someone in their linux department) for the firmware upgrade; it'=
s
> mostly worked in the past ... assuming you haven't antagonised them t=
oo
> much by calling them liars and cheats, that is ...

Poor HP.

Seriously though. From a glance, the C8000 seems to be the most
capable PA-RISC system for someone who wants to help with
Linux-on-PARISC. Clearly, people like upgrading (and being able to
upgrade) their computers. If I were to buy a C8000 I'd be interested
in figuring out how to find a second CPU, add more RAM, and install
another PCI card. But these debilitating restrictions prevent any of
this.

So, my question is, if you and Carlos knew about this previously
(which I assume you did by your responses, but I may be wrong) then
why can I not find this information anywhere on parisc-linux.org or in
the appropriate mailing list archives?

Matt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc"=
 in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[John David Anglin]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Mikulas Patocka wrote:

> It showed "WARNING: Too many CPUs for this system." and the new cpu wasn't 
> shown in "IN PR" command. Also, "BO" command refused to boot becuase of 
> the warning.

I would check system LEDs to see if a fault is indicated.  Also, look
for relevant errors in the service error logs.

Are both processor modules same speed and cache?

The following suggests Carlos is correct:

http://forums13.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?admit=109447627+1287851022683+28353475&threadId=1251754

In reviewing the technical reference, I don't see any warning that
upgrading/replacing a processor module may require a HP technician
to reset the system configuration.

In the section on replacing the system board, it says to use the ss_update
utility in the BCH Service menu to reset the serial number.  Is the MFG
menu accessible?  There may be some hidden commands to setup config.

It appears that processors have to be installed in the correct slot
since the BCH has the following warning:
WARNING: Processors are not installed in the correct order.

Dave
-- 
J. David Anglin                                  dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
National Research Council of Canada              (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)

Re: C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, John David Anglin wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> > It showed "WARNING: Too many CPUs for this system." and the new cpu wasn't 
> > shown in "IN PR" command. Also, "BO" command refused to boot becuase of 
> > the warning.
> 
> I would check system LEDs to see if a fault is indicated.  Also, look
> for relevant errors in the service error logs.

LEDs 2 and 3 are red --- just like a normal boot, when the machine is 
waiting in the PDC menu for the boot command.

> Are both processor modules same speed and cache?

Yes.

> The following suggests Carlos is correct:
> 
> http://forums13.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?admit=109447627+1287851022683+28353475&threadId=1251754

Yes, I found it too.

> In reviewing the technical reference, I don't see any warning that
> upgrading/replacing a processor module may require a HP technician
> to reset the system configuration.
> 
> In the section on replacing the system board, it says to use the ss_update
> utility in the BCH Service menu to reset the serial number.  Is the MFG
> menu accessible?  There may be some hidden commands to setup config.

There is a service menu, but no mfg menu and no ss_update command.

Interesting ... "mfg" gives "ERROR: Unsupported command" while any other 
bad commands gives "ERROR: Unknown command".

So there is something magic abouth that "mfg" menu, but it's inaccessible.

> It appears that processors have to be installed in the correct slot
> since the BCH has the following warning:
> WARNING: Processors are not installed in the correct order.
>
> Dave
> -- 
> J. David Anglin                                  dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
> National Research Council of Canada              (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)

Mikulas

Re: C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[John David Anglin]

> > In the section on replacing the system board, it says to use the ss_update
> > utility in the BCH Service menu to reset the serial number.  Is the MFG
> > menu accessible?  There may be some hidden commands to setup config.
> 
> There is a service menu, but no mfg menu and no ss_update command.
> 
> Interesting ... "mfg" gives "ERROR: Unsupported command" while any other 
> bad commands gives "ERROR: Unknown command".
> 
> So there is something magic abouth that "mfg" menu, but it's inaccessible.

The mfg menu was shown in an online document about setting up the c8000.

I would guess that ss_update command and mfg menu disappear after
the unit has been configured.  Probably, the configuration data needs
to be erased/reset to restore the menu.  Possibly, reflashing the
bch firmware would do it, or maybe there is a ODE command to reset
the config.

You might try downloading the firmware update.  At least for the
rp3440, one burns an ODE CD.  Then, one boots the CD and uses various
ODE commands to flash the firmware.  There was definitely a lot
more stuff on the CD than just the utilities to flash the firmware.
Of course, one mistake and you brick the system.  It would probably
take HP specific JTAG tools to recover.

Dave
-- 
J. David Anglin                                  dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
National Research Council of Canada              (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)

Re: False advertising (was: C8000 cpu upgrade problem)

[Mikulas Patocka]

> > It looks like false advertising to me. It is immoral (and in many 
> > countries illegal) to advertise the product having some capabilities and 
> > then selling the product not having the capabilities. Purchase contract is 
> > irelevant, what is relevant are the public statements about the product 
> > and the real status of the product.
> 
> It's fairly standard for the enterprise space:  Both HP and IBM actually
> sell boxes fully loaded but disable unpaid for capabilities in the
> firmware (i.e. sell you a 2-cpu box that really contains 4 cpus so they
> then sell a firmware upgrade as two extra cpus); enterprise users
> actually like the convenience of not having to haul away and replace the
> box.

This is a different case. You can't accuse a contractor if you order two 
CPUs and get four :)

> > HP claims that c8000 workstation is extendible to two processors. Such 
> > claims are implicit (feature lists, listing up to two dual core 1.1GHz 
> > processors) and explicit (citing 
> > http://www.hp.com/workstations/white_papers/docs/hp_workstation_c8000_po.pdf 
> > "Robust expansion capabilities, including two processor sockets and four 
> > disk bays, let you grow and configure the system as needed").
> 
> My garage is extensible too ... but I'd still have to pay a builder to
> build the extension.

... or you can build the garage extension yourself. Obviously, you lose 
guaranty if you do, but you can still do it.

If I take the analogy with a garage ... the garage builder puts a sensor 
in your garage that measures how big the garage is (and it is deliberately 
welded hard so that it's hard to remove). When you extend the garage, the 
sensor notices the nonstandard size and locks the garage door so that you 
can't use the garage.

> > HP sells a computer that it claims to be c8000 and that the user cannot 
> > expand to two processors, contrary to the claims in the whitepaper.
> 
> The whitepaper only claims they are extensible (which they are) it
> doesn't claim the user can do the extension (because they can't).

It says "lets YOU grow and configure the system as needed". There is that 
pronoun "YOU".

> > These claims really deceive users, both me and the person who sold me the 
> > CPU were deceived by them.
> > 
> > Anyone living in the US and wanting to file a complain to FTC about these 
> > computers falsely advertised as expandable? :)
> 
> The FTC would take the view that it's standard industry practise and
> that you didn't do due diligence ... 

I'm interested ... does HP anywhere in its materials mention the firmware 
locks? They are not even in the technical guide in the section that 
mentions adding a CPU.

So if I should perform due diligence where should I find out about the 
locks?

I don't even know which locks are in my machine --- I added 1GB memory and 
a 32-bit PCI serial card and it worked ... how can I find what else can or 
can't I add?

For example: Can I replace the 0.9GHz CPU with a faster 1.1GHz? 
(obviously, it is needed to know it before purchasing the CPU)

> However, why don't you try what we usually do?  That's ask HP nicely 
> (via someone in their linux department) for the firmware upgrade; it's 
> mostly worked in the past ... assuming you haven't antagonised them too 
> much by calling them liars and cheats, that is ...
> 
> James

That's why I asked here ... without accussing anyone of lying first ... 
assuming that there are Linux hackers on this list, they have thorough 
knowledge of the hardware and they'll say something like "run this command 
in PDC" or "flip byte at that address in nvram to that value and unlock 
it".

But it seems that people on this list don't know about those HP locks too 
:-(

Mikulas

Re: C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, John David Anglin wrote:

> > > In the section on replacing the system board, it says to use the ss_update
> > > utility in the BCH Service menu to reset the serial number.  Is the MFG
> > > menu accessible?  There may be some hidden commands to setup config.
> > 
> > There is a service menu, but no mfg menu and no ss_update command.
> > 
> > Interesting ... "mfg" gives "ERROR: Unsupported command" while any other 
> > bad commands gives "ERROR: Unknown command".
> > 
> > So there is something magic abouth that "mfg" menu, but it's inaccessible.
> 
> The mfg menu was shown in an online document about setting up the c8000.
> 
> I would guess that ss_update command and mfg menu disappear after
> the unit has been configured.  Probably, the configuration data needs
> to be erased/reset to restore the menu.  Possibly, reflashing the
> bch firmware would do it, or maybe there is a ODE command to reset
> the config.
> 
> You might try downloading the firmware update.  At least for the
> rp3440, one burns an ODE CD.  Then, one boots the CD and uses various
> ODE commands to flash the firmware.  There was definitely a lot
> more stuff on the CD than just the utilities to flash the firmware.
> Of course, one mistake and you brick the system.  It would probably
> take HP specific JTAG tools to recover.
> 
> Dave

I found some HPUX binary, as a firmware upgrade for C8000, that I didn't 
run (it says it upgrades to the same version that I have).

I'm quite scared to run rp3440 CD on an unsupported system. But I'll try 
anyway.

Mikulas

Re: False advertising (was: C8000 cpu upgrade problem)

[John David Anglin]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Mikulas Patocka wrote:

> > It's fairly standard for the enterprise space:  Both HP and IBM actually
> > sell boxes fully loaded but disable unpaid for capabilities in the
> > firmware (i.e. sell you a 2-cpu box that really contains 4 cpus so they
> > then sell a firmware upgrade as two extra cpus); enterprise users
> > actually like the convenience of not having to haul away and replace the
> > box.
> 
> This is a different case. You can't accuse a contractor if you order two 
> CPUs and get four :)

I agree.  HP didn't provide the extra cpu module.  Nothing in the technical
documentation indicates that you can't add another processor module without
a firmware update.  In fact, they provide instructions on how to add one.

I don't believe there is any form of capability license involved here.

As far as I can tell, firmware updates for the c8000 are freely available
on HP's site.

> It says "lets YOU grow and configure the system as needed". There is that 
> pronoun "YOU".

Also agree.  The whitepaper and product brief for the c8000 are very clear
on users being able to expand their systems and keep ownership costs low.

It's possible the motherboard of Mikulas' system is broken, or doesn't
work with a second processor module.  So, support for it is disabled.
Selling reduced versions of chips is very common in the semiconductor
industry to increase yield.

I would check the label on the product.

> I don't even know which locks are in my machine --- I added 1GB memory and 
> a 32-bit PCI serial card and it worked ... how can I find what else can or 
> can't I add?
> 
> For example: Can I replace the 0.9GHz CPU with a faster 1.1GHz? 
> (obviously, it is needed to know it before purchasing the CPU)

It's a good question, but probably there isn't a clear answer.  It
may work, but the system probably wasn't tested with the faster processor.
The faster processor will likely use more power and create an additional
thermal load.

Still, there is the expectation in the current workstation market that
the processors in a system can be upgraded provided they are compatible.

> But it seems that people on this list don't know about those HP locks too 
> :-(

Most don't have any affiliation with HP.  I have been on this list a
long time, and don't believe this issue has been discussed before,
although the kernel maintainers may be aware of it.

In general, this kind of hardware information is proprietory.  The
PC architecture only opened up because of a lot of competition and
reverse engineering.  Even there, you may need a NDA to access some
documentation.  It costs $3000/year to access PCI-SIG documents, etc.

James, what kind of firmware update is needed?

Dave
-- 
J. David Anglin                                  dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
National Research Council of Canada              (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)

Re: False advertising (was: C8000 cpu upgrade problem)

[Kyle McMartin]

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 03:42:13PM -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
> Most don't have any affiliation with HP.  I have been on this list a
> long time, and don't believe this issue has been discussed before,
> although the kernel maintainers may be aware of it.
> 

I honestly didn't know about it... I mean, I knew that HP did similar
things on IA-64 where new cpus could be 'purchased' and spun up with no
downtime. But I didn't realize the C8000 had such limitations (mine is
an early prototype so there was no possibility for upgrade and I never
bothered.)

Hopefully on Monday someone from HP who's still around may be able to
provide the tool since any support contracts are probably expired given
they haven't been sold since 2006...

We should add a note to the faq about this.

--Kyle

Re: False advertising (was: C8000 cpu upgrade problem)

[James Bottomley]

On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 15:42 -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
> > But it seems that people on this list don't know about those HP locks too 
> > :-(
> 
> Most don't have any affiliation with HP.  I have been on this list a
> long time, and don't believe this issue has been discussed before,
> although the kernel maintainers may be aware of it.
> 
> In general, this kind of hardware information is proprietory.  The
> PC architecture only opened up because of a lot of competition and
> reverse engineering.  Even there, you may need a NDA to access some
> documentation.  It costs $3000/year to access PCI-SIG documents, etc.
> 
> James, what kind of firmware update is needed?

I have no idea ... I'm only deducing this from what had to be done to
ion to make it a 4-way.  We had similar upgrades to some of the A180s as
well.  It is unusual for a workstation class system, but the "too many
CPUs" message seems definitive.  Perhaps the firmware is essentially the
same as a server class and it's inheriting this behaviour.

James

Re: False advertising (was: C8000 cpu upgrade problem)

[John David Anglin]

> > James, what kind of firmware update is needed?
> 
> I have no idea ... I'm only deducing this from what had to be done to
> ion to make it a 4-way.  We had similar upgrades to some of the A180s as
> well.  It is unusual for a workstation class system, but the "too many
> CPUs" message seems definitive.  Perhaps the firmware is essentially the
> same as a server class and it's inheriting this behaviour.

I agree the message appears definitive, but my impression from searching
the internet and the technical reference is that the c8000 doesn't require
firmware upgrades like the servers to add a processor module.

I see that various suppliers are selling processor upgrade modules
(AB630A : 900 MHz 32 MB L2) for c8000.  There are warnings that speed
and cache must match.  Some c8000s were sold without L2 cache, but
I don't see any processor modules without cache for sale.

Dave
-- 
J. David Anglin                                  dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
National Research Council of Canada              (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)

Re: False advertising (was: C8000 cpu upgrade problem)

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Kyle McMartin wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 03:42:13PM -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
> > Most don't have any affiliation with HP.  I have been on this list a
> > long time, and don't believe this issue has been discussed before,
> > although the kernel maintainers may be aware of it.
> 
> I honestly didn't know about it... I mean, I knew that HP did similar
> things on IA-64 where new cpus could be 'purchased' and spun up with no
> downtime.

I suppose that that IA-64 booted with spare CPUs but didn't use them. My 
C8000 doesn't boot with two CPUs at all. It drops into PDC prompt, saying 
the warning about too many CPUs, and the "BO" command refuses to boot, 
asking the user to review the warnings.

> But I didn't realize the C8000 had such limitations (mine is
> an early prototype so there was no possibility for upgrade and I never
> bothered.)
>
> Hopefully on Monday someone from HP who's still around may be able to
> provide the tool since any support contracts are probably expired given
> they haven't been sold since 2006...

It would be nice if they provided the tool and cleared the false 
advertising problem.

I'm quite afraid that a single HP engineer can't release them. More 
likely, someone higher up the corporate command chain declared that the 
tools are "proprietary" and didn't realize that such restriction really 
makes the product deviate from advertised capabilities.

> We should add a note to the faq about this.
> 
> --Kyle

Mikulas

Re: False advertising (was: C8000 cpu upgrade problem)

[Thibaut VARÈNE]

Le 23 oct. 10 =E0 19:14, Matt Turner a =E9crit :

> Poor HP.
>
> Seriously though. From a glance, the C8000 seems to be the most
> capable PA-RISC system for someone who wants to help with
> Linux-on-PARISC. Clearly, people like upgrading (and being able to
> upgrade) their computers. If I were to buy a C8000 I'd be interested
> in figuring out how to find a second CPU, add more RAM, and install
> another PCI card. But these debilitating restrictions prevent any of
> this.
>
> So, my question is, if you and Carlos knew about this previously
> (which I assume you did by your responses, but I may be wrong) then
> why can I not find this information anywhere on parisc-linux.org or i=
n
> the appropriate mailing list archives?

Disclaimer: IANAL and I don't know C8000.

I suppose we can't put the procedure about how to to do that on the =20
website for two reasons:

1) if my assumptions are right, enabling the extra CPU requires =20
entering Manufacturing Mode (MFG in PDC parlance) in order to change =20
the Model String (suppositions based on previous experience with a =20
different machine), which itself needs a hardware-specific password, =20
generated with an HP tool using the crypto challenge prompted by the =20
firmware when trying to activate this mode (been there on another =20
machine).
2) it would most likely be illegal (and a liability) to either =20
disclose the means to circumvent HP's upgrading policy or to provide =20
the HP-internal tools to do so, if ever we had them (which we do not). =
=20
Even more so since our website is hosted @HP.

James rightfully pointed out that the best way to solve this issue =20
would be to kindly ring a bell within HP and try to work this out on a =
=20
one-on-one basis, hopefully avoiding calling names. HP has a history =20
of being relatively helpful with that sort of matters, I'd expect this =
=20
to turn for the best.

HTH

T-Bone--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc"=
 in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: False advertising (was: C8000 cpu upgrade problem)

[Matt Turner]

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Thibaut VAR=C8NE <T-Bone@parisc-linux.=
org> wrote:
> I suppose we can't put the procedure about how to to do that on the w=
ebsite
> for two reasons:
>
> 1) if my assumptions are right, enabling the extra CPU requires enter=
ing
> Manufacturing Mode (MFG in PDC parlance) in order to change the Model=
 String
> (suppositions based on previous experience with a different machine),=
 which
> itself needs a hardware-specific password, generated with an HP tool =
using
> the crypto challenge prompted by the firmware when trying to activate=
 this
> mode (been there on another machine).
> 2) it would most likely be illegal (and a liability) to either disclo=
se the
> means to circumvent HP's upgrading policy or to provide the HP-intern=
al
> tools to do so, if ever we had them (which we do not). Even more so s=
ince
> our website is hosted @HP.

I wasn't suggesting putting instructions to circumvent whatever
protections HP has in place on the site. I only meant a note saying
"don't expect to be able to add another CPU or even upgrade the RAM or
CPU."

Matt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc"=
 in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: False advertising (was: C8000 cpu upgrade problem)

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Thibaut VAR?NE wrote:

> Disclaimer: IANAL and I don't know C8000.
> 
> I suppose we can't put the procedure about how to to do that on the website
> for two reasons:
> 
> 1) if my assumptions are right, enabling the extra CPU requires entering
> Manufacturing Mode (MFG in PDC parlance) in order to change the Model String
> (suppositions based on previous experience with a different machine), which
> itself needs a hardware-specific password, generated with an HP tool using the
> crypto challenge prompted by the firmware when trying to activate this mode
> (been there on another machine).
> 2) it would most likely be illegal (and a liability) to either disclose the
> means to circumvent HP's upgrading policy or to provide the HP-internal tools
> to do so, if ever we had them (which we do not). Even more so since our
> website is hosted @HP.
> 
> James rightfully pointed out that the best way to solve this issue would be to
> kindly ring a bell within HP and try to work this out on a one-on-one basis,
> hopefully avoiding calling names. HP has a history of being relatively helpful
> with that sort of matters, I'd expect this to turn for the best.

I think that asking employees to do illegal things (or things against 
corporate rules) isn't a viable way to go.

Once (a long time ago, on a totally different project) I got an offer for 
some internal code from an employee, who thought that it could improve my 
open source work. I refused it because I don't want to get into unneeded 
trouble. If I accepted it, I'd have to be careful to not ever disclose 
implicitly or explicitly that I saw the code.

Mikulas

> HTH
> 
> T-Bone

Re: False advertising (was: C8000 cpu upgrade problem)

[Thibaut VARÈNE]

Le 24 oct. 10 =E0 05:18, Mikulas Patocka a =E9crit :
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Thibaut VAR?NE wrote:

>> James rightfully pointed out that the best way to solve this issue =20
>> would be to
>> kindly ring a bell within HP and try to work this out on a one-on-=20
>> one basis,
>> hopefully avoiding calling names. HP has a history of being =20
>> relatively helpful
>> with that sort of matters, I'd expect this to turn for the best.
>
> I think that asking employees to do illegal things (or things against
> corporate rules) isn't a viable way to go.

I'm not suggesting anything like that.

> Once (a long time ago, on a totally different project) I got an =20
> offer for
> some internal code from an employee, who thought that it could =20
> improve my
> open source work. I refused it because I don't want to get into =20
> unneeded
> trouble. If I accepted it, I'd have to be careful to not ever disclos=
e
> implicitly or explicitly that I saw the code.


WTH? Clearly accessing HP's intellectual property and asking for a one-=
=20
time unique unlock password for phased out hardware are two very =20
different things, I'm sure you can undertand that.

=46WIW, rereading your emails, it looks like your CPU model doesn't =20
indeed support dual-processor configuration. Try asking for help on =20
HP's support forums. Competent people are generally around and might =20
be able to answer your questions.

Regarding speed upgrade, I don't know whether your machine would be =20
locked down or not. On server systems, changing CPUs for faster ones =20
generally requires Model Name change (and thus entering MFG mode, =20
etc), but as JDA pointed out, this may not be the case for workstations=
=2E

--=20
Thibaut VAR=C8NE
http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc"=
 in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, John David Anglin wrote:

> > It may be that the lack of L2 cache is the reason why the CPUs don't 
> > support multiprocessing ... I may buy two better CPUs, if I had actually 
> > guarantee that the machine isn't locked (I don't want to waste more money 
> > just to find out that the firmware lock doesn't go away).
> 
> Are you sure the part numbers for the two processor modules that you
> have are the same?  Parts with cache seem much more common.  There
> also seem to be quite a few obsolete parts.

They are the same (I posted the version numbers written by PDC). But as 
you noted, the versions without L2 cache may not be smp aware.

> It might be Linux would work better without the L2 cache.

What is the exact problem with L2 cache? Is it virtually indexed too?

> There are are some cache coherency issues that haven't been resolved in 
> SMP.

What exactly do you mean?

> These problems are aggrevated by the L2 cache which takes a long 
> time to flush.
> 
> It's just not clear that your machine is locked.  The c8000 model
> name doesn't change depending on number of processors.  If you search
> on rp3410 processor upgrade, you will find that a processor update
> license is needed to go from one to two processor.  This is clear
> in the documentation.  I couldn't find anything similar for c8000.
> Indeed, there are many indications that an after-market processor
> update is possible for it.

I don't know. Before I buy two CPUs to get a quad-core system, I'd like to 
make sure it isn't locked. Can the lock be detected somehow?

Mikulas

> Good luck,
> Dave
> -- 
> J. David Anglin                                  dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
> National Research Council of Canada              (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)
> 

Re: C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[John David Anglin]

> It may be that the lack of L2 cache is the reason why the CPUs don't 
> support multiprocessing ... I may buy two better CPUs, if I had actually 
> guarantee that the machine isn't locked (I don't want to waste more money 
> just to find out that the firmware lock doesn't go away).

Are you sure the part numbers for the two processor modules that you
have are the same?  Parts with cache seem much more common.  There
also seem to be quite a few obsolete parts.

It might be Linux would work better without the L2 cache.  There are
are some cache coherency issues that haven't been resolved in SMP.
These problems are aggrevated by the L2 cache which takes a long
time to flush.

It's just not clear that your machine is locked.  The c8000 model
name doesn't change depending on number of processors.  If you search
on rp3410 processor upgrade, you will find that a processor update
license is needed to go from one to two processor.  This is clear
in the documentation.  I couldn't find anything similar for c8000.
Indeed, there are many indications that an after-market processor
update is possible for it.

Good luck,
Dave
-- 
J. David Anglin                                  dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
National Research Council of Canada              (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)

Re: C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[Kyle McMartin]

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 05:03:25AM +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> I tried to measure the cache size, sequential memory read showed cutoff at 
> 700kB and no cutoff at 32MB. It shows 1.7GB/s below 700kB and 612MB/s 
> above. Latency measurements (chasing pointer chain) showed drastic cutoff 
> at 700kB (from 3ns to 300ns) and no cutoff at 32MB.
> 
> It may be that the lack of L2 cache is the reason why the CPUs don't 
> support multiprocessing ... I may buy two better CPUs, if I had actually 
> guarantee that the machine isn't locked (I don't want to waste more money 
> just to find out that the firmware lock doesn't go away).
> 

FWIW, I'd recommend running in non-SMP mode on pa8800/8900 anyway, as
our cache flushing is a bit... suboptimal right now (doing whole cache
flushes on fork and such.) Which, coupled with the gigantic caches on
those cpus which must be flushed just tanks performance.

I've been working on cleaning up jejb's patchset from back in the
bitkeeper days to properly do deferred flushing, but time is constantly
against me (sigh, I don't think I've even powered on my C8000 in a few
years now... explains why I didn't catch your e1000 issue there. :)

--Kyle

Re: C8000 cpu upgrade problem

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, John David Anglin wrote:

> > I'm still thinking the processor module shown above is the base
> > model with 3 MB L1 and no L2, and it's not consistent with upgrade
> > module.
> 
> I just noticed the following wording in the online specifications:
> 
> 1 or 2 dual-core PA-8800 or PA-8900 processors
>   (2-way 900 MHz PA-8800 with 3 MB L1 cache,
>    2 or 4-way 900 MHz or 1 GHz PA-8800 3 MB L1 and 32 MB L2 cache or
>    2 or 4-way 1.1 GHz PA-8900 with 3 MB L1 cache and 64 MB L2 cache)
> 
> Note the base model with no L2 appears to be only 2-way.  If it
> can be upgraded, I think you would need a AB665A kit.  Kits with
> L2 cache seem more common.  To do this right, you need to start
> with the specific workstation model number.
> 
> See HP PartSurfer.
> 
> I also found a QuickSpecs document with PA-8900 processors.  It looks
> like the 2-way base is not upgradeable as the second processor options
> only have 64 MB L2.  The document lists a 2nd processor as an after-market
> option (AB675A or AB676A).  There is a note that the second processor
> must be the same as the first.
> 
> Dave
> -- 
> J. David Anglin                                  dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
> National Research Council of Canada              (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)

I tried to measure the cache size, sequential memory read showed cutoff at 
700kB and no cutoff at 32MB. It shows 1.7GB/s below 700kB and 612MB/s 
above. Latency measurements (chasing pointer chain) showed drastic cutoff 
at 700kB (from 3ns to 300ns) and no cutoff at 32MB.

It may be that the lack of L2 cache is the reason why the CPUs don't 
support multiprocessing ... I may buy two better CPUs, if I had actually 
guarantee that the machine isn't locked (I don't want to waste more money 
just to find out that the firmware lock doesn't go away).

Mikulas