<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Collecting info via WMI</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ilkirk.com/archive/2009/01/collecting-info-via-wmi/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ilkirk.com/archive/2009/01/collecting-info-via-wmi/</link>
	<description>One more DBA in the pool!</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:06:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Garrett</title>
		<link>http://ilkirk.com/archive/2009/01/collecting-info-via-wmi/comment-page-1/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>Garrett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:32:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ilkirk.com/?p=41#comment-6</guid>
		<description>A couple of things to be careful with.

One is that every time a computer reboots, there is a possibility that the Hz count can change by 1-2 Hz in either direction.  *nix seems to be more sensitive to this, but I've seen it in Windows 2000 as well.

The second is maybe a non-issue, but if the servers have shared video memory (even 1-2 MB), it can make a RAM count look ugly if you divide by 1024 and get something like 3.998046875 GB of RAM instead of 4 GB.

Things may have changed since I last experimented with Windows 2000, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A couple of things to be careful with.</p>
<p>One is that every time a computer reboots, there is a possibility that the Hz count can change by 1-2 Hz in either direction.  *nix seems to be more sensitive to this, but I&#8217;ve seen it in Windows 2000 as well.</p>
<p>The second is maybe a non-issue, but if the servers have shared video memory (even 1-2 MB), it can make a RAM count look ugly if you divide by 1024 and get something like 3.998046875 GB of RAM instead of 4 GB.</p>
<p>Things may have changed since I last experimented with Windows 2000, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
