Eating WU

drasnordrasnor Starship OperatorHawthorne, CA Icrontian
edited March 2004 in Folding@Home
I don't know if this constitutes a pattern, but my system has been failing WU over the past few weeks, like 1 in 10. I started keeping track of which ones fail, and here 's the rundown.

[00:47:41] Project: 526 (Run 7, Clone 77, Gen 1)
[14:13:54] Project: 917 (Run 7, Clone 55, Gen 22)
[17:56:47] Project: 914 (Run 0, Clone 36, Gen 22)
[10:25:31] Project: 683 (Run 39, Clone 90, Gen 18)
[16:35:22] Project: 922 (Run 8, Clone 20, Gen 33)
[02:32:36] Project: 922 (Run 2, Clone 11, Gen 4)
[02:17:55] Project: 921 (Run 21, Clone 11, Gen 20)
[05:18:20] Project: 921 (Run 45, Clone 22, Gen 23)
[06:21:20] Project: 920 (Run 2, Clone 26, Gen 25)
[18:11:58] Project: 922 (Run 43, Clone 9, Gen 24)
[10:41:36] Project: 922 (Run 15, Clone 14, Gen 35)
[00:09:06] Project: 922 (Run 23, Clone 2, Gen 17)
[17:54:08] Project: 917 (Run 43, Clone 15, Gen 18)

They're mostly 917, 920, 921, and 922 projects. The 526 and 683 happened when I was having thermal issues earlier, but that isn't the case anymore. I figured I'd go ahead and see what you folks think. I'm sure Stanford takes notice when they get failed WU back.

-drasnor :fold:

Comments

  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited January 2004
    What was the error you got?
  • hypermoodhypermood Smyrna, GA New
    edited January 2004
    I've run 683, 914, 917, and 921 without problems, but the constraints (Run, Clone, Gen) were different. Haven't had any WU failures lately either. You may want to try running the Prime95 Torture Test to see if it reveals anything. Good luck, I know it can be frustrating.
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Geeky, in my own way Naples, FL Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Ok, some more data would be nice, since these are Gromacs WUs. First, what hardware are you using, down to video card, processor, and motherboard, and are you seeing IRQ or other conflicts in the System Information app in Start Menu| Accessories|System Tools if you are running XP, and if not what Widnows or other O\S are you running????

    Errors by WU would be nice, if anything mre specific, and an idea if you are OCing and what teh case and CPU and ambient temps for room and PSU exhaust temps are also. The PSU internal temp is hottest place in computer, adn a PSU with a filing fan or a load issue can result in seemingly random failures, so one way to detect a load or PSU fan issue early on is to look at relative PSU temps versus case. IF PSU is relatively high and climbing higher over time, PSUs these days will get less efficient as they get hotter. Cheaper PSUs often have cheaper fans and are less effective when hot than when at normal. cheaper fans fail faster. Capacitors and transformers bleed a lot of heat-- transformers more than CAPs but they can heat CAPs also as well as gen more EMI when hot than when cooler or normal.

    I would look at heat and voltages and client version and Core version with Gromacs,and stacks that include your telecomm or netowrk devices-- stack those and you get bad downloads as you can get junk in download process of kinds that are hard to isolate. Include PSU in your relative heat mapping if you have had box shut down thermally, this can be PSU thermalling. PSU is stressed to limit when it thermals. Look for unusual relations between PSU and case and CPU temps, highest relatively is what you address first. You are looking for heat buildup as symptoms of failure here.

    I can explain more if ASKED, and will get more specific if asked.

    John.
  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Well, this is my dual Opteron rig that has its own thread elsewhere. I'll cut and paste though:

    Motherboard: MSI K8T Master2-FAR
    Processor(s): 2x AMD Opteron 248 @ 2.2GHz, 1MB L2 cache
    Memory: 1GB (2x512MB) Corsair TwinX PC3200RE-LLPT DDR400, 2-3-2-6 @ 2.65V
    Graphics: nVidia GeForce 3 Ti500
    Chassis: Lian Li PC-7 w/ all Panaflo H1A fans.
    NIC: Integrated Broadcomm gigabit LAN w/ boot ROM.
    Storage: 2x Western Digital Caviar 160GB/8MB drives in RAID0 using SATA->PATA bridge boards and VIA Southbridge SATA RAID, 1x Western Digital SE 250GB/8MB for backing up the array.
    Sound: Creative SoundBlaster Audigy 2 Platinum
    PSU: Antec TruePower EPS12v 550W, partially sleeved.
    Optical Drives: Sony CRX300E 16x DVD, 48x24x48 CD-R/RW. Sony DW-U14A 4x2 DVD+/-R/RW, 24x16 CD-R/RW, 32x8 CD read/DVD read.
    Other:
    Internally-mounted ATI Remote Wonder
    Internally-mounted Atech Flash Pro-9 USB2 multi-reader/writer.
    3.5" floppy drive.
    5.25" floppy drive w/ blue activity LED.
    USRobotics 56k V.92 hardware PCI modem.
    ALi-chipset USB2 adapter on PCI.

    This machine passed memtest86 without any trouble, though I haven't tried it with prime95 yet. It is using a three-week old install of Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 1 installed and everything up to date. The BIOS is the original 1.0, since the 1.1 BIOS makes the machine very unstable and prone to hard lockups. There aren't any IRQ conflicts, and there shouldn't be since this is an ACPI machine and all my peripherals support IRQ sharing.

    Ambient: 22 C
    CPU0: 46 C
    CPU1: 43 C
    Chassis: 36 C
    PC Alert III shows my volts like so, but I'm dubious about using built-in monitoring hardware.
    +3.3V: 3.13V
    +5V: 4.93V
    +12V: 11.80V
    Vcore: 1.14V

    Vdimm is set to 2.65V, though I don't know what it's at.

    Current System Uptime: 2 days, 15 hrs, 22 mins, 30 secs as of this post.

    This error is for Project: 922 (Run 2, Clone 11, Gen 4), which is p922_vpf913
    [08:38:04] Step 150188, time 300.376 (ps)  LINCS WARNING
    [08:38:04] relative constraint deviation after LINCS:
    [08:38:04] max 211.177139 (between atoms 43 and 44) rms 12.326355
    [08:38:04] 
    [08:38:04] Simulation instability has been encountered. The run has entered a
    [08:38:04]   state from which no further progress can be made.
    [08:38:04] If you often see other project units terminating early like this
    [08:38:04]   too, you may wish to check the stability of your computer (issues
    [08:38:04]   such as high temperature, overclocking, etc.).
    [08:38:04] Going to send back what have done.
    [08:38:04] logfile size: 10259
    [08:38:04] - Writing 10942 bytes of core data to disk...
    [08:38:04]   ... Done.
    [08:38:04] 
    [08:38:04] Folding@home Core Shutdown: EARLY_UNIT_END
    [08:38:08] CoreStatus = 72 (114)
    [08:38:08] Sending work to server
    

    This error is for Project: 914 (Run 0, Clone 36, Gen 22), which is p914_vpf909.
    [18:24:49] Quit 101 - Fatal error: 
    [18:24:49] Step 15805, time 31.61 (ps)  LINCS WARNING
    [18:24:49] relative constraint deviation after LINCS:
    [18:24:49] max 301.984467 (between atoms 226 and 227) rms 20.599073
    [18:24:49] 
    [18:24:49] Simulation instability has been encountered. The run has entered a
    [18:24:49]   state from which no further progress can be made.
    [18:24:49] If you often see other project units terminating early like this
    [18:24:49]   too, you may wish to check the stability of your computer (issues
    [18:24:49]   such as high temperature, overclocking, etc.).
    [18:24:49] Going to send back what have done.
    [18:24:49] logfile size: 9111
    [18:24:49] - Writing 9793 bytes of core data to disk...
    [18:24:49]   ... Done.
    [18:24:50] 
    [18:24:50] Folding@home Core Shutdown: EARLY_UNIT_END
    [18:24:52] CoreStatus = 72 (114)
    [18:24:52] Sending work to server
    

    This error is for Project: 683 (Run 39, Clone 90, Gen 18), which is p683_TZ2_NAT_EXP.
    [16:20:21] Quit 101 - Fatal error: 
    [16:20:21] Step 972494, time 1944.99 (ps)  LINCS WARNING
    [16:20:21] relative constraint deviation after LINCS:
    [16:20:21] max 0.000000 (between atoms 1 and 2) rms 1.#QNAN0
    [16:20:21] 
    [16:20:21] Simulation instability has been encountered. The run has entered a
    [16:20:21]   state from which no further progress can be made.
    [16:20:21] If you often see other project units terminating early like this
    [16:20:21]   too, you may wish to check the stability of your computer (issues
    [16:20:21]   such as high temperature, overclocking, etc.).
    [16:20:21] Going to send back what have done.
    [16:20:21] logfile size: 13422
    [16:20:21] - Writing 14100 bytes of core data to disk...
    [16:20:21]   ... Done.
    [16:20:21] 
    [16:20:21] Folding@home Core Shutdown: EARLY_UNIT_END
    [16:20:25] CoreStatus = 72 (114)
    [16:20:25] Sending work to server
    

    This error is for Project: 922 (Run 8, Clone 20, Gen 33), which is p922_vpf913.
    [18:05:10] Quit 101 - Fatal error: 
    [18:05:10] Step 51922, time 103.844 (ps)  LINCS WARNING
    [18:05:10] relative constraint deviation after LINCS:
    [18:05:10] max 1.215814 (between atoms 545 and 547) rms 0.049312
    [18:05:10] 
    [18:05:10] Simulation instability has been encountered. The run has entered a
    [18:05:10]   state from which no further progress can be made.
    [18:05:10] If you often see other project units terminating early like this
    [18:05:10]   too, you may wish to check the stability of your computer (issues
    [18:05:10]   such as high temperature, overclocking, etc.).
    [18:05:10] Going to send back what have done.
    [18:05:10] logfile size: 8766
    [18:05:10] - Writing 9447 bytes of core data to disk...
    [18:05:10]   ... Done.
    [18:05:10] 
    [18:05:10] Folding@home Core Shutdown: EARLY_UNIT_END
    [18:05:13] CoreStatus = 72 (114)
    [18:05:13] Sending work to server
    

    This error is for Project: 922 (Run 15, Clone 14, Gen 35), which is p922_vpf913.
    [16:00:57] Gromacs cannot continue further.
    [16:00:57] Going to send back what have done.
    [16:00:57] logfile size: 10879
    [16:00:57] - Writing 11415 bytes of core data to disk...
    [16:00:57]   ... Done.
    [16:00:57] 
    [16:00:57] Folding@home Core Shutdown: EARLY_UNIT_END
    [16:00:59] CoreStatus = 72 (114)
    [16:00:59] Sending work to server
    

    This error is for Project: 922 (Run 23, Clone 2, Gen 17), which is p922_vpf913.
    [00:46:56] Quit 101 - Fatal error: 
    [00:46:56] Step 22623, time 45.246 (ps)  LINCS WARNING
    [00:46:56] relative constraint deviation after LINCS:
    [00:46:56] max 2345909878784.000000 (between atoms 109 and 110) rms 95199707136.000000
    [00:46:56] 
    [00:46:56] Simulation instability has been encountered. The run has entered a
    [00:46:56]   state from which no further progress can be made.
    [00:46:56] If you often see other project units terminating early like this
    [00:46:56]   too, you may wish to check the stability of your computer (issues
    [00:46:56]   such as high temperature, overclocking, etc.).
    [00:46:56] Going to send back what have done.
    [00:46:56] logfile size: 8642
    [00:46:56] - Writing 9344 bytes of core data to disk...
    [00:46:56]   ... Done.
    [00:46:56] 
    [00:46:56] Folding@home Core Shutdown: EARLY_UNIT_END
    [00:47:00] CoreStatus = 72 (114)
    [00:47:00] Sending work to server
    

    This error is for Project: 917 (Run 43, Clone 15, Gen 18), which is p917_v2180pf909.
    [19:19:14] Quit 101 - Fatal error: 
    [19:19:14] Step 44755, time 89.51 (ps)  LINCS WARNING
    [19:19:14] relative constraint deviation after LINCS:
    [19:19:14] max 52560970907648.000000 (between atoms 126 and 128) rms 3520920551424.000000
    [19:19:14] 
    [19:19:14] Simulation instability has been encountered. The run has entered a
    [19:19:14]   state from which no further progress can be made.
    [19:19:14] If you often see other project units terminating early like this
    [19:19:14]   too, you may wish to check the stability of your computer (issues
    [19:19:14]   such as high temperature, overclocking, etc.).
    [19:19:14] Going to send back what have done.
    [19:19:14] logfile size: 9116
    [19:19:14] - Writing 9820 bytes of core data to disk...
    [19:19:14]   ... Done.
    [19:19:14] 
    [19:19:14] Folding@home Core Shutdown: EARLY_UNIT_END
    [19:19:18] CoreStatus = 72 (114)
    [19:19:18] Sending work to server
    

    This error is for Project: 917 (Run 24, Clone 65, Gen 16), which is p917_v2180pf909.
    [18:48:31] Gromacs cannot continue further.
    [18:48:31] Going to send back what have done.
    [18:48:31] logfile size: 12221
    [18:48:31] - Writing 12757 bytes of core data to disk...
    [18:48:31]   ... Done.
    [18:48:32] 
    [18:48:32] Folding@home Core Shutdown: EARLY_UNIT_END
    [18:48:34] CoreStatus = 72 (114)
    [18:48:34] Sending work to server
    

    This error is for Project: 921 (Run 21, Clone 11, Gen 20), which is p921_vpf912.
    [05:18:01] Quit 101 - Fatal error: 
    [05:18:01] Step 77215, time 154.43 (ps)  LINCS WARNING
    [05:18:01] relative constraint deviation after LINCS:
    [05:18:01] max 0.000000 (between atoms 1 and 2) rms 1.#QNAN0
    [05:18:01] 
    [05:18:01] Simulation instability has been encountered. The run has entered a
    [05:18:01]   state from which no further progress can be made.
    [05:18:01] If you often see other project units terminating early like this
    [05:18:01]   too, you may wish to check the stability of your computer (issues
    [05:18:01]   such as high temperature, overclocking, etc.).
    [05:18:01] Going to send back what have done.
    [05:18:01] logfile size: 9881
    [05:18:01] - Writing 10557 bytes of core data to disk...
    [05:18:01]   ... Done.
    [05:18:01] 
    [05:18:01] Folding@home Core Shutdown: EARLY_UNIT_END
    [05:18:05] CoreStatus = 72 (114)
    [05:18:05] Sending work to server
    

    This error is for Project: 921 (Run 45, Clone 22, Gen 23), which is p921_vpf912.
    [06:20:55] Quit 101 - Fatal error: 
    [06:20:55] Step 30788, time 61.576 (ps)  LINCS WARNING
    [06:20:55] relative constraint deviation after LINCS:
    [06:20:55] max 400.708923 (between atoms 276 and 277) rms 33.146206
    [06:20:55] 
    [06:20:55] Simulation instability has been encountered. The run has entered a
    [06:20:55]   state from which no further progress can be made.
    [06:20:55] If you often see other project units terminating early like this
    [06:20:55]   too, you may wish to check the stability of your computer (issues
    [06:20:55]   such as high temperature, overclocking, etc.).
    [06:20:55] Going to send back what have done.
    [06:20:55] logfile size: 9104
    [06:20:55] - Writing 9787 bytes of core data to disk...
    [06:20:55]   ... Done.
    [06:20:55] 
    [06:20:55] Folding@home Core Shutdown: EARLY_UNIT_END
    [06:20:59] CoreStatus = 72 (114)
    [06:20:59] Sending work to server
    

    This error is for Project: 920 (Run 2, Clone 26, Gen 25), which is p920_vpf910.
    [07:49:25] Step 41007, time 82.014 (ps)  LINCS WARNING
    [07:49:25] relative constraint deviation after LINCS:
    [07:49:25] max 28743962.000000 (between atoms 284 and 285) rms 1787097.750000
    [07:49:25] 
    [07:49:25] Simulation instability has been encountered. The run has entered a
    [07:49:25]   state from which no further progress can be made.
    [07:49:25] If you often see other project units terminating early like this
    [07:49:25]   too, you may wish to check the stability of your computer (issues
    [07:49:25]   such as high temperature, overclocking, etc.).
    [07:49:25] Going to send back what have done.
    [07:49:25] logfile size: 8647
    [07:49:25] - Writing 9340 bytes of core data to disk...
    [07:49:25]   ... Done.
    [07:49:25] 
    [07:49:25] Folding@home Core Shutdown: EARLY_UNIT_END
    [07:49:28] CoreStatus = 72 (114)
    [07:49:28] Sending work to server
    

    This error is for Project: 922 (Run 43, Clone 9, Gen 24), which is p922_vpf913.
    [01:26:43] Completed 247500 out of 250000 steps  (99)
    [01:30:36] Quit 101 - Fatal error: 
    [01:30:36] Step 249236, time 498.472 (ps)  LINCS WARNING
    [01:30:36] relative constraint deviation after LINCS:
    [01:30:36] max 44.557510 (between atoms 241 and 242) rms 1.919364
    [01:30:36] 
    [01:30:36] Simulation instability has been encountered. The run has entered a
    [01:30:36]   state from which no further progress can be made.
    [01:30:36] If you often see other project units terminating early like this
    [01:30:36]   too, you may wish to check the stability of your computer (issues
    [01:30:36]   such as high temperature, overclocking, etc.).
    [01:30:36] Going to send back what have done.
    [01:30:36] logfile size: 11623
    [01:30:36] - Writing 12306 bytes of core data to disk...
    [01:30:36]   ... Done.
    [01:30:36] 
    [01:30:36] Folding@home Core Shutdown: EARLY_UNIT_END
    [01:30:40] CoreStatus = 72 (114)
    [01:30:40] Sending work to server
    

    -drasnor :fold:
  • hypermoodhypermood Smyrna, GA New
    edited January 2004
    Is the Vcore reported correctly (1.14 is way too low) ?

    An intersting discussion on Opterons and similar issues here:
    http://www.abxzone.com/forums/showthread/t-59454.html
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited January 2004
    Well you seem to keep getting CoreStatus = 72 (114). Not sure what that means. Maybe checking on the Community will tell you something.
  • croc_croc_ New
    edited January 2004
    hypermood wrote:
    Is the Vcore reported correctly (1.14 is way too low) ?

    An intersting discussion on Opterons and similar issues here:
    http://www.abxzone.com/forums/showthread/t-59454.html

    I was wondering about that too...
  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    PC Alert III isn't designed for this motherboard, so it's more than likely it isn't reading Vcore properly.

    -drasnor :fold:
  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Here it is on Folding Community:
    http://forum.folding-community.org/viewtopic.php?t=6970

    -drasnor :fold:
  • edited January 2004
    I thought I would pop in here to read the previous discussion ;)

    What is the configuration for your system cooling exactly air in air out. Those heatsinks seems to be doing a fine job extracting the heat from the cpu but your case temps should be a lot lower. At 36C average case temp there are probably some mobo components that are very hot, voltage regulators to start with.

    I think we need to work on getting more cool air in and getting the hot air out.

    Regards

    John.
  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    The case is a Lian Li PC-7, which has two front 80mm panaflos pulling air in through a loose filter and blowing it over the hard drives. The case has a single 80mm panaflo exhaust fan in addition to the 92mm fan pulling air into the PSU and the 80mm fan blowing air out of the PSU.

    All the panaflos in this case are high output versions, which is less than the ultra high output and greater than the medium output versions.

    The VRMs near the ATX I/O shield have large finned aluminum HS on them, and there's a crappy yellow stock HS on my northbridge. There's some capacitors close to the northbridge though, so I'd have to mod a Vantec copper Iceberq to get it to fit. Anything taller interferes with the AGP slot.

    I'm going to move the case fans over to the full on connector next time I crack the case (later tonight) and see how much a difference it makes. It's folding Tinkers right now, since the assignment server wasn't giving me anything else.

    -drasnor :fold:
  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    Actually it just occurred to me that I don't have the right adapters to move the fans over because I've only got the one Zalman adapter coupled to my modded Antec Fan Only hookup. That'll have to wait then.

    BTW, I keep forgetting to thank everyone for all the help they've given. I appreciate you popping over here pythagoras; I know most people wouldn't sign up for a different forum to solve someone else's problem.

    -drasnor :fold:
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Geeky, in my own way Naples, FL Icrontian
    edited January 2004
    drasnor wrote:
    The case is a Lian Li PC-7, which has two front 80mm panaflos pulling air in through a loose filter and blowing it over the hard drives. The case has a single 80mm panaflo exhaust fan in addition to the 92mm fan pulling air into the PSU and the 80mm fan blowing air out of the PSU.

    All the panaflos in this case are high output versions, which is less than the ultra high output and greater than the medium output versions.

    The VRMs near the ATX I/O shield have large finned aluminum HS on them, and there's a crappy yellow stock HS on my northbridge. There's some capacitors close to the northbridge though, so I'd have to mod a Vantec copper Iceberq to get it to fit. Anything taller interferes with the AGP slot.

    I'm going to move the case fans over to the full on connector next time I crack the case (later tonight) and see how much a difference it makes. It's folding Tinkers right now, since the assignment server wasn't giving me anything else.

    -drasnor :fold:

    Ok, what I do with Panaflos is this:

    Front get mediums and rears high. BUT, I have two each in addition to the PSU fanning.

    With what you have, you are probably pushing more air in than is being exhausted, positive pressure is likely, and a 14 C rise in chassis over room ambient is WAY too high. I get 6 C higher inside chassis compared to room ambient-- even when room is at 29-30 C which DOES happen in Florida.

    So, given what you have, one of two things would help:

    Either use mediums for front and an ultra-high for back, or one medium and one high and an ultra-high exhaust. OR, do a top blowhole with a high in it and high out the back, and use two mediums in front.

    Hot air expands, you want more exhaust CFM than intake CFM. Let eh PSU cool itself, and you use additional fans to cool rest of case. If as air expands you get positive pressure, you get trapped hot air, and this is what looks like is happening to me.

    ADD: At a guess, your PSU is on or close to the ragged edge of what the PSU can handle temp wise after two days running, and with a positive pressure situation you are also dragging hot air into PSU-- this is one reason chassis temp needs to be lower also; PSU needs cooler air coming in than going out to cool itself well.

    John D-- we are getting a lot of Johns here, will use last inital from now on.
  • edited January 2004
    Hi,

    I tend to agree with John D here, we need to find a way of getting that heat that your switechs are extracting out of the case. I f we can do that first we can look at other areas later.

    Regards

    John W
  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian
    edited March 2004
    Ok, I modded my case to add an additional 80mm exhaust fan, but I'm still losing WU. My temperatures have improved and the case is cool to the touch, so I doubt it's a thermal issue. BIOS conflict maybe?

    Here's the new temps:
    Ambient: 27C
    Chassis: 36C
    CPU1: 46C
    CPU2: 44C

    -drasnor :fold:
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited March 2004
    I'm thinking BIOS or software issue. Are both the ambient and chassis temperatures coming from software? It's possible that the board is mis-reading the "chassis" temp; the Abit NF7-S, for example, has an extremely poorly placed ambient air temperature sensor, and the "case" temp. varies greatly with the HSF used, because heatsinks like the SLK-900A exhaust air right across the sensor. Either way, those temps. are well within the range of acceptability.
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Geeky, in my own way Naples, FL Icrontian
    edited March 2004
    pythagoras wrote:
    Hi,

    I tend to agree with John D here, we need to find a way of getting that heat that your switechs are extracting out of the case. I f we can do that first we can look at other areas later.

    Regards

    John W

    Other than ducting them to one very high-capacity rear fan (keep the HS fans in place, you want a PUSH-PULL through duct, greater pull than push, or equal to pushes to keep from making a pressure backlash onto the Hetsink fans which should be pushing air into duct), I do not know a hyper-good way to get air away from CPUs better without heating case. BUT, I can tell you that for Opterons and for fast Bartons and for P4s in the high 2GHz and up range, those CPU temps are NORMAL. Problem is that a duct would have to be custom built. Probably aluminum sheeting about 3\32nd's of an inch thick would be best. For rear fan, try a big Delta, probably a 120 mm high volume fan mounted on outside of case. Expect NOISE.

    Right now, P4 case is at 29 C here, CPU, which is OC'd to about 3.2 GHz and is a P4, has been in the 53-56 range for three days running, PWM or OTES on that box is 41 C and has been floating from 39 C to 43 C. The Barton case is at 30 C with CPU at 45 C right now. Barton case floats at 29-32 C, CPU on Barton box floats at 44-47 C. Barton CPU is a 2500+ running slightly OC'd-- almost at what a 2700+ would run at if there were such a thing, detects as a 2600+. Oh, room ambient is about 25 C outside case.... Both boxes are hyper stable, between them gen 160-250 folding points a DAY depending on WU effectiveness.

    One more thing, the P4s die at 74+ C for speed range I am talking now. The Bartons will go radically unstable at 58-67 C. I am going to P4s because they are more heat tolerant than the Bartons are in reality. The Opterons, with their metal heat spreader caps, should be more high-heat stable than the Bartons.

    John D.
  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian
    edited March 2004
    Geeky1 wrote:
    Are both the ambient and chassis temperatures coming from software? Either way, those temps. are well within the range of acceptability.
    Those are software readings, and I'm pretty sure something is exhausting right across the case sensor because it really isn't that hot inside the case (the old hand in the flow trick). The CPU temps are from the thermal diode, and monitoring is from a Winbond chip (don't have the number).

    Yeah, these are acceptable temps and probably the best I'm going to get at a semi-low noise level for a dual processor air-cooled machine.
    Ageek wrote:
    Other than ducting them to one very high-capacity rear fan (keep the HS fans in place, you want a PUSH-PULL through duct, greater pull than push, or equal to pushes to keep from making a pressure backlash onto the Hetsink fans which should be pushing air into duct), I do not know a hyper-good way to get air away from CPUs better without heating case. BUT, I can tell you that for Opterons and for fast Bartons and for P4s in the high 2GHz and up range, those CPU temps are NORMAL. Problem is that a duct would have to be custom built. Probably aluminum sheeting about 3\32nd's of an inch thick would be best. For rear fan, try a big Delta, probably a 120 mm high volume fan mounted on outside of case. Expect NOISE.
    Thermaltake makes an 80mm flexible duct (think clothes dryer exhaust duct) for overclockers that's supposed to route cold air straight from a case intake to a CPU fan, but I could switch the the flow of my CPU fans and install those as exhausts. I seriously doubt that would help more than maybe 1C, and it could hurt if it screws up airflow around the ducts or if there's back pressure at all. As it stands now, the entire back of my case is fan ports, so even moving to a bigger case isn't going to do much.

    Even so, these are decent temperatures, especially given this is a dual-processor machine. I've reinstalled Windows a couple times since I got this machine, and I've had this problem on every install. If this is a software issue, it's out of my league.

    -drasnor :fold:
Sign In or Register to comment.