| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: The Clean Energy Project Forum
Thread: The Clean Energy Project & CPU temps |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 20
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Kaiden
Cruncher Joined: Oct 27, 2008 Post Count: 7 Status: Offline |
Has anyone noticed that some of these WUs are causing some huge spikes in CPU temps?
----------------------------------------I started this project using a Q6600 in my system and my idle temps were 25-30 C. BOINC normally raises the temp by 10 C at full load on all 4 cores. So figure 40 C. With The Clean Energy Project the temps are going up even further. I just swapped out my Q6600 for a Q9550. The idle temps are around 28-30 C. I've only run the Clean Energy Project so far. One WU was 32 hours! I'm running at 95% of CPU time and will let the thing run as much as possible as long as it doesn't interfere with anything else I am doing. Some of the WUs have gotten my CPU temp up to 49 C from an idle temp of 30 C. This is pretty extreme. Only some of the WUs are doing this. The lower numbered ones are the crazy ones. Anyway, I'm posting because beside the insane length of time some of the WUs take, the page faults into the hundreds of millions, the crazy page fault deltas, etc, I'm just curious to know if anyone else is finding that some WUs are raising cooling issues. For the record I'm using an OCZ Vendetta 2 HSF with Arctic Cooling MX-2 compound in place of the standard Intel HSF, have two 120 mm intake fans, an ATI 4870 which directly exhausts its own heat, a 120 mm exhaust fan, the PSU exhaust fan, another 120 mm exhaust fan, and a fan blowing on my Corsair Dominator DDR2-1066 memory. In short, I haven't cut corners on cooling. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Kaiden at Dec 15, 2008 6:07:50 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Somehow, I think your new temperatures are caused by the new CPU, not by the new project.
49 C may be more than you are used to, but it is perfectly safe. It is a full 20 C away from the safe maximum operating temperature. |
||
|
|
BE04642
Advanced Cruncher Belgium Joined: Dec 14, 2004 Post Count: 59 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I noticed it too, same configs and CPU's - at home 2 Q6600 and 1 E5200 all pretty well overclocked, 2 to 3 °C hotter when doing CEP's
---------------------------------------- Go Clean, temp will rise  These WU's sure are  A biggy one on 1 of my Q6600's: E000018_ 209A_ 00025k00t_ 1-- myq6600_1 Valid 11/12/08 05:27:58 14/12/08 21:20:21 28.19 636.1 / 648.0 28+ hours!!!  Normal cycle is between 1.5 to 8-9 hours on this baby...  |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Well well, what coincidence. Decided last night to go experiment v.v. the CEP kernel/pf times and overall efficiency. Found that 1 CEP job alone had less and after 1.5 hours gave a completion time of 7:30. When allowing the second CEP, the times went up and eventually, with 3 and 4 the first result completed near 9 hours.
----------------------------------------Why I looked in this early was the crux, for could not hear the fan going and the normal higher pace. Looking at the temp indicator it was as if not all was running 100%. The computer showed not up but temp down by a whole 4C. Measured with CoreTemp and SpeedFan, latter used to keep it a toasty 52C flat. It's a Q6600 with Vista, so figure that. Have a nice day oh, yes, the first one finding quorum waiting eval: E000030_ 671A_ 00042500h_ 1-- Pending Validation 12/14/08 19:10:11 12/15/08 06:15:55 4.74 78.4 / 0.0 < 16.54 per hour E000030_ 671A_ 00042500h_ 0-- Pending Validation 12/14/08 19:08:27 12/15/08 07:43:33 8.55 132.1 / 0.0 < Moi 15.45 per hour Will update credit, but given the hourly claim it's probably working out as 78.4 being awarded to both. And if credits are a reflection of flops processed it's not looking good for my quad.
WCG
----------------------------------------Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sekerob at Dec 15, 2008 8:07:54 AM] |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
The exception always confirms the rule.... suddenly the fast machine is a severe underclaimer... hard time believing that.
----------------------------------------E000030_ 671A_ 00042500h_ 1-- Valid 12/14/08 19:10:11 12/15/08 06:15:55 4.74 78.4 / 132.1 E000030_ 671A_ 00042500h_ 0-- Valid 12/14/08 19:08:27 12/15/08 07:43:33 8.55 132.1 / 132.1
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
Kaiden
Cruncher Joined: Oct 27, 2008 Post Count: 7 Status: Offline |
I have 20 completed WUs. Here are some of my valid ones so far:
----------------------------------------
The Clean Energy Project 38,681 20 0:012:02:37:00 I've gotten nice returns on the lonnnnng ones but, yes, I've gotten a bit hurt by short ones. My 9.28 hour WU only granted 57.3? Ouch! Anyway, I'm not in it for the points although I do like shiny badges.  Regardless, in the end, I just couldn't help but notice a temp increase with some of the WUs but not all. It's not just because of my new CPU. The Q6600 also ran hotter when doing some of the WUs for this project. That makes 2 different CPUs in the same exact system run hotter when BOINC is running this and only this project. Nothing else was different and if BOINC didn't run then the temps remained normal. Anyway, I'm not trying to yell "fire" in a movie theatre but I wanted to make sure I'm not the only person noticing some higher temps occurring when running these WUs. The E000017 WUs are monsters. [Edit 2 times, last edit by Kaiden at Dec 15, 2008 8:22:54 AM] |
||
|
|
BE04642
Advanced Cruncher Belgium Joined: Dec 14, 2004 Post Count: 59 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Hey, just did the same experiment. 1 CEP job on a Q6600 just 'smokes', 2 are flying, 3 are walking, 4 are crawling.
----------------------------------------Maybe they use some huge datasets that fit nicely into the L2 cache when doing 1-2 at the same time. Will try a mix of 3 rice and a CEP, just for the kicks  Well well, what coincidence. Decided last night to go experiment v.v. the CEP kernel/pf times and overall efficiency. Found that 1 CEP job alone had less and after 1.5 hours gave a completion time of 7:30. When allowing the second CEP, the times went up and eventually, with 3 and 4 the first result completed near 9 hours. Why I looked in this early was the crux, for could not hear the fan going and the normal higher pace. Looking at the temp indicator it was as if not all was running 100%. The computer showed not up but temp down by a whole 4C. Measured with CoreTemp and SpeedFan, latter used to keep it a toasty 52C flat. It's a Q6600 with Vista, so figure that. Have a nice day oh, yes, the first one finding quorum waiting eval: E000030_ 671A_ 00042500h_ 1-- Pending Validation 12/14/08 19:10:11 12/15/08 06:15:55 4.74 78.4 / 0.0 < 16.54 per hour E000030_ 671A_ 00042500h_ 0-- Pending Validation 12/14/08 19:08:27 12/15/08 07:43:33 8.55 132.1 / 0.0 < Moi 15.45 per hour Will update credit, but given the hourly claim it's probably working out as 78.4 being awarded to both. And if credits are a reflection of flops processed it's not looking good for my quad. |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
RICE, now that's a light diet. Switched the machine to 2 CEP + 2 HCC and things improved again, so there is a seeming serious resource contention.
----------------------------------------Yes, the techs have a job to do to get the efficiency up for the multi-cores.
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
Dark Angel
Veteran Cruncher Australia Joined: Nov 11, 2005 Post Count: 721 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Just a thought, but are the CEP units experiencing the same page fault issues that the early HCC units had? I remember a number of people with quad core machines having issues at one point and it was all due to the large number of page faults.
---------------------------------------- Currently being moderated under false pretences |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Yes, all too aware. The faulting is not the drama, it's the pf delta / kernel time that's eating into it.
----------------------------------------Reminds me of a feature discussion again of limiting BOINC to run only 1 of particular projects for either efficiency or temperature reasons. I've set the profile so that it is improbably to have more than 1 running (multi project profile and swap file memory limits, since they eat piles of that). Will see how the machine reacts to hitting the restrictions. [off topic] Dark Angel > Black Betty > Betty Page, passed away last week [/offtopic]
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
|