Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #226247 > unrolled thread

Core Q9650 in a case with 5 hard drives

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Core Q9650 in a case with 5 hard drives James Allsopp <jamesaallsopp@googlemail.com> - 2020-08-17 22:40 +0200
    Re: Core Q9650 in a case with 5 hard drives Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-08-17 22:50 +0200
    Re: Core Q9650 in a case with 5 hard drives David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-08-18 01:40 +0200

#226247 — Core Q9650 in a case with 5 hard drives

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,
I'm using an old Core 2 processor in a case with 5 hard drives, one of
which is an SSD.  It's a server but doesn't get hit particularly hard, so
I'm wondering what the options are to try and conserve power with it as
it's generating rather a lot of heat. I've looked at powertop, but there
didn't seem to be a huge amount there.The processor only scales between 2
and 3Ghz with an ondemand governor. I upgraded the processor from a E8460
and doubled the ram to 8GB, with the same hard drives and this was when I
noticed the temperature increase.

Thanks

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#226248

James Allsopp wrote: 
> Hi,
> I'm using an old Core 2 processor in a case with 5 hard drives, one of
> which is an SSD.  It's a server but doesn't get hit particularly hard, so
> I'm wondering what the options are to try and conserve power with it as
> it's generating rather a lot of heat. I've looked at powertop, but there
> didn't seem to be a huge amount there.The processor only scales between 2
> and 3Ghz with an ondemand governor. I upgraded the processor from a E8460
> and doubled the ram to 8GB, with the same hard drives and this was when I
> noticed the temperature increase.


The E8400 is a 2 core, 2 thread 65W CPU with a top speed of
3GHz. It came out in 2008.

An AMD Ryzen 5 3400G (4 cores, 8 threads) is $150; a low-end motherboard
is $70; 16GB of RAM is $100.

The resulting machine would be more than twice as fast on
single-thread tasks, and could handle four times as many
processes at that speed. Officially it would draw the same 65
watts, but AMD's calculation is for the maximum draw over a long
period of time whereas Intel's calculation is for the normal
draw over a long period of time; you should expect the AMD to
run cooler and draw less power for the same workload.

In the meantime: make sure the system is free of dust; make sure
that fans are running; make sure that the airflow makes sense to
bring air in on one side, across the CPU and RAM, and out on the
other side.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226254

On 2020-08-17 13:30, James Allsopp wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm using an old Core 2 processor in a case with 5 hard drives, one of
> which is an SSD.  It's a server but doesn't get hit particularly hard, so
> I'm wondering what the options are to try and conserve power with it as
> it's generating rather a lot of heat. I've looked at powertop, but there
> didn't seem to be a huge amount there.The processor only scales between 2
> and 3Ghz with an ondemand governor. I upgraded the processor from a E8460
> and doubled the ram to 8GB, with the same hard drives and this was when I
> noticed the temperature increase.

I assume you verified that the motherboard is rated for the upgraded 
CPU, the CPU heat sink/ fan is rated for the upgraded CPU, you used good 
(silver) thermal compound, the power supply is rated for the connected 
load, the internal cables are bundled/ routed to keep air pathways 
clear, and you vacuumed the inside of the case, heat sinks, fans, etc.?


I do not see a Core 2 "E8460" processor on the Intel web site.  The Core 
2 Duo E8400 has a TDP of 65 W [1].


The Core 2 Quad Q9650 is 95 W [2].  So, 30 W more.  The motherboard 
voltage regulators must supply the increased load at whatever efficiency 
they have and the PSU must supply both increases and whatever efficient 
it has.


DDR modules are ~3 W each [3].  Two more would add 6 W.  Again, 
motherboard and PSU.


Assuming a "regular motherboard" and 80% efficient PSU, here is a power 
estimate for the original configuration [3]:

processor			 65 W

2 @ DDR3 memory			  6 W

		CPU & memory	 71 W

motherboard		 	 40 W

no video card			  0 W

1 @ SSD				  3 W

4 @ HDD				 32 W

2 @ fans			  4 W

			usage	150 W

80 Plus PSU			 38 W

			total	188 W


And, for the upgraded configuration (scaling up motherboard consumption 
in direct proportion to CPU and memory consumption):

processor			 95 W

4 @ DDR3 memory			 12 W

		CPU & memory	107 W

motherboard		 	 60 W

no video card			  0 W

1 @ SSD				  3 W

4 @ HDD				 32 W

1 @ fans			  4 W

			usage	206 W

80 Plus PSU			 52 W

			total	258 W


So, a total power increase of 70 W, or 38%.


What temperature sensor readings have you observed before and after the 
upgrade?


Assuming the machine is intended to run 24x7, ideas to reduce power 
consumption:

1.  Install the package 'cpufrequtils', which provides cpufreq-info(1) 
and and cpufreq-set(1).  (It sounds like you already have done this?) 
To see what governors are available:

	# cpufreq-info -c 0

     Pick a governor that can lower the CPU frequency -- for example on 
my system, it is 'powersave':

	# cpufreq-set -g powersave

2.  Set the CPU frequency upper limit manually:

	# cpufreq-set -u 2000000

3.  Tune system and/or daemons not to periodically access the drives. 
This implies determining what processes periodically access the drives 
and determining if they offer drive access options.

4.  Mount file systems with the option 'relatime' or 'noatime'.  This 
implies determining what processes use what file systems, and whether or 
not they can tolerate atime settings.  See fstab(5) and mount(8).

5.  Tune the drives to enter power saving mode when not in use.  Again, 
verify that processes can tolerate those settings.  See hdparm(8).

6.  Tune the motherboard firmware to use fewer CPU cores, to lower the 
CPU/ memory frequency, etc..  Even if you go back to 2 cores, the Q9650 
has twice the cache of the E8400 and should perform better at the same 
frequency.


David



[1] 
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/33910/intel-core-2-d

[2] 
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/35428/intel-core-2-quad-processor-q9650-12m-cache-3-00-ghz-1333-mhz-fsb.html

[3] http://www.buildcomputers.net/power-consumption-of-pc-components.html

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web