🙂 I ran the cat /dev/urandom > /dev/null and it only did one processor, never though its as simple as just opening two sessions 🙂
Ran it on both, and temp climbed up to 34c, left it for 5 mins and it reached 36c, stopped them and it dropped by 10c by the time I refreshed frontview 🙂
Fan did not appear to change from 928 rpm though, but I guess its not getting hot enough to speed it up?
Well, after about 30 mins, no fan change and the processor is 36.5!, is there anyway the NAS could read the processor wrong?, a bit late to mention, but I am running RAIDiator 4.2.25
Device Description Status Disk 1 Seagate ST31000528AS 931 GB , 36 C / 96 F , Write-cache ON OK Disk 2 SAMSUNG HD103UJ 931 GB , 34 C / 93 F , Write-cache ON OK Fan SYS 902 RPM OK Fan CPU 2109 RPM OK Temp SYS 58 C / 136 F [Normal 0-65 C / 32-149 F] OK Temp CPU 36.5 C / 97 F [Normal 0-60 C / 32-140 F] OK UPS 1 Not present NA
Hi All, Been reading this thread with great interest. I have two ReadyNAS Pro Pioneer systems that were purchased in 2010. We're about to do a complete disk swap with new 4TB drives to get higher capacity and dual redundancy. I'm thinking this might be a great time to breath new life into the systems with a CPU swap as well. Prices on eBay are dirt cheap and since these machines are at the end of their warranty life, I'm temped to go for it!
A few questions:
Seems like motherboard version makes a big difference in what CPUs will work. Is there an easy way to find out what my motherboard rev# is without opening the case?
For a 2010 Pro, is there any consensus on what processor will work best? I have one main goal - maximum speed without increasing temperatures while keeping all stock cooling (fans and heatsinks). My current system typically reports:
Fan SYS 897 RPM Fan CPU 1917 RPM Temp SYS 56 C / 132 F [Normal 0-65 C / 32-149 F] Temp CPU 37.5 C / 99 F [Normal 0-85 C / 32-185 F]
I'd like it to stay at this level or cooler after the upgrade.
The E6400, E6600 or E6700 seem solid. Or maybe the E7400 or e7600? Or…?
Our systems have 4GB RAM (HCL compatible) and are running the latest BIOS (07/26/2010 FLAME6-MB V2.0)
Have some fresh thermal paste on hand and while you are in there blow out the fan thoroughly. I actually saw my temps drop a bit but I think it was because of the cleaning :-). I'm using an e7600 I bought on ebay. That processor was frequently removed from a mac and updated so there are quite a few used around.
Yes, will do on the thermal paste. Really great that you're seeing *cooler* temps! Do you know the S-Spec number number for your e7600? Really great that you're seeing *cooler* temps!
I just took the plunge and upgraded (again!) to a q6600 from an original upgrade to an e7400. After upgrading the enclosure.db it appears to be working normally, albeit a little hotter and noisier than it did before.
I'm still digging around to see if this is something where I messed up somewhere or this is the new normal. I was initially very reticent about the procedure, but modern cpu switching is pretty painless. From my experience the e series upgrade is generally a drop in which will run cooler, whereas the q chip requires editing some configuration files and, so far, does run hotter.
I have now upgraded my Readynas Pro with a Q6600 and it screams. I can transcode blu-ray at 5120 kbits/s using the Air Video without any jittering or interruptions whatsoever.
Here are how my temp and fan readings while idle:
Fan SYS 856 RPM OK Fan CPU 1854 RPM OK Temp SYS 54 C / 129 F [Normal 0-65 C / 32-149 F] OK Temp CPU 27 C / 80 F [Normal 0-85 C / 32-185 F] OK
Here are how my temp and fan readings while transcoding one stream at 5120:
Fan SYS 922 RPM OK Fan CPU 3182 RPM OK Temp SYS 54 C / 129 F [Normal 0-65 C / 32-149 F] OK Temp CPU 45 C / 113 F [Normal 0-85 C / 32-185 F] OK
hdparm -t -T /dev/c/c
/dev/c/c: Timing cached reads: 8410 MB in 2.00 seconds = 4211.72 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 1208 MB in 3.00 seconds = 402.16 MB/sec
Good results. I've never gotten to the bottom of why my e7600 system does so poorly at the hdparm test. I'm getting:
# hdparm -t -T /dev/c/c
/dev/c/c: Timing cached reads: 3692 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1846.18 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: ^[[A776 MB in 3.01 seconds = 258.22 MB/sec warehouse6:/c/home/admin# hdparm -t -T /dev/c/c
I'm definitely using inexpensive 4TB drives (unsupported) but it seems like these results are off by 2-3x. Not that I'm complaining. I've got the box doing a lot of stuff and having no issues. Just seems like something is wrong. No uncorrectable reads on any drives or errors in /var/log. System looks mostly idle when I ran the above command several times. It makes me wonder if have a performance setting I should change. I think I have them all enabled in frontview (I've got a ups). Any suggestions?
processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 23 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7600 @ 3.06GHz stepping : 10 cpu MHz : 3059.458 cache size : 3072 KB
and
/dev/c/c: Timing cached reads: 3824 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1912.23 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 1330 MB in 3.00 seconds = 442.90 MB/sec
I can't complain but if you find some tweaks please let me know.
It's tempting to think it must be something with the drives, but the first result from hdparm is just reading from disk cache in memory. That leads me to think my memory might be running slow and then when I tried to investigate that I couldn't find any way to get the machine to tell me the speed the memory was running at. I still think it could be an issue with memory speed. It's the 8GB Patriot DIMM that a number of others here bought, but I'm suspicious.
There are some differences in our disk configuration so it's the first numbers for "Timing cached reads" that I'm more interested in. I downloaded some software called ramspeed and it shows my system getting about the same 4GB/s that fastfwd gets from hdparm. Near as I can tell that seems to be the right number for 800MHz DDR2. So whatever is going on in my system it seems to be specific to running hdparm.
I haven't been keeping up on the OS 6 thread to see if anyone has upgraded to OS6 after replacing the cpu and if the unsupported OS6 is as hackable as the older OSes. I wouldn't mind being on a newer kernel where I could use KVM. Of course the other deal breaker is the factory reset, but that sounds unavoidable. OS6 with replaced cpus and maybe fans, would be the ultimate frankenas!
I haven't been keeping up on the OS 6 thread to see if anyone has upgraded to OS6 after replacing the cpu and if the unsupported OS6 is as hackable as the older OSes. I wouldn't mind being on a newer kernel where I could use KVM.
Some certainly have and I think I'm about to. I only went to the E6600 since I already had one I had pulled from a Windoze machine that I went quad on, but I'm about to get another and may go to E6700. I don't do transcoding, so the E6600 was more than enough boost for me.
My take on OS6 is that it's more hackable because it's based on a more up-to-date kernel, so there is more that's compatible. I'm not a Linux guru and have stuck mostly with the pre-compiled install packages for RAIDiator, so I'm going in deeper with OS6.
