More on CPU specs of the ReadyNAS Pro

[sleepy06405]

For lack of a better word........ Holy crap!

NAS:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 15
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.66GHz
stepping : 7
cpu MHz : 2394.203
cache size : 4096 KB

Intel Core2 Extreme CPU QX6700 2.66/8M/1066 SL9UL

A q6700 should work fine. There are going to be cooling issues but yes, it boots.

Its running about 30% hotter than the core2quad but the fan is maxing out accomplishing that. I'm nuts and I won't run this chip.

[grimloch]

Wonder if there are any aftermarket heatsinks that are slim enough to fit and do a better job than stock..

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

[fbmachines]

What are the measurements of the stock heatsink and fan (length x width x height)?

I wonder if one of the Shuriken models could handle the job? They seem very low profile while being very efficient at cooling. They are pretty wide though and I know there isn't much room until the RAM.

http://www.scythe-usa.com/product/cpu/1 ... index.html

http://www.scythe-usa.com/product/cpu/0 ... etail.html

[Korky]

sleepy06405 wrote:

For lack of a better word........ Holy crap! NAS:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.66GHz stepping : 7 cpu MHz : 2394.203 cache size : 4096 KB Intel Core2 Extreme CPU QX6700 2.66/8M/1066 SL9UL A q6700 should work fine. There are going to be cooling issues but yes, it boots. Its running about 30% hotter than the core2quad but the fan is maxing out accomplishing that. I'm nuts and I won't run this chip.

There's got to be a heat-sink and fan out there up for the challenge of bringing down the temp on the q6700. Having the q6700 working without the temp issue would be perfect!! I am already on the case and will be posting back a reply if i get anywhere with this- otherwise its the E6700 for me 😞 Has anyone else got any experience with cooling cpu's - more a question for the hard-core overclocker out there i think.

[Korky]

fbmachines wrote:
What are the measurements of the stock heatsink and fan (length x width x height)? I wonder if one of the Shuriken models could handle the job? They seem very low profile while being very efficient at cooling. They are pretty wide though and I know there isn't much room until the RAM. http://www.scythe-usa.com/product/cpu/1 ... index.html http://www.scythe-usa.com/product/cpu/0 ... etail.html

Near impossible to get any information from Netgear Tech Support!

opened my NAS to see what I could find out. No markings on the heatsink to tell me which brand or model but the fan is a comdell.

I've put it back together now without taking the height measurements :oops: not sure how useful these will be now. I'll try again when my new processor arrives and message back (which should be very soon 😄 ).






surprised to find a E5300 (2.6 GHz processor) and not the advertised E2160 1.8Ghz CPU in the ultra 6 plus !

[grimloch]

cpitchford wrote:

Now, the temp1 is still higher than the "max" value.. I still don't know if that is a problem.. however. temp2 on frontview reports a MUCH healthier 53 degrees C So.. the E6600 is 8 degrees cooler running flat out.. and is below the 60 degree limit.. both CPU cores report higher than max levels.. but both are lower than the "crit" level.. so I'm still working out (reading the source and CPU spec) what this means. Slight pain is that the CPU cooler is attached with screws.. the backing plate is part of the case so heatsinks that screw on can be used.. Stock intel coolers, for example, with their push plugs cannot be used in this case. If only the case was 1 CM wider a MUCH nicer fan could be put in..but from what I can tell, the tallest cooler you could use is 53mm and the selection is limited.. From what I can tell, the NAS is happy and relatively cool running an E6600, but an E6700 is going to be pushing it.. I've not tried a kernel compile reliability test or a memtest on the E6700 but I don't honestly think the CPU cooler is up to it.. If I can get a larger cooler, that uses screws rather than push plugs, I might try again.. but in the mean time 2.4Gig seems that safe limit with the stock readynas cooler.. (which is remarkably small compared to the intel stock ones! like less than half the height!) Shame.. Still 2.4G is pretty damn good! 🙂 If I find out what the temp1_max actually means (ie can it be safely exceeded / temp1_crit is the REAL top limit) I'll let you all know

Sounds like we're working with 53mm max height for the heatsink (without modification), which is pretty limiting.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

[Korky]

grimloch wrote:

cpitchford wrote: Now, the temp1 is still higher than the "max" value.. I still don't know if that is a problem.. however. temp2 on frontview reports a MUCH healthier 53 degrees C So.. the E6600 is 8 degrees cooler running flat out.. and is below the 60 degree limit.. both CPU cores report higher than max levels.. but both are lower than the "crit" level.. so I'm still working out (reading the source and CPU spec) what this means. Slight pain is that the CPU cooler is attached with screws.. the backing plate is part of the case so heatsinks that screw on can be used.. Stock intel coolers, for example, with their push plugs cannot be used in this case. If only the case was 1 CM wider a MUCH nicer fan could be put in..but from what I can tell, the tallest cooler you could use is 53mm and the selection is limited.. From what I can tell, the NAS is happy and relatively cool running an E6600, but an E6700 is going to be pushing it.. I've not tried a kernel compile reliability test or a memtest on the E6700 but I don't honestly think the CPU cooler is up to it.. If I can get a larger cooler, that uses screws rather than push plugs, I might try again.. but in the mean time 2.4Gig seems that safe limit with the stock readynas cooler.. (which is remarkably small compared to the intel stock ones! like less than half the height!) Shame.. Still 2.4G is pretty damn good! 🙂 If I find out what the temp1_max actually means (ie can it be safely exceeded / temp1_crit is the REAL top limit) I'll let you all know Sounds like we're working with 53mm max height for the heatsink (without modification), which is pretty limiting. Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

Can we not modify the existing heatsink?
is it the heatsink thats not good enough for the job, or is it the the fan that sits ontop?

[grimloch]

Probably both, but more so the heatsink.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

[Korky]

grimloch wrote:
I found an E6600 on my local craigslist for about $50 last year. I have an android app called "Craigslist Notification" that searches multiple times a day for many items, including "E6700", which seems more difficult to find. I see E6600s pop up in used desktop systems quite regularly.

There are plenty available on eBay

[grimloch]

When I looked on Ebay they were going for a premium. CL is almost always cheaper.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

[Korky]

So the best CPU now stands as the Q6700 Quad

Here is the frontpanel view running Plex transcoding MKV files to two different clients at 1080p, as well as copying 312 GB of data from NAS Ultra to my PC at the same time (figures below taken after 4 hours of heavy use) :
Fan SYS 1339 RPM OK
Fan CPU 2163 RPM OK
Temp SYS 57 C / 134 F [Normal 0-65 C / 32-149 F] OK
Temp CPU 33 C / 91 F [Normal 0-85 C / 32-185 F] OK

>
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.0/temp1_max:82000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.0/temp1_label:Core 0
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.0/temp1_crit_alarm:0
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.0/temp1_input:43000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.0/temp1_crit:100000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.1/temp1_max:82000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.1/temp1_label:Core 1
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.1/temp1_crit_alarm:0
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.1/temp1_input:43000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.1/temp1_crit:100000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.2/temp1_max:82000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.2/temp1_label:Core 2
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.2/temp1_crit_alarm:0
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.2/temp1_input:42000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.2/temp1_crit:100000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.3/temp1_max:82000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.3/temp1_label:Core 3
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.3/temp1_crit_alarm:0
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.3/temp1_input:45000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.3/temp1_crit:100000
/sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/temp1_input:58000
/sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/temp1_max:127000
/sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/temp1_max_hyst:125000
/sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/temp1_alarm:0
/sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/temp1_type:4
/sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/temp2_input:33500
/sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/temp2_max:80000
/sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/temp2_max_hyst:123000
/sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/temp2_alarm:0
/sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/temp2_type:1
/sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/temp3_input:2000
/sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/temp3_max:80000
/sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/temp3_max_hyst:123000
/sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/temp3_alarm:0
/sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/temp3_type:4



Memory: 4096 MB [6-6-6-18 DDR2]
CPU Q6700 Quad
Standard FAN and Heatsink

Whats strange is that the FAN was running at 3500RPM last night just transcoding one of the files (front panel figures for last night below). I took the CPU out last night and replaced it with the E6700, today I put back the Q6700 but this time used Artic Silver 5 Thermal Compound. However, I don't see how the Artic Silver 5 has made up the difference!


Figures for lastnight:


Fan SYS 1739 RPM OK
Fan CPU 3443 RPM OK
Temp SYS 57 C / 134 F [Normal 0-65 C / 32-149 F] OK
Temp CPU 51 C / 123 F [Normal 0-85 C / 32-185 F] OK

I'm going to monitor the situation and see where is takes me. I might invest in a better fan/heatsink at some point - any suggestions?

Also, If anyone can suggest alternative tests or stats to compare ? I will provide the output for all in this tread

so far its looking good 😄

[chirpa]

Korky wrote:
surprised to find a E5300 (2.6 GHz processor) and not the advertised E2160 1.8Ghz CPU in the ultra 6 plus !

E2160 is hard to get these days. So the product line would eventually move to the E5300 when stock becomes an issue. No harm in replacing a component with something of higher value.

[Korky]

chirpa wrote:
Korky wrote: surprised to find a E5300 (2.6 GHz processor) and not the advertised E2160 1.8Ghz CPU in the ultra 6 plus ! E2160 is hard to get these days. So the product line would eventually move to the E5300 when stock becomes an issue. No harm in replacing a component with something of higher value.

pleasantly surprised that's all 🙂

[grimloch]

Has that Q6700 melted your NAS yet? Wondering if it's safe to put one in my Pro..

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

[Korky]

No it hasnent fried the ultra yet, but I'm not convinced! The stock cooler/fan is just not upto the job, as one of the previous forum user pointed out. Im not running it for long periods so not a problem for me. I wouldn't keep it in my ultra if i was running it 24/7. So to answer your question, no I wouldnt put the q7600 in just yet. I am looking at replacing the heatsink(one should be arriving anytime now) and the fan. I will run more tests before I leave the CPU in for longer periods.

I will keep you posted.

[iwaleed]

I test today E7400 2.8GHz SLGW3 this support (VT-x) and also work with Pro 6 Bios version (07/26/2010 FLAME6-MB V2.0) also work with Ultra 6 Plus after upgrade the Bios version to (07/26/2010 FLAME6-MB V2.0)

rocessor	: 0
vendor_id	: GenuineIntel
cpu family	: 6
model		: 23
model name	: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     E7400  @ 2.80GHz
stepping	: 10
cpu MHz		: 2793.002
cache size	: 3072 KB
physical id	: 0
siblings	: 2
core id		: 0
cpu cores	: 2
apicid		: 0
initial apicid	: 0
fpu		: yes
fpu_exception	: yes
cpuid level	: 13
wp		: yes
flags		: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm sse4_1 xsave lahf_lm dts tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority
bogomips	: 5586.00
clflush size	: 64
cache_alignment	: 64
address sizes	: 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

processor	: 1
vendor_id	: GenuineIntel
cpu family	: 6
model		: 23
model name	: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     E7400  @ 2.80GHz
stepping	: 10
cpu MHz		: 2793.002
cache size	: 3072 KB
physical id	: 0
siblings	: 2
core id		: 1
cpu cores	: 2
apicid		: 1
initial apicid	: 1
fpu		: yes
fpu_exception	: yes
cpuid level	: 13
wp		: yes
flags		: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm sse4_1 xsave lahf_lm dts tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority
bogomips	: 5585.02
clflush size	: 64
cache_alignment	: 64
address sizes	: 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

I noticed the Temp. is lower than E6700 in the same system difference about 10ºC

E7400 Temperature

/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.0/temp1_max:76000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.0/temp1_label:Core 0
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.0/temp1_crit_alarm:0
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.0/temp1_input:34000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.0/temp1_crit:100000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.1/temp1_max:76000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.1/temp1_label:Core 1
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.1/temp1_crit_alarm:0
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.1/temp1_input:33000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.1/temp1_crit:100000

E6700 Temperature

/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.0/temp1_max:80000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.0/temp1_label:Core 0
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.0/temp1_crit_alarm:0
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.0/temp1_input:44000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.0/temp1_crit:100000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.1/temp1_max:80000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.1/temp1_label:Core 1
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.1/temp1_crit_alarm:0
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.1/temp1_input:43000
/sys/devices/platform/coretemp.1/temp1_crit:100000

[Korky]

grimloch wrote:
Has that Q6700 melted your NAS yet? Wondering if it's safe to put one in my Pro.. Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

I've managed to get the CPU temperature at a more stable 40s:

Transcoding two movies 1080p to two devices (ipad & ps3) and copying 20GB (approx) data to NAS.

After 6 hours:

Fan SYS 1985 RPM OK
Fan CPU 2163 RPM OK
Temp SYS 59 C / 138 F [Normal 0-65 C / 32-149 F] OK
Temp CPU 42 C / 107 F [Normal 0-85 C / 32-185 F] OK


Replaced the stock heatsink with ( some modifications -replaced push pins with 4 screws) :
http://hipergroup.com/products.php?lv=3 ... =13&pid=38

Although the CPU is a lot cooler with the allcopper heatsink (by the way its almost twice the weight of the stock heatsink!) the SYS temp is still high.

Now looking for a better Fan but I doubt there is much out there (reading from the previous threads ...!)
I have tried two different fans but both not good (very low RPM or too loud!) The stock Fan is still by far the best with high RPM .

I'm starting to question the need for the additional power! The E6700 did the job (can transcode two 1080p movies at the same time to two different devices). Why are we all obsessed with more power? I think I have reached the limits with the Q6700 in this NAS ultra. I could attempt liquid cooling but whats the point!

The Q6700 works fine with some modifications but is it worth the extra effort? :twisted:

[ddoming73]

Korky,

I have been running a dual core E6700 for more than a year on my pro pioneer. I have the same SYS temp as you do. I have tried several different fans and have been unable to lower it. My theory is that it is hotter because of the higher FSB speed of the E6700 processors vs. the stock E2160

So, I doubt you could go any lower than what you already got there.

However, I'm thrilled that someone has gotten the q6700 working on the Pro. Good job!

[Korky]

ddoming73 wrote:

Korky, I have been running a dual core E6700 for more than a year on my pro pioneer. I have the same SYS temp as you do. I have tried several different fans and have been unable to lower it. My theory is that it is hotter because of the higher FSB speed of the E6700 processors vs. the stock E2160 So, I doubt you could go any lower than what you already got there. However, I'm thrilled that someone has gotten the q6700 working on the Pro. Good job!

ddoming73
Does your CPU or SYS fans ever stop running when in idle or sleep mode?

Im sure when I had the stock CPU in the NAS the fans would power down when in sleep mode or when the disks were spin down mode but now both fans are always on, even when the disks have spanned down

[ddoming73]

Hi Korky,

They would if I let them. 🙂

My SYS fan never turns off.

The CPU fan I have has a higher turn-on voltage than the stock fan that came with my unit, so when idle the fan would indeed turn off. That made me nervous because the readynas would not really try to turn the fan back on until the CPU temp was at 45º or more. I preferred the additional fan noise to having the CPU at unnecessary high temps.

Therefore I added this script to keep the fan running even at idle ( I think it is at runlevel 2, don't have the info at hand):

#! /bin/sh
#
# Calibrate W83627ehf driver for controlling Silverstone FM83 fan
# on PWM2
#

# Start Voltage - 6V according to FM83 datasheet. Around 1500 RPM
# We try a higher value to ensure the fan starts reliably
echo 140 > /sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/pwm2_start_output

# Stop Voltage - empirically shown to be around 5.5V,
# lower than this and the fan may not stay on reliably
echo 122 > /sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/pwm2_stop_output

# Set PWM2 to Manual Mode so we can edit the current output value
echo 1 > /sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/pwm2_enable

# Set output to start value
echo 140 > /sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/pwm2

usleep 100000

# Restore Auto Mode
echo 2 > /sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.2576/pwm2_enable

exit 0

[ddoming73]

Hi everybody,

I couldn't resist and went and bought the Q6700 for my readynas Pro Pioneer. However, installing it wasn't as straightforward as I thought. Once installed, the system started sending out scary alarms like:

DDB18 power is out of normal range [expected: 1.80 current: -0.00].
AVCC power is out of normal range [expected: 3.30 current: -0.00].
VCC3 power is out of normal range [expected: 3.30 current: -0.00].
VCC1_25 power is out of normal range [expected: 1.25 current: -0.00].
VCC1_5 power is out of normal range [expected: 1.50 current: -0.00].
VCC1_05 power is out of normal range [expected: 1.04 current: -0.00].
3VDUAL power is out of normal range [expected: 3.30 current: -0.00].
VBAT power is out of normal range [expected: 3.30 current: -0.00].

However, the CPU seemed to be running fine. After some research I traced the cause to the /frontview/conf/enclosure.db file. Fortunately this file is a sqlite DB, which I could modify. To make a long story short, you have to change the paths where the system looks for voltage and temp data from /sys/class/hwmon/hwmon2 (which assumes a dual core CPU) to /sys/class/hwmon/hwmon4 (which assumes a quad core CPU).

I wonder if the people that tried quad core CPUs before ran into this too? Maybe this format was introduced recently? I'm running Radiator 4.2.21

I know it's too much to ask but maybe netgear can make this conf more CPU independent in later releases?

[Korky]

I didnt get this issue on the ultra 6 plus. I started on Radiator 4.2.20 and now I'm on 4.2.21 as yourself with the quad q6700 no errors reported. Also, once you have it setup how do the temps look with the q6700?

[ddoming73]

Hi Korky,

Apparently the configuration of the enclosure program is different for each NAS product, each of them has a dedicated line in the enclosure.db database. So it is perfectly possible for an Ultra 6 to work fine, while a Pro Pioneer does not.

Regarding temps, I have not been able to find a heatsink like the one you used, it is apparently no longer in production and there is none for sale in e-bay. So I have had to use the stock heatsink and try with different fans.

I have tried an FN83 and an FM83 fan, both from silverstone. These fans have the advantage of being larger than your usual 80mm fan, so they move more air.

To make the story short, the FN83, which has a peak RPM of around 1700, is not enough to cool the Q6700. Once you load more than two cores to 100%, the temperature starts going out of control.

The FM83 barely manages to keep temperatures in check (50-55 degress Celcius) with all four cores maxed out. But for that it has to run at a screaming 3500 RPM. The noise is unbelievable.

My idle temps are 40-42 C for the CPU and 57-59 C for SYS. CPU is 10 C higher than my E6700. SYS temp is the same.

I use md5sum /dev/urandom to create CPU load.

My conclusion: Until I find some much improved cooling setup, I'm going back to the E6700. The increase in noise to keep this CPU cool is not worth it for me.

Regarding SYS temp, I was able to confirm that it goes down up to 5 degrees C when the CPU fan is running at high RPM, and creating more airflow on the motherboard. So I think that in order to significantly lower SYS temps you will have to add a small fan on the chipset heatsink.

[Korky]

Thanks ddoming73,

That's the same conclusion i have came to - like you have gone back to the E6700.

Instead of the improved cooling setup (very unlikely i think because of the limitation of the NAS) might be worth looking in a different direction....

what about a different quad processor with lower TDP that will work with the NAS?

I don't think there is one out there right now but things might change. If i find anything I will post back

[ddoming73]

Hi Korky,

I have managed to procure an HFC-10828-C2 heatsink. Can you tell me what did you do to adapt it to the Readynas?

Did you simply remove the screws from the stock heatsink and put them in the new one, or did you have to purchase specific screws?