Back after 10 years - New BOINC - reboot problem

Questions and Answers : Windows : Back after 10 years - New BOINC - reboot problem
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Gordon

Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 00
Posts: 66
Credit: 598,929
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1806499 - Posted: 2 Aug 2016, 0:25:44 UTC

My Laptop is rebooting for no apparent reason. I think it's overheating. ASUS G750JW, Intel Core i7-4700HQ, 4 cores, 16gb memory, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M - 4 GB memory. Nothing is overclocked. All my vents are dust free, blew them out to make sure, again.

When it happens, I lose Video (I think) then I must Ctrl-alt-delete to reboot or I'll come in & it is just shut down.

Do I need to make a preference change (CPU 75%)?

I prevented any more d/ls, but I have Climateprediction.net running & about 30 einstein's to run.

I just think Boinc has me running full out & it's getting too hot & Bios are shutting it off. CPU #1,2,3,4 are at 85C 88C 92C 86C ;GPU at 43C

Just need a little help in the right direction.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
ID: 1806499 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22182
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 1806548 - Posted: 2 Aug 2016, 4:55:56 UTC

Many laptops are not designed to run at 100% all the time. A few things to consider trying, first is using an external fan to force more air through the cooling path and over the battery (my old HP's battery used to get VERY hot and cause the sort of things you are describing), second is use "tthrotle", which is a small application that controls the temperature of the CPU by actively reducing clock speeds - I've never used it but a lot of people say it is very effective.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1806548 · Report as offensive
Profile BilBg
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 May 07
Posts: 3720
Credit: 9,385,827
RAC: 0
Bulgaria
Message 1806643 - Posted: 2 Aug 2016, 14:08:43 UTC - in response to Message 1806499.  
Last modified: 2 Aug 2016, 14:17:46 UTC

Do I need to make a preference change (CPU 75%)?

Change "Use at most 100% of the CPUs"
(Not "Use at most 100% of CPU time" - 75% means compute for 3 seconds, wait for 1 second, and repeat - leads to "pulsed" CPU load)

Try
1% of the CPUs (will run only one CPU task (~ one core used))
50% of the CPUs (use half the cores)
99% of the CPUs (use one less core, all the cores -1)

Stay on "1% of the CPUs" until you see if it's stable, then you may try higher

Computing preferences
Local preferences

If you use Local preferences - switch to Advanced view to see them all


And link to get TThrottle

! TThrottle is NOT "actively reducing clock speeds" of the CPU
It only controls the applications running under BOINC - pauses them in ms intervals if needed (only if the temperatures set by you are reached/exceeded)

 
 


- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)
 
ID: 1806643 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon

Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 00
Posts: 66
Credit: 598,929
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1806644 - Posted: 2 Aug 2016, 14:23:24 UTC - in response to Message 1806643.  

I dropped to 75% of the CPUs & 75% of CPU time it seems stabler, but I'll go to 50% of the CPUs & 100% of CPU time & monitor the temps (85c right now)

THANKS!
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
ID: 1806644 · Report as offensive
Profile BilBg
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 May 07
Posts: 3720
Credit: 9,385,827
RAC: 0
Bulgaria
Message 1806648 - Posted: 2 Aug 2016, 14:32:09 UTC - in response to Message 1806644.  

Maximum operating temperature     100°C
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i7/Intel-Core%20i7-4700HQ%20Mobile%20processor.html

But don't really run it at 100°C
Better try to keep it < 80°C for longer life

Try TThrottle (you may also like the graphs)
 


- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)
 
ID: 1806648 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon

Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 00
Posts: 66
Credit: 598,929
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1806663 - Posted: 2 Aug 2016, 15:33:47 UTC - in response to Message 1806648.  

Well that didn't work so I set it for 1% & we'll see. Shut off twice since last reply!
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
ID: 1806663 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon

Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 00
Posts: 66
Credit: 598,929
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1806686 - Posted: 2 Aug 2016, 22:45:20 UTC - in response to Message 1806648.  
Last modified: 2 Aug 2016, 22:46:03 UTC

1% of the CPUs & 100% of CPU time was really bad. CPU hit 94-95C, shut down the laptop. so I d/l TThrottle with 85C CPU limit, 80C GPU limit & expert setting on laptop. Then I set all preferences for 99% of the CPUs & 100% of CPU time. Seems to be working okay.

THANKS!
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
ID: 1806686 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon

Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 00
Posts: 66
Credit: 598,929
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1807164 - Posted: 4 Aug 2016, 23:30:12 UTC - in response to Message 1806686.  

Thought better after a day, reduced settings to TThrottle with 80C CPU limit, 75C GPU limit & expert setting on laptop. Then I set all preferences for 99% of the CPUs & 100% of CPU time. CPU vent was just too warm, better now.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
ID: 1807164 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22182
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 1807227 - Posted: 5 Aug 2016, 4:59:42 UTC

Setting 99% CPU use will not give you what you think it should - depending on the rounding applied it will either result in all the CPU cores running, or all but one. This is because BOINC can't work out what to do with fractional cores when allocating tasks so it rounds to whole cores.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1807227 · Report as offensive
Profile Jord
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 99
Posts: 15184
Credit: 4,362,181
RAC: 3
Netherlands
Message 1807277 - Posted: 5 Aug 2016, 13:42:21 UTC - in response to Message 1807227.  

This is because BOINC can't work out what to do with fractional cores when allocating tasks so it rounds to whole cores.

BOINC makes use of integers in the case of determining the amount of CPU cores. This translates into 100% = everything, 99% = all but one core on any machine with 190 cores or less. It'll get interesting at situations above 190 cores. But that's not the case here.
ID: 1807277 · Report as offensive
AMDave
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Mar 01
Posts: 234
Credit: 11,671,730
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1807278 - Posted: 5 Aug 2016, 13:55:09 UTC - in response to Message 1807227.  

Setting 99% CPU use will not give you what you think it should - depending on the rounding applied it will either result in all the CPU cores running, or all but one. This is because BOINC can't work out what to do with fractional cores when allocating tasks so it rounds to whole cores.

That setting rounds down.  I can attest from my experimentation, and there's this.
ID: 1807278 · Report as offensive
Profile BilBg
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 May 07
Posts: 3720
Credit: 9,385,827
RAC: 0
Bulgaria
Message 1807405 - Posted: 5 Aug 2016, 23:22:23 UTC - in response to Message 1807277.  

99% = all but one core on any machine with 190 cores or less.

190 * 0.99 = 188.1 ~= 188 cores used == 2 cores free
101 * 0.99 = 99.99 ~= 99 cores used == 2 cores free
100 * 0.99 = 99 ~= 99 cores used == 1 core free

4 * 0.99 = 3.96 ~= 3 cores used == 1 core free
 


- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)
 
ID: 1807405 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon

Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 00
Posts: 66
Credit: 598,929
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1807456 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 2:53:05 UTC - in response to Message 1807227.  

Ya it pretty much did, not hammering all 4 cores, one free is okay.

BUT I have a question. Tthrottle shows all 4 cores at 75c to 80c ? Close proximity or are all hammering?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
ID: 1807456 · Report as offensive
AMDave
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Mar 01
Posts: 234
Credit: 11,671,730
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1807532 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 13:53:17 UTC - in response to Message 1807405.  

I stand corrected.  However, given this:

99% = all but one core on any machine with 190 cores or less.

instead of this:

190 * 0.99 = 188.1 ~= 188 cores used == 2 cores free
101 * 0.99 = 99.99 ~= 99 cores used == 2 cores free
100 * 0.99 = 99 ~= 99 cores used == 1 core free

Don't you mean this:

190 * 0.99 = 188.1 ~= 189 cores used == 1 core free
101 * 0.99 = 99.99 ~= 100 cores used == 1 core free
100 * 0.99 = 99 ~= 99 cores used == 1 core free
ID: 1807532 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22182
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 1807534 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 14:17:05 UTC - in response to Message 1807456.  

Use something like CPU-Z to see how much work each core is doing, and perhaps windows task manager to see what jobs are running.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1807534 · Report as offensive
Profile BilBg
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 May 07
Posts: 3720
Credit: 9,385,827
RAC: 0
Bulgaria
Message 1807558 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 16:53:04 UTC - in response to Message 1807456.  

BUT I have a question. Tthrottle shows all 4 cores at 75c to 80c ? Close proximity or are all hammering?

You have 3 computing processes running on 4 cores.
It is the Windows Process Scheduler that "moves" the processes between cores (from one core to another) so you may see almost equal load on all 4 cores.
 


- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)
 
ID: 1807558 · Report as offensive
Profile BilBg
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 May 07
Posts: 3720
Credit: 9,385,827
RAC: 0
Bulgaria
Message 1807563 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 17:02:46 UTC - in response to Message 1807532.  
Last modified: 6 Aug 2016, 17:14:13 UTC

Don't you mean this:

190 * 0.99 = 188.1 ~= 189 cores used == 1 core free
101 * 0.99 = 99.99 ~= 100 cores used == 1 core free
100 * 0.99 = 99 ~= 99 cores used == 1 core free

No
BOINC just truncates to integer so 99.99 becomes 99

On your computer with "Number of processors 8":
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=7830600

You will have:
8 * 0.99 = 7.92 ~= 7 cores used == 1 core free
 
Exception:
If the result is "0 cores used" it will be corrected to "1 cores used"

e.g. for 1%
8 * 0.01 = 0.08 ~= 0 cores used >> 1 cores used

Try 99% and 1% on your system


Note:
When I say "7 cores used" this just means "BOINC starts 7 tasks/applications/processes"
It's up to the OS to run them on specific cores and it moves them from core to core.
BOINC don't say to the OS anything about where to run the processes.

(Raistmer GPU apps can set their own CPU affinity ("pins" the own process to a specific core/thread) but that is unknown to BOINC)
 
 


- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)
 
ID: 1807563 · Report as offensive
AMDave
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Mar 01
Posts: 234
Credit: 11,671,730
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1807583 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 17:43:54 UTC - in response to Message 1807563.  
Last modified: 6 Aug 2016, 17:47:43 UTC

Understood.  I follow the arithmetic because that's how I thought that setting worked.  However, my question is with the incompatibility between your arithmetic and the preceding statement.  Using the examples of the 101 & 190 core systems with the CPU core usage set at 99%, how can there be 2 cores free, given that

99% = all but one core on any machine with 190 cores or less.

Doesn't this statement mandate that with those respective core counts, coupled with the 99% core usage setting, that only 1 core would be free?  Or am I in need of some caffeine?
ID: 1807583 · Report as offensive
Profile BilBg
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 May 07
Posts: 3720
Credit: 9,385,827
RAC: 0
Bulgaria
Message 1807643 - Posted: 6 Aug 2016, 23:44:34 UTC - in response to Message 1807583.  

how can there be 2 cores free, given that

99% = all but one core on any machine with 190 cores or less.

:)
But my examples were to show that this "statement" is wrong
Not to support it ...

My "statement" is that 99% is good to free 1 core on 2-core to 100-core systems
(on > 100-core systems it will free more)
 


- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)
 
ID: 1807643 · Report as offensive
Profile Jord
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 99
Posts: 15184
Credit: 4,362,181
RAC: 3
Netherlands
Message 1807678 - Posted: 7 Aug 2016, 1:30:30 UTC - in response to Message 1807643.  

99% = all but one core on any machine with 190 cores or less.

:)
But my examples were to show that this "statement" is wrong

Yes, you're right. Teaches me not to walk away in the middle of an answer and come back later to then finish it with my mind set to the thing I was called away on.
ID: 1807678 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · Next

Questions and Answers : Windows : Back after 10 years - New BOINC - reboot problem


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.