More on CPU specs of the ReadyNAS Pro

[beisser]

well in the worst case you make a mig hole in the left cover and put on a regular cpu cooler.. like those from zalman

oh btw chirpa.. what about an q6600? that one should run on the nas if you can find something that cools the 95 watts away

[cpitchford]

ha.. asides from the tiny heatsink glowing white hot, the Q963/965 chipset that (I think) is on the Pro mobo doesn't support the Q6xxx chips.. Have a look at ark.intel.com:

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=29765

It lists the G965 and P965, but not the Q965. Does anyone actually know which intel chipset is used on the Pro?

Was looking at the ThermalTake MeOrb heatsink.. it is 47mm high That E6700 might yet work

[RydForLyf]

I wish we had a :popcorn: smiley as I'm interested in watching this one through to the credits.

[beisser]

how about http://www.intelcommsalliance.com/kshow ... 042aed7b27 then? this says its a q965 mainboard support c2q processors

[cpitchford]

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/mainboard ... ipset.html

" By the way, i965 chipsets do not officially support quad-core processors (Kentsfield core). "

Officially? So, it could be a BIOS issue to coax it into working.. The mobo has a VGA header 2x8 pins. I had VGA header cable from a n old PCI graphics card, but I binned it only a few months ago.. chucking out old parts claiming I'd never need them again.. always the way... but I figure attaching a screen might be one way of actually figuring out exactly what chipset and what BIOS date the system is using..

The q963 chipset almost certainly won't support a quad core, but a modern q965 might.. Venting 95watts is a serious problem, though.. internal water cooling might be an option, the disk bay fan at the back is pretty large.. but I wouldn't want to risk disks overheating.. And dremmling a hole in the side of the case is just a pity

[BrakinDeep]

Was looking at the ThermalTake MeOrb heatsink.. it is 47mm high That E6700 might yet work

Just curious, did you ever try the MeOrb?
Did it work for you?

[bogie]

Just found this thread whilst searching and thought Id add my experiences, im a bit of an habitual tinkerer and overclocker

I upgraded from my trusty old NV+ (2 years old) to a Pro Pioneer a few months back, on a quest for more power as it gets used more and more at home for CPU intensive stuff (mostly NZB download related LOL, and media streaming)

Anyway I picked up an Intel E6600 2.4Ghz Core 2 DUO cheap off Ebay and 4GB RAM, 10 mins later was up and running 24 x 7, and its been fine now for over a month - with ambient temps in my home office of 23-24deg C occasionally, the CPU isnt going above 55-60degc (as reported in frontview)

Im running the stock readynas HSF, I just cleaned the thermal paste off it and put some new arctic silver on, and that was it.

Performance wise, I havnt really seen big increases in read/writes etc, but faster times when doing CPU reliant stuff (processing files, unzipping etc) and much even more capability on multi-tasking than before

So for a £50 CPU and £35 of RAM, Im happy ive maxxed it out to its full potential

[Tom Sawyer]

I have a spare E7400, I wonder if it's worth a shot at seeing if it works in a RNP? I'm curious if nothing else. I've installed the E7400 in a Qnap TS-509 with great results (the Intel HSF even fit in it!). I recently acquired a RNP Pioneer at a nice price so decided to move to that for my primary NAS and sack off the TS-509. Now I have this CPU sitting here... tempting me.. Sounds like it won't work though if the chipset in the RNP is the one people are thinking... looks like the E6600 is the highest CPU that chipset supports. I just wonder if the E7400 might just work even though it's not on the list. It is certainly a low wattage CPU, can't imagine it would break anything, perhaps just not boot/post.

If I decide to do anything, I'll probably just pick up an E6600, they are cheap enough and I can recoup the cost by selling my E7400.

[chal2les]

I have a k45 and it supports E6600/E6700, but does not support 1333 fsb . Even though this was the case. I was able to put in a E8400, and it would boot up(had to skip the warning that it was running at a lower freq(I disable check in the bios and it booted perfectly).

The end result that the CPU ran alot cooler and at the same speed.

Anyone tried 1333 fsb yet?

[MikeMcr]

Was looking at the ThermalTake MeOrb heatsink.. it is 47mm high That E6700 might yet work

Did you try the ThermalTake MeOrb heatsink? Did it fit?

[MikeMcr]

Hmm, I notice Intel has confused matters by replacing the E6600 with another E6600 that runs at 3.06 GHz! It uses a smaller die size of 45 nm.

http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=42807,27250,

Since it shares the same name, would you expect it to be as compatible as the "old" 2.40 GHz E6600?

[super-poussin]

my unit with stock cpu

Skywalker:/Develop/CACTIv2# iperf -s
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 4] local 192.168.101.21 port 5001 connected with 192.168.101.69 port 4890
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 286 MBytes 239 Mbits/sec


Skywalker:/Develop/CACTIv2# hdparm -t -T /dev/c/c

/dev/c/c:
Timing cached reads: 2124 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1061.85 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 614 MB in 3.01 seconds = 204.26 MB/sec

[beisser]

my unit with stock cpu

Skywalker:/Develop/CACTIv2# iperf -s
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 4] local 192.168.101.21 port 5001 connected with 192.168.101.69 port 4890
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 286 MBytes 239 Mbits/sec


Skywalker:/Develop/CACTIv2# hdparm -t -T /dev/c/c

/dev/c/c:
Timing cached reads: 2124 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1061.85 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 614 MB in 3.01 seconds = 204.26 MB/sec

thats like uber slow.

here are my results:

Code: Select all

ReadyNAS-Pro:~# iperf -s
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[  4] local 192.168.0.111 port 5001 connected with 192.168.0.91 port 49599
[  5] local 192.168.0.111 port 5001 connected with 192.168.0.91 port 49600
[  6] local 192.168.0.111 port 5001 connected with 192.168.0.91 port 49601
[  7] local 192.168.0.111 port 5001 connected with 192.168.0.91 port 49602
[  7]  0.0-10.0 sec    262 MBytes    220 Mbits/sec
[  4]  0.0-10.0 sec    283 MBytes    237 Mbits/sec
[  5]  0.0-10.0 sec    279 MBytes    234 Mbits/sec
[  6]  0.0-10.0 sec    280 MBytes    235 Mbits/sec
[SUM]  0.0-10.0 sec  1.08 GBytes    926 Mbits/sec

ReadyNAS-Pro:~# hdparm -t -T /dev/c/c

/dev/c/c:
Timing cached reads:   1724 MB in  2.00 seconds = 862.13 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads:  730 MB in  3.00 seconds = 243.30 MB/sec
ReadyNAS-Pro:~# hdparm -t -T /dev/c/c



my iperf is probably faster because i used the option -P4 which spawns 4 parallel streams instead of just one.

i havent got a clue why the hdparm speeds differ so much from yours though.

[super-poussin]

Hi Beisser

which teaming mode are you using ?

[super-poussin]

ftom nas to nas :

jedi:~# iperf -c 192.168.101.21 -P4
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.101.21, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 73.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 6] local 192.168.101.50 port 55057 connected with 192.168.101.21 port 5001
[ 4] local 192.168.101.50 port 55055 connected with 192.168.101.21 port 5001
[ 3] local 192.168.101.50 port 55054 connected with 192.168.101.21 port 5001
[ 5] local 192.168.101.50 port 55056 connected with 192.168.101.21 port 5001
[ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 395 MBytes 331 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 343 MBytes 287 Mbits/sec
[ 6] 0.0-10.0 sec 281 MBytes 235 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 0.0-10.1 sec 173 MBytes 145 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-10.1 sec 1.16 GBytes 994 Mbits/sec
jedi:~#