Joe L. Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 I know this question is a bit off topic but I can boot into Unraid with out any HDD's connected to the motherboard correct? Once I'm done looking around I can shutdown and then connect the HDDs to add next time turn on? Correct. Quote Link to comment
BlackCat Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 I know this question is a bit off topic but I can boot into Unraid with out any HDD's connected to the motherboard correct? Once I'm done looking around I can shutdown and then connect the HDDs to add next time turn on? Correct. HAHA success. Now I just have to do my hard drives and keep an eye on my cpu temps to make sure this H50 is install correctly. Thanks for the help everyone. Quote Link to comment
joelones Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Concerning fan speeds, has anyone been able to control the fans. I've got pwm fans installed but can't seem to control speeds. Bios setting is set to "Energy Saving" for fan speeds. Perhaps we are unable to control speeds except in the bios. Another odd thing, sensors outputs seems to rename the fans 1,2,3, instead I see Case, CPU and AUX fan. w83627dhg-isa-0a10 Adapter: ISA adapter VCore: +0.99 V (min = +0.60 V, max = +1.49 V) in1: +12.20 V (min = +10.72 V, max = +13.15 V) AVCC: +3.22 V (min = +2.96 V, max = +3.63 V) 3VCC: +3.22 V (min = +2.96 V, max = +3.63 V) in4: +1.53 V (min = +1.35 V, max = +1.65 V) in5: +1.25 V (min = +1.13 V, max = +1.38 V) in6: +4.68 V (min = +4.53 V, max = +4.86 V) VSB: +3.22 V (min = +2.96 V, max = +3.63 V) VBAT: +3.17 V (min = +2.96 V, max = +3.63 V) Case Fan: 1117 RPM (min = 712 RPM, div = CPU Fan: 1095 RPM (min = 712 RPM, div = Aux Fan: 1171 RPM (min = 712 RPM, div = fan4: 1140 RPM (min = 712 RPM, div = fan5: 1088 RPM (min = 712 RPM, div = Sys Temp: +35.0 C (high = +60.0 C, hyst = +55.0 C) sensor = thermistor CPU Temp: +32.0 C (high = +95.0 C, hyst = +92.0 C) sensor = diode AUX Temp: +32.0 C (high = +80.0 C, hyst = +75.0 C) sensor = diode cpu0_vid: +3.500 V Edit: some success while playing around with pwm2, more oddities, as it turns out all 5 fans go full throttle by issuing echo 250 > /sys/class/hwmon/hwmon0/device/pwm2 Quote Link to comment
aiden Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Make sure your BIOS settings are correct. There are PWM speed control values of 100%, 70%, 50%, and 30% of whatever speed is being sent to the fans. Quote Link to comment
joelones Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Where would you see that exactly in the bios, only thing I see for fan control is in the "Hardware Health Configuration" menu option and there is no PWM speed control values just Fan Speed Control Modes (Full Speed, Performance, Balanced, Energy Saving). Quote Link to comment
aiden Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 ... there is no PWM speed control values just Fan Speed Control Modes (Full Speed, Performance, Balanced, Energy Saving). That's it... according to the manual, Full Speed = 100%, Performance = 70%, Balanced = 50%, Energy Saving = 30%. Quote Link to comment
joelones Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 ... there is no PWM speed control values just Fan Speed Control Modes (Full Speed, Performance, Balanced, Energy Saving). That's it... according to the manual, Full Speed = 100%, Performance = 70%, Balanced = 50%, Energy Saving = 30%. So only through the bios can we modified the speed. Why does pwm2 seem to work but controls all fans instead of a single one? Quote Link to comment
aiden Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 So only through the bios can we modified the speed. No, what I understand is that the BIOS regulates the PWM signal before it gets to the fan. So if a program calls for full rpms, but the BIOS is set for Balanced, you would get 50% rpms. Then again, I don't own this board, I'm just interpreting what the manual states. Those of you who have the board can test the theory. Quote Link to comment
BlackCat Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 In the manual for the board (page 2-35) it says that for the LAN connections LED Color: Off = No connection or 10 Mbps LED Color: Green = 100 Mbps LED Color: Amber = 1 Gbps I know this is pretty basic, but does the motherboard detect the capacity of your network? Currently my router is 100 Mbps, but I'm working on upgrading to 1 Gbps. So, once I have another computer and router that supports 1 Gbps the indicator should change to Amber correct? Quote Link to comment
Joe L. Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 So, once I have another computer and router that supports 1 Gbps the indicator should change to Amber correct? Yes as long as the cables you use also support 1Gbps. Old LAN cables only used two pairs of the wires. New use all 4 pairs and are more tightly twisted to avoid cross-coupling between the pairs. Cat5e and Cat6 are rated for 1Gbps. Cat5 is not but might work for shorter lengths. Quote Link to comment
BlackCat Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 So, once I have another computer and router that supports 1 Gbps the indicator should change to Amber correct? Yes as long as the cables you use also support 1Gbps. Old LAN cables only used two pairs of the wires. New use all 4 pairs and are more tightly twisted to avoid cross-coupling between the pairs. Cat5e and Cat6 are rated for 1Gbps. Cat5 is not but might work for shorter lengths. Ok, that is good to know. I have ordered a 1 Gbps switch and some Cat6 cables...now I just need another computer with a 1 Gbps capacity Thanks Joe Quote Link to comment
Matt Foley Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 So, once I have another computer and router that supports 1 Gbps the indicator should change to Amber correct? Yes as long as the cables you use also support 1Gbps. Old LAN cables only used two pairs of the wires. New use all 4 pairs and are more tightly twisted to avoid cross-coupling between the pairs. Cat5e and Cat6 are rated for 1Gbps. Cat5 is not but might work for shorter lengths. The house I am in now has Cat5 strung to all the rooms. Was able to get Gigabit speeds in all of the rooms with the longest run being around 50 feet. Ran like this for a couple of weeks before running Cat6 to replace the Cat5 in rooms that were using Gigabit (I tend to be a better safe then sorry type of person.) Network benchmarks show the same speed on the Cat6 runs as I was getting on the Cat5, so it would seem that there is some Cat5 out there that is with in specification for running Gigabit in at least a home network type environment. Quote Link to comment
330T Posted December 20, 2010 Share Posted December 20, 2010 The house I am in now has Cat5 strung to all the rooms. Was able to get Gigabit speeds in all of the rooms with the longest run being around 50 feet. Ran like this for a couple of weeks before running Cat6 to replace the Cat5 in rooms that were using Gigabit (I tend to be a better safe then sorry type of person.) Network benchmarks show the same speed on the Cat6 runs as I was getting on the Cat5, so it would seem that there is some Cat5 out there that is with in specification for running Gigabit in at least a home network type environment. Just about every network wire put out in the last few years is CAT5e or proposed cat5e standard, and will run gigabit speeds with out an issue. CAT6 is for running 10Gigabit speeds and above. Yes it will run 10/100/1000 but also if verified it will run 10/20/or 20Gigabit speeds. The biggest problem with going from cat5 to cat6 is the wire size is different, causing you to have to buy all new punch downs or crimp on ends. Now back on task... I've been running this board, with 4gb of RAM for just over a year. Mine was a beta board, with a less than perfect bios when it shipped. Never have had an issue with it. I'm also running the supermicro sas 8port board for hosting all 14 drives i need. Quote Link to comment
intertan Posted December 25, 2010 Share Posted December 25, 2010 just my 2cents as far as the cat5e vs cat6 I say that if you want to be future proof run cat6. I will be upgrading my house with cat6 this holiday and have got the patch cables already. Now I just need to figure out how to upgrade my cat3(telephone) and rg59(cable tv) to newer stuff, without doing any damage. Quote Link to comment
cylon Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 My first attempt at a unRAID setup, I am hoping to replace my Drobo Pro. Componenets so far: Case: RPC-4224 + 120mm Fan Wall Bracket MB: Supermicro X8SIL-F Internal 120mm Fans: 3x Delta AFC1212DE PSU: Seasonic X-750 Undecided: External 80mm Fans CPU RAM I am leaning towards using the ECC funtionality on this board but would also like a low voltage CPU. The only low voltage CPUs I can find that should work with this board are: Xeon L3403 - 30W - No ECC Support Xeon L3406 - 30W - No ECC Support Xeon L3426 - 45W - ECC Supported So that narrows it down to the Xeon L3426, does anyone see any issue with using this CPU other than the ridiculous price? Quote Link to comment
burtjr Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 No, but that's a lot of money if it's only going to sit idle. Do you plan to do anything other that serve files? If not I would look at a cheaper processor. I know you wanted ecc, but for the money I would be looking in the I3 category. Quote Link to comment
aiden Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 So that narrows it down to the Xeon L3426, does anyone see any issue with using this CPU other than the ridiculous price? That is the processor I plan to use when I rebuild my server with this board. It trounces the i3 in performance. Having said that, I don't have any need for said performance until the heavy parity add-ons are completed. Since those are community developed, there is no telling if/when that would happen. I just want the L3426 because it's an uncommon combination on here. I'm geeky (and possibly dumb) that way. An i3 is 1/3 the price and similar power usage. But as you say, it doesn't support ECC memory. So if YOU are comfortable spending an extra $200 on a processor that has a lot of horsepower that unRAID does not need, then go for it. Quote Link to comment
cylon Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 Thanks for your responses burtjr and aiden. I don't plan to use it for anything other than serving meida to my Media Centre PC. You have me leaning away from the L3426 now. The i3 540 is around $118 Australian dollars, I would have to order the L3426 from overseas for about triple that. Aiden, what are these parity add-ons? And are there going to be greater CPU requirements with the release of unRAID 5.0 that could argue the case for getting the L3426? Quote Link to comment
aiden Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 Thanks for your responses burtjr and aiden. I don't plan to use it for anything other than serving meida to my Media Centre PC. You have me leaning away from the L3426 now. The i3 540 is around $118 Australian dollars, I would have to order the L3426 from overseas for about triple that. If that's your situation, and you don't have any other roles for it (torrents, virtual box, etc), then I would echo the sentiment that an i3 is plenty. I'm currently using an Atom 510, which is significantly slower than an i3, and it keeps up just fine. Remember, most prebuilt NAS systems use Atoms or ARM processors. Only a small handful use anything more powerful. File serving by itself has very little to do with CPU speed. Aiden, what are these parity add-ons? There are comments here and there in various threads indicating a general desire to enhance the single parity layer that unRAID relies on for data protection. All forms of traditional RAID (except RAID 0, which has no data protection) rely on a single parity layer, whether striped or not. Some systems go beyond by combining RAID levels to supposedly increase reliability and decrease the potential for data loss (RAID 10, etc). The most realistic conversation I have seen about such protection enhancement for unRAID is the Q-Parity model. Instead of repeating the current parity model by using a "dual parity" drive layout as some have proposed, Q-Parity would perform complex calculations along a totally different algorithm to produce protection of the existing parity information, as well as preventing bit-rot. However, that method is quite CPU intensive compared to the current parity calculations, and it has a lot of design problems of its own that would need to be overcome. As of right now, it's a completely community driven idea driven by some of the most talented unRAID users on this forum, which means that although it has solid potential because of the talent and abilities, it has no timeline, no support from Limetech (beyond hypothetical discussions), and no guarantee of not being abandoned altogether. So the reality check is don't overbuild your system just in anticipation of such a development. If it happens at all, we'll probably be buying $50 i19's that draw 11.5 W and run 25C with no fans. And are there going to be greater CPU requirements with the release of unRAID 5.0 that could argue the case for getting the L3426? From what I've read and seen, v5.0+ has no extra CPU requirements over the current stable versions, and I don't expect that will change. Most of 5.0's upgrades affect its memory footprint. As I said, I'm only looking at the L3426 because it's an unusual blip in Intel's CPU product line. If it was my first build, I would go i3 all day long and not worry about ECC. Yes, this is technically a server, but it is for personal use at home, and I doubt you are putting it in a room with a raised floor and redundant environmental systems. Quote Link to comment
cylon Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 aiden, thanks for the comprehensive answers to my queries. I'll go with the i3 as per your recommendation. Quote Link to comment
aiden Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 No problem, good luck with your build and let us know how you're doing or if you have questions. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Quote Link to comment
kingsheep Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I have the above motherboard with a Xeon X3430 chip installed. This CPU temperature shows as 25Deg C when I turn on machine with a reading of Low, this moves to 26 and the reading turns to medium then at 30 the reading turns to high and it starts alarming. From what I can see these settings are obtained from the CPU so is the problem the CPU or motherboard, does anyone know? Quote Link to comment
BRiT Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Those temps are perfectly fine to me. Typically CPUs are supported up to the 75 - 90 C temp ranges. It seems like you need to change the borderline alarm settings for your system. Quote Link to comment
kingsheep Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Hi BRIT, Trouble seems to be there is no where to change the settings as in old BIOS's the upper and lower limits are read in from the CPU. Even SuperMicro support has sent me the latest BIOS 1.2 but still has the same problem. Oh for the old days when you could change these setting.. I can't even find a place to disable them.... I was just wondering if someone had seen this before? Quote Link to comment
Ford Prefect Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 I have the above motherboard with a Xeon X3430 chip installed. This CPU temperature shows as 25Deg C when I turn on machine with a reading of Low, this moves to 26 and the reading turns to medium then at 30 the reading turns to high and it starts alarming. From what I can see these settings are obtained from the CPU so is the problem the CPU or motherboard, does anyone know? ...I don't have sensor readings in Deg-C/-F for CPU, just for System. CPU Temps are only indicated by "low|med|high" in the IPMI interface. My BIOS rev. is 1.1. CPU is a L3426 XEON Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.