about the lost cycles, tell me about it, for some reason explorer.exe eats up 25-75% of the cpu for about 10 secconds every minute or so, no idea why. and sadly i lost the recovery cd's for this pavilion when we moved a few months back so no fresh installs for me :(
seeing without seeing is something the blind learn to do, and seeing beyond vision can be a gift.
about the lost cycles, tell me about it, for some reason explorer.exe eats up 25-75% of the cpu for about 10 secconds every minute or so, no idea why. and sadly i lost the recovery cd's for this pavilion when we moved a few months back so no fresh installs for me :(
It's possible it might be scanning for a (lost?) network drive.
Go into Tools->Folder Options->View and uncheck the box for "Automatically search for network folders and printers".
about the lost cycles, tell me about it, for some reason explorer.exe eats up 25-75% of the cpu for about 10 secconds every minute or so, no idea why. and sadly i lost the recovery cd's for this pavilion when we moved a few months back so no fresh installs for me :(
It's possible it might be scanning for a (lost?) network drive.
Go into Tools->Folder Options->View and uncheck the box for "Automatically search for network folders and printers".
thank you, but no. i uncheckd it and it still does it.
seeing without seeing is something the blind learn to do, and seeing beyond vision can be a gift.
about the lost cycles, tell me about it, for some reason explorer.exe eats up 25-75% of the cpu for about 10 secconds every minute or so, no idea why. and sadly i lost the recovery cd's for this pavilion when we moved a few months back so no fresh installs for me :(
It's possible it might be scanning for a (lost?) network drive.
Go into Tools->Folder Options->View and uncheck the box for "Automatically search for network folders and printers".
thank you, but no. i uncheckd it and it still does it.
Are any of your partitions formatted as NTFS? If so, do you have Fast-indexing turned on? Constant scanning of the disk indexes could cause this, especially if it's the drive that BOINC is installed on (very frequent updates...).
Right-click on the drive in explorer, select properties. Check box is at the bottom labeled "Allow Indexing Service to index this disk for fast file searching".
I see your point. I did some crunching on both 7 and 8 instances and with my own calculations, they both yield almost the same RAC per day. Though with the varying results, comparing WUs with a similarly awarded credit, crunching on 7 cores instead of 8 reduces crunching time of over 40 minutes per WU.
I don't see that adding more memory will solve the problem, since I'm already at 6GB.
I see your point. I did some crunching on both 7 and 8 instances and with my own calculations, they both yield almost the same RAC per day. Though with the varying results, comparing WUs with a similarly awarded credit, crunching on 7 cores instead of 8 reduces crunching time of over 40 minutes per WU.
I don't see that adding more memory will solve the problem, since I'm already at 6GB.
6GB? When I was trying to tune up my system when I first got it, the Core2 MP architecture was still very new: one of the things that people were starting to find out and write up was that the FBDIMM architecture works best with sets of 4 identical DIMMs for each memory channel. If you have 4 x 1GB in one set of slots, and 4 x 512 MB in another set (and you've checked the manual to see whether your sets are 1,2,3,4 or 1,3,5,7), you're probably running as fast as you can - but if you've got anything out of balance, memory access will be slow.
Previously I had a 4x1GB configuration, but that was before my workload which requires additional memory, and before Einstein switched to R5. My present configuration is 2x2GB and 2x1GB. I'll try again with 4x1GB now that my workload is gone, and I'll place order for additional 2x2GB in the near future when RAM price drops further. Right now RAM prices are increasing steadily.
Previously I had a 4x1GB configuration, but that was before my workload which requires additional memory, and before Einstein switched to R5. My present configuration is 2x2GB and 2x1GB. I'll try again with 4x1GB now that my workload is gone, and I'll place order for additional 2x2GB in the near future when RAM price drops further. Right now RAM prices are increasing steadily.
My Dell BIOS showed 'Quad channel mode' when I got the mixture right.
Could it be memory bus
)
Could it be memory bus contention?
I see similar effects on my 8-core dual Xeon Dell Precision workstation when all 8 cores are working on identical SETI tasks.
about the lost cycles, tell
)
about the lost cycles, tell me about it, for some reason explorer.exe eats up 25-75% of the cpu for about 10 secconds every minute or so, no idea why. and sadly i lost the recovery cd's for this pavilion when we moved a few months back so no fresh installs for me :(
seeing without seeing is something the blind learn to do, and seeing beyond vision can be a gift.
RE: about the lost cycles,
)
It's possible it might be scanning for a (lost?) network drive.
Go into Tools->Folder Options->View and uncheck the box for "Automatically search for network folders and printers".
Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.
RE: RE: about the lost
)
thank you, but no. i uncheckd it and it still does it.
seeing without seeing is something the blind learn to do, and seeing beyond vision can be a gift.
RE: RE: RE: about the
)
Are any of your partitions formatted as NTFS? If so, do you have Fast-indexing turned on? Constant scanning of the disk indexes could cause this, especially if it's the drive that BOINC is installed on (very frequent updates...).
Right-click on the drive in explorer, select properties. Check box is at the bottom labeled "Allow Indexing Service to index this disk for fast file searching".
Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.
RE: Could it be memory bus
)
I see your point. I did some crunching on both 7 and 8 instances and with my own calculations, they both yield almost the same RAC per day. Though with the varying results, comparing WUs with a similarly awarded credit, crunching on 7 cores instead of 8 reduces crunching time of over 40 minutes per WU.
I don't see that adding more memory will solve the problem, since I'm already at 6GB.
RE: RE: Could it be
)
6GB? When I was trying to tune up my system when I first got it, the Core2 MP architecture was still very new: one of the things that people were starting to find out and write up was that the FBDIMM architecture works best with sets of 4 identical DIMMs for each memory channel. If you have 4 x 1GB in one set of slots, and 4 x 512 MB in another set (and you've checked the manual to see whether your sets are 1,2,3,4 or 1,3,5,7), you're probably running as fast as you can - but if you've got anything out of balance, memory access will be slow.
Previously I had a 4x1GB
)
Previously I had a 4x1GB configuration, but that was before my workload which requires additional memory, and before Einstein switched to R5. My present configuration is 2x2GB and 2x1GB. I'll try again with 4x1GB now that my workload is gone, and I'll place order for additional 2x2GB in the near future when RAM price drops further. Right now RAM prices are increasing steadily.
RE: Previously I had a
)
My Dell BIOS showed 'Quad channel mode' when I got the mixture right.
RE: It baffles me to see my
)
Make sure Speed Step is disabled in the BIOS