It's amazing how power efficient new systems are compared to (much) older ones

Father-in-law, I think, was originally having some kind of problem with his old, old computer, and as a result, I ended up giving him my old Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 system to him.

Recently, said Q9550 system started to have some issues, so I gave him my Intel NUC NUC7i3BNH (Intel Core i3-7100U (2-core, HTT enabled), originally 4 GB of RAM, but I upgraded that to 8 GB (2x 4 GB), and it also originally came with a 16 GB Intel Optane module and a 1 TB HGST 2.5" 7200 rpm HDD, but I swapped that out I think for an Intel 520 Series SSD). Anyways, but I digress.

I don't know if I ever took power measurements for the NUC (probably not), but let's instead, compare it for example to the Beelink GTR5 5900HX system, which, at idle, could be sipping somewhere between 9-maybe 16 W of power.

Compare and contrast that to the old Q9550 system which has 4x 2 GB G.Skill DDR2-800 RAM, and a Nvidia GTX 260 in it, with a 610 W PSU, and a single I think it's an Intel 525s Series 240 GB SSD in it. At idle, it sucking back somewhere between 120-160 W.

That's CRAZY!!!

I thought that I was going to re-purpose that system to be a server of some kind. But now, I'm not so sure.

Granted, the Q9550 system does have a Gigabyte EP45-UD3P motherboard in it, and as such, sports 8 SATA 3 Gbps ports. And the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 dose support Intel VT-x and Intel VT-d, which means that, again, in theory, I can run a few virtual machines on it and throw TrueNAS onto that system and make it into a storage server.

I don't know if I'm going to that for sure yet, but it is a potential option. 

But man, that idle power is really making me re-think that plan. (Sadly, I'm not sure if newer servers would really be that much more efficient. Desktop systems and/or mini-PCs, yeah, but towers and/or servers - I don't know about that.)

The BitComet client has gone to shit.

 ​https://www.cometforums.com/topic/12802501-bitcomet-causing-excessive-ping-times/page/2/

  

"If you are so unhappy using BitComet as your client (you have previously stated that you are using it at the same time as two other clients), I suggest that, at least, you show that you do possess some amount of common courtesy."

Read my initial posts.

 

I was merely and simply stating "hey, I think there's a problem here".

Rhubarb repeatedly denied that the problem even exists, let alone offer anything that resembles help and/or assistance.

 

Rhubarb's response is akin to how companies blame independent media outlets when said independent media outlets find issues with said company's products. (Which Steve from GamersNexus makes references to here:

 

The fact that I cited the old forum posts where Rhubarb even SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY asks for ping time data whilst on here, argues that it's not about ping times is laughable at the very least.

 

Interesting how you make no mention of this fact in your reply.

 

If Rhubard is going to be belligerent, then you can't be surprised when said belligerence is going to be met with belligerence.

 

If Rhubard doesn't know how to help and/or doesn't want to help, then he could've just plainly and pointedly stated that.

 

But that wasn't the case here.

"I have been a resident of BitComet Forums, assuredly, a lot longer than yourself, and I am always amazed at how imperious some users like to sound and, rather than thanking those who donate their free time to attempt to aid others (not being remunerated, by the way), feel it is their God-given right to insult and try to belittle them, just because they do not see eye-to-eye with what is suggested. Thank Goodness that this is not the case of the vast majority of the more than 100,000 worldwide users of this free application!! "

Once again, if you have actually READ my posts and Rhubarb's responses, it LITERALLY reads:

Me: "Hey, I think there's a problem with the program."

Rhubarb: "No, there isn't."

Me: "Yes, there is. And here is the data to prove it."

Rhubarb: "No, there isn't."

Me: "Well, I googled it and this is how I found this forum because other people reported about the same thing."

Rhubarb: "If this was a problem, there'd be all sorts of 'me too' posts."

Me: "But there are 'me too' posts."

Rhubarb: "No, there isn't."

Me: "Yes, there are. Here are the quotations from those threads, and here are the links to those posts."

Rhubarb: "No, there isn't."

(see a pattern here?)

So, why would I thank someone who is in denial about a problem???

That makes no sense.

Would you ever thank an alcoholic that beats their wife and kids "thank you for beating me?" (because you're an alcoholic) That's absolutely ridiculous.

You can literally conduct your internal review of how Rhubarb could've handled this better cuz right now, he's at the same level as the Enermax issue.

"Would that decrease your infinite rage and please your Magnanimous self? "
Why would I need to do that?

Again, the other thread tells you that it's a problem with how the client tries to establish a connection to the DHT network.

It's a very simple question: on startup, what does the client attempt to do as it is trying to establish a connection to the DHT network?

It would appear that no one here has ever bothered to ask this very simple, basic question as it pertains to this issue which might be the responsible party for both, this thread, and the previous thread that was filed a year and 8 months ago.

"Thank them profusely for fixing my car and go on my merry way. There is a Spanish proverb that says that 'to be thankful is a sign of being well-bred' ("Ser agradecido es de ser bien nacido"). "
And that's the difference between your mechanic and Rhubarb.

Rhubarb never made it to trying to profusely fix the client.

That's the difference between your scenario and this one.

​---

 

The response from their forum is an example of how not to handle a problem when users/clients are reporting a problem.

 

You can read the rest of the thread to see what I'm talking about there.

 

BitComet sucks.

 

Use something else instead. 

*edit 2022-09-01*

BWAHAHAHAHA.....

The mods at the BitComet forum has now banned me from said forum because I reported an issue, and they refused to fix it.

LOL...LMAO....

Fuck BitComet. It's LITERAL trash.

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X may NOT be as fast for CFD as I otherwise thought/hoped

So this test is based on the same testcase, but just testing it with two different CFD applications.

Both are steady-state solutions (which is normally used to initialise the flow field for the transient solution, which I am not testing at the moment).

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X cluster is two nodes, where each node has an AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (16-cores, SMT disabled), 128 GB of DDR4-3200 unbuffered, non-ECC RAM, and a Mellanox ConnectX-4 MCX456A-ECAT 100 Gbps Infiniband network card whilst the Xeon cluster is two nodes, each with dual Intel Xeon E5-2690 (V1, 8-cores each, HTT disabled for both processors), 128 GB of DDR3-1866 2Rx4 Registered ECC RAM running at DDR3-1600 speeds.

In one of the applications, the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X finishes the solution in 23342.021 seconds whilst the Xeon pair of nodes finishes the same steady state solution in 15834.675 seconds (or about a 32.16% reduction in wall clock time), which is rather significant. This run has about 13.4 million cells and it takes this long because it is running for 1000 iterations.

And then in another, different CFD application, but also running the steady-state solution run for 48 iterations, and finishes the solution on the AMD system in 292.665 seconds whilst on the Xeon system, it finishes this solution in 264.48 seconds or about 9.63% faster.

That's really interesting that the AMD Ryzen 9 system, despite it being 8 and a half years newer, still isn't able to be as fast as an older Xeon-based cluster.

The only real upside to using the Ryzen-based system over the Xeon based system -- well, two things actually are:

1) The Ryzen based system uses quite a lot less power compared to the Xeon cluster. It isn't surprising that I can see power consumptions, under load, of upwards or around 1 kW for just running two nodes (and running all four nodes pushes that total up to somewhere between 1.6-1.9 kW) whereas the Ryzen based systems combined, is using probably only about maybe 400 W total.

2) The Ryzen based system is a LOT quieter than the Xeon Supermicro Twin Pro^2 server (6027TR-HTRF). 

 

So, if you're running it in a home lab environment where you don't live by yourself, then despite it being slower, it might still be a better alternative for these two reasons.

And the Ryzen based solution is certainly cheaper than the Threadripper, Threadripper Pro, and/or AMD EPYC solution platforms, where you might be able to get some of that performance back, but I can't say for certain without actually testing it myself because I thought that having the 16 faster clock speed cores on the Ryzen 9 5950X would be faster than the Xeon E5-2690 platform. Based on the data and the results, I stand corrected.

I did not expect that.