The computer keeps crashing during the compilation process of chromium-123.0.6312.58_1, but never crashed when I was building version 123.0.6312.58!

Oleg_NYC said:
I just finished compiling chromium-123.0.6312.86. It took me 13 hours to compile it. But in my settings, I only had 7 make jobs enabled and powerd++ was probably throttling the clock frequency of the CPU. During the compilation process, the only time I noticed a spike in temperature was when I did what shkhln had suggested I should do.
And now I am gonna reboot and take a look at the settings available in the UEFI. I will definitely disable Turbo Boost.
Click to expand...

13 hours for that CPU is at least 3 times slower than it should be.

You have a too small CPU cooler, didn't we determine that? Your system cannot possibly run at normal speed.
 
shkhln said:
(That is apparently the same product as Thermaltake UX100.)
Click to expand...
The Ghost Sahara cooler you provided a link to doesn't even look like the cooler in the picture that I showed you, even though both the Ghost Sahara cooler and my Sahara cooler support the LGA 1200 socket. According to its description, Thermaltake UX100 doesn't support LGA 1200, and my CPU is only compatible with LGA 1200. I am still trying to determine my Sahara product's cooling power in watts. Maybe you guys can help me with this.
 
But you didn't tell us what cooler exactly you have and you didn't post a photo either. In any case, a cooler of that construction and size is unlikely to suddenly develop a 125 watt capability.
 
Sahara-cpu-cooler-fan-120mm-ventilador-4pin-ventilador-do-radiador-led-para-intel-lga-775-1155.jpg


It is similar to this.
 
cracauer@ said:
But you didn't tell us what cooler exactly you have and you didn't post a photo either. In any case, a cooler of that construction and size is unlikely to suddenly develop a 125 watt capability.
Click to expand...
The photo is in post #88. What you can see in that photo is what I saw when I opened the desktop tower. I don't know its exact model though.
 
cracauer@ said:
Your system cannot possibly run at normal speed.
Click to expand...
I am confused. What do you mean? If by "normal speed", you mean the speed of 3.7 Ghz, take a look at what I wrote in post #88. Do those temperature results look abnormal to you? I compared those results to the Turbo Boost speed temperature results. But I only had 7 make jobs enabled. Should I repeat the same test with 20 make jobs enabled (while keeping powerd++ and ccache disabled)?
 
Oleg_NYC said:
This is so confusing. According to this, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07VQS17D4 , Thermaltake UX100 doesn't support LGA 1200, but earlier, you posted a different link to Thermaltake UX100 and in its description, it says it supports LGA 1200.
Click to expand...
According to manufacturer specs, taken from manufacturer page, that cooler indeed supports LGA 1200, but its cooling power is only 65 watt, so you simply have a woefully underpowered cooler. Better than nothing at all, though.

 
Oleg_NYC said:
Are you sure this thing is almost exactly the same as my Sahara cooler and they both support only 65 watts of cooling power?
Click to expand...
I simply followed the Amazon link you posted... And here's the logic that people are trying to tell you:

Sahara gaming is a British outlet/store/organization. Thermaltake is on the other side of the Atlantic ocean. Oftentimes, the exact same model of a product is marketed under different name/appearance/packaging in different markets. It's very likely that this is what's happening here - the Thermaltake cooler that I dug up the specs for is the same thing as your Sahara cooler. And yes, both support only 65 watts of cooling power.

Thermaltake UX100 in the US is most likely the same thing as Sahara Iced Rainbow in UK. A 65-watt cooler sold on both sides of the Atlantic under different names.
 
But I posted the picture of my cooler. It's in post #88. Doesn't that picture look different to you than the picture of the British Sahara cooler?.. I am still confused...
 
where did you get that picture from?
1) Your pic:
1711732845315.png

2) what shkhln dug up:
1711732944221.png

3) From your Amazon US link:
1711733011594.png


Most likely yours is an older model. One way to estimate the cooling power is to look at the size of the radiator - and yours does look rather small.

Also, it looks like there may have been a mixup on the model name. I browsed Amazon USA for a way to demonstrate that bigger radiators do equate to more cooling power, and stumbled on this: It's Thermaltake UX 200 (not 100, as what you guys found), which seems to be a closer match.
1711733894754.png
 
Well, I posted the picture that I had found on amazon.com because it looked like what I saw when I opened the desktop tower... Did my eyes deceive me?.. I don't know if I should open the desktop tower again and use my smartphone to take the picture of the actual device that I have... You mentioned UX200. It looks like its cooling power is 170W.
 
Oleg_NYC said:
Well, I posted the picture that I had found on amazon.com because it looked like what I saw when I opened the desktop tower... Did my eyes deceive me?.. I don't know if I should open the desktop tower again and use my smartphone to take the picture of the actual device that I have... You mentioned UX200. It looks like its cooling power is 170W.
Click to expand...
yeah, I'd recommend opening up your case and taking a closer look at the actual cooler. It usually would have exact model name stamped on the side somewhere, which should make it easier to look for manufacturer specs. You may have to unscrew a few screws to take a good look at that cooler from all sides.
 
grahamperrin said:

Focus on what's known of a crash​



Without updating the jail, or the host, please run:

uname -KUv ; poudriere jail -i -j 15amd64

– and share the output, non-abbreviated.



Can you share any more of the crash file?

Context:

freebsd-src/sys/vm/vm_fault.c at main · freebsd/freebsd-src
Click to expand...

I don't think we'll find out anything useful by doing this. It's very likely those panics were caused by Turbo Boost and maybe by some additional overclock feature too. In the UEFI, I disabled Turbo Boost and the "Overclock TVB" feature.

astyle said:
yeah, I'd recommend opening up your case and taking a closer look at the actual cooler. It usually would have exact model name stamped on the side somewhere, which should make it easier to look for manufacturer specs. You may have to unscrew a few screws to take a good look at that cooler from all sides.
Click to expand...

When cores' clock frequency is set to 3.7 Ghz, can a 65 W cooler actually keep temperatures below 65 degrees by Celcius while compiling something as resource-intensive as gcc14-devel and chromium? (And by the way, in my case, the LTO feature was enabled for both ports). Because with 20 make jobs enabled, I succeeded in compiling both ports when the clock frequency was set to 3.7 Ghz, and during the compilation process, the temperatures never got higher than 64 degrees.
 
Oleg_NYC said:
I don't think we'll find out anything useful by doing this. It's very likely those panics were caused by Turbo Boost and maybe by some additional overclock feature too. In the UEFI, I disabled Turbo Boost and the "Overclock TVB" feature.



When cores' clock frequency is set to 3.7 Ghz, can a 65 W cooler actually keep temperatures below 65 degrees by Celcius while compiling something as resource-intensive as gcc14-devel and chromium? (And by the way, in my case, the LTO feature was enabled for both ports). Because with 20 make jobs enabled, I succeeded in compiling both ports when the clock frequency was set to 3.7 Ghz, and during the compilation process, the temperatures never got higher than 64 degrees.
Click to expand...
When a cooler is rated for N watts, N is the upper limit of how much energy it can move away from the CPU/GPU in the form of heat. Normally, for a cooler, you want to match or beat the TDP of the processor. Otherwise it becomes a game of numbers, trying to figure out at what point thermal throttling of the CPU will happen.
 
Oleg_NYC said:
I don't think we'll find out anything useful by doing this. It's very likely those panics were caused by Turbo Boost and maybe by some additional overclock feature too. In the UEFI, I disabled Turbo Boost and the "Overclock TVB" feature. …
Click to expand...

Was there any subsequent kernel panic and if so, can you provide details? Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top