6 ms·

What temp you got on those machines? Since you haven't tried the 7nm CPUs yet I guess we'll have to see? 7 years sounds really short to me, I'm planning on ru

by bullen 5y ago

What temp you got on those machines? Since you haven't tried the 7nm CPUs yet I guess we'll have to see? 7 years sounds really short to me, I'm planning on running my machines for 100 years!

bayindirh 5y ago
Just looked to a bunch of Xeon Gold 6258Rs. They're running around ~70 degrees Celsius per die. The machine is under full load. I'm sure its fans are at full speed. That CPU's reported temperatures are 81 for high, 91 for critical (in degrees Celsius). We get new systems almost every year, so we have a rolling set consisting many systems. So, we have a cross section of systems to observe.
- bullen 5y ago
  My rule of thumb is "if hardware is too hot for you to hold your finger on it indefinitely" it's too hot and it's going to break very soon! Temperature kills hardware, you need to bring those temperatures down, and the only way to do that is to lower the wattage! Atom is the perfect design, no crap and low power!
  - bayindirh 5y ago
    > "if hardware is too hot for you to hold your finger on it indefinitely" it's too hot and it's going to break very soon! From my experience, that doesn't happen like that in enterprise hardware. Either wrong voltage (inside the system) or defective design causes premature death. If the server BMC says it's fine, it's fine. > Temperature kills hardware, you need to bring those temperatures down, and the only way to do that is to lower the wattage! High Performance Computing doesn't work like that, unfortunately :) > Atom is the perfect design, no crap and low power! I'm sure it has its own uses and can accomplish a lot, but in HPC, it won't cut it. I use small SBCs at home to do and try a lot of fun and useful stuff, but it has limits.
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    > Temperature kills hardware, you need to bring those temperatures down, and the only way to do that is to lower the wattage! The best way to keep your CPU intact for a long time is keep it powered off. But then you have probably no use for this CPU… > it's too hot and it's going to break very soon! “very soon” on your scale from now to 100 years, probably. But most people prefer having a CPU working at full capacity for a few years than having a useless brick of silicon sitting around for a hundred year.
  - holoduke 5y ago
    Your rule of thumb is wrong. The thing what kills hardware is temperature fluctuations. Keeping a processor running consistently at 90 degrees is much better than switching it off and on all the time. Running a CPU at full load has a very minor impact on its mechanical properties. Even after running for 10 years. Much less than storing it in your drawer for the same amount of time.
    - adrian_b 5y ago
      Temperature fluctuations damage the interfaces between the different materials inside an integrated circuit, so they will greatly lower the lifetime. Nonetheless, there is a continuous aging of the metal traces (electromigration) and especially of the insulating layers, e.g. the MOS transistor gates, due to the difusion of atoms. This continuous aging is accelerated by steady-state high temperatures and it eventually results in either open circuits or short circuits somewhere, destroying the device. Good MOS integrated circuits are designed for a lifetime at their maximum specified temperature of at least 10 years or even 20 years or more for the better of them. Nevertheless, this is puny in comparison with the lifetime of many semiconductor components produced 40-50 years ago, before the continuous shrinking of the active device sizes, which could have lifetimes of hundreds of years, when free from fabrication defects.
      - bullen 5y ago
        Yes, so I'm betting on these 14nm Atom boards because they are very performant per watt (I get twice the server juice out of these at 25W than I get out of my 6600 desktop at 65W!!!!!!!!!) and I think they will be more reliable at 42 celcius full blast than the still non existent 10 or smaller nm. I even think like you that my 45nm D510MO probably will outlive these! But it's so underpowered (like 1/10 of the perf. at 15W) compared to these that I'm willing to take the risk! The risk of new boards being so much better that I'll have to throw these away ever is zero at this point, memory being the bottleneck!
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    > "if hardware is too hot for you to hold your finger on it indefinitely" That's only like ~45 °C or so.
    - xxs 5y ago
      More like 48, but yeah.
  - NavinF 5y ago
    > "if hardware is too hot for you to hold your finger on it indefinitely" it's too hot and it's going to break very soon! Are you talking about junction temperature, package temp, or heatsink temp? The only CPU I own with a package temp that's cold enough to touch is inside my phone. Meanwhile some of my data center machines are a decade old and run at 75C all day. I've never had a CPU fail before the machine became obsolete
    - bullen 5y ago
      linux sensors command, where ever that is.
      - formerly_proven 5y ago
        That data can't really be trusted, because various sensors often have large offsets or are just bogus on specific hardware. E.g. lm-sensors reports both a sensor with 0 °C and one that's usually something like 90-100 °C on my desktop, while also misreporting the CPU temperature due to not taking the AMD offset into account (might be patched in recent versions).
        bayindirh 5y ago
        In terms of Intel and/or enterprise hardware, the values are reliable. You can cross-check them via IPMI Sensors (provided by BMC itself) or Intel powertop (by crosschecking cpu throttle states). Intel also writes relevant support code (cpufreqd, thermals, etc.) themselves. The biggest offender in my experience is OrangePi Zero, but I need a thermal probe to verify it.
  - xxs 5y ago
    >if hardware is too hot for you to hold your finger on it indefinitely That's 50C (bit less)... which is quite low operating temperature and very far from anything that damages silicon. Temperature fluctuations are far worse due to thermal expansion/contraction.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    Does temperature kill hardware? I wasn't very careful with my first laptop (a 2007 model with a dual-core CPU and a discrete GPU), and often used to run it on my lap with the fans blocked. It regularly got up to a sustained temperature of 96c. And it ran fine for 5 years (used for several hours most days) before the screen gave out. It actually still runs fine now with an external display, although it rarely gets used.
  - kingosticks 5y ago
    Enterprise networking chips happily run 80C+ junction temperature (much too hot to touch) for the part lifetime - which is 10+ years. There are plenty of things that damage chips, especially those at 7nm and beyond but this too-hot-to-touch "rule" is rubbish.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  Server parts are big chips (or a bunch of chiplets) running at fairly moderate clock speeds. For example your XCC CPU should have a die size in the 600-700 mm² neighborhood for a power density of around 0.3 W/mm² (which neglects hotspots because probably half the CPU is cache, which does not consume half the power). Desktop parts like the 10900K can chug down 200+ W on a 200 mm² die, though that's basically impossible to cool. Even more reasonable CPUs like AMD's 5000 series run something like 40-50 W through an 80 mm² die, these are still hard to cool.
  - bayindirh 5y ago
    This is a different and refreshing perspective. I've never looked from the perspective of W/mm². OTOH, the number I've given is calculated by eyeballing the per core internal thermistors, provided by lm_sensors (hence by CPU itself). So, per die sensors are probably reading somewhat lower numbers, but the core's cooking at 70 degrees C internally. Nevertheless, bigger die surface inevitably allows better heat conduction and reduces internal stresses considerably, when compared to a desktop part.
    - megous 5y ago
      Desktop use is also very uneven, leading to a lot of large changes in temperature (35 -> 80 and back), which causes more material stress, than when everything is loaded evenly all the time. The same is true for electrical transients.
      - bayindirh 5y ago
        If you have a good cooler with lots of thermal capacity and good fan (like an Arctic Cooling or Noctua, nothing at the extreme end), the increase is very gradual. Also, short spikes in loads are well absorbed with minimal temperature changes. Nevertheless the numbers you mention are neither unrealistic, nor impossible in stock cooling and/or sustained load scenarios.
        megous 5y ago
Version467 5y ago
Is this an exaggeration, or do you genuinely want to run something on the same hardware for the next 100 years? If so, why? I can't imagine a workload that is so unchangeable in its nature, especially considering the world we live in and how often storage media changes that I'd want to plan ahead for 100 years.
- bullen 5y ago
  Things are about to not change as fast. My drives are from 2011, peak SSD at 50nm (100.000 writes per bit). My CPU/motherboards are from 2017, I think 2Gflops/watt is about where peak CPU is at. Time will tell... but there is no point waiting for improvements now, time to go all in!
  - dieortin 5y ago
    Why would that be “peak SSD” or “peak CPU”? Your CPU is already way behind the latest processors in both performance and performance per watt.
- coreblocks 5y ago
  A museum obviously
r00f 5y ago
I still have Pentium 4 running at one location. Sometimes the temperature is scary to look at, but it doesn't care. Those things were made to last
- bullen 5y ago
  What temp. you get?
KronisLV 5y ago
> I'm planning on running my machines for 100 years! Heh, that's an interesting thought that i've also sometimes had. For doing something like that, the hardware would need to be way more resilient and have failover for various components - for example RAID for the HDDs/SSDs and some mechanism for clustering and failover for apps and other stuff you'd want to run on them. But even with those in place, i'm not sure that the hardware that's available to us wouldn't just die long before the 100 year mark. Anyone have any idea what are the oldest computers presently in continuous use? Best i could find was this, but it was just turned on for once, instead of being continuously working: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/watch-the-worlds-oldest-working-computer-turn-on-142521807/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/watch-the-worlds-o... Apart from that, all i can think of are mainframes and such. I really doubt that any piece of currently modern hardware could last 100 years without becoming some hard to understand mess that's incredibly out of touch with the OSes and paradigms of the future. What would you even run on it? Debian? FreeBSD? Haiku? Would there be anyone to debug Python 2 or Python 3 in 100 years? What about Java, .NET, PHP, Golang, Rust, C++ or even C? Considering that many of those ecosystems are more and more migrating to integration with the Internet, especially for the dependencies, what are the chances that any of the software will survive that long?
- Marsymars 5y ago
  > Anyone have any idea what are the oldest computers presently in continuous use? Voyager 1 and 2 are good candidates. In the end, they'll probably shut off because their generators won't provide enough power to operate their computers after 50 years or so.
  - bullen 5y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H62hZJVqs2o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H62hZJVqs2o
- bullen 5y ago
  I'm going to not use raid and instead mount the drives "manually" (via fstab) because I heard som nasty things about raid. Instead I made my own async. distributed database: http://root.rupy.se http://root.rupy.se That way I can just fix the drives as they fail. As for OS/languages I'm 100% sure linux + Java is the final server platform for eternity. Nothing has improved for 5+ years since NIO got epoll! The io_uring and potentially user network/disk stuff to work around the kernel waste (in my case ~30% of the CPU) might happen but also might not...

by bullen 5y ago

What temp you got on those machines? Since you haven't tried the 7nm CPUs yet I guess we'll have to see? 7 years sounds really short to me, I'm planning on running my machines for 100 years!

bayindirh 5y ago

Just looked to a bunch of Xeon Gold 6258Rs. They're running around ~70 degrees Celsius per die. The machine is under full load. I'm sure its fans are at full speed. That CPU's reported temperatures are 81 for high, 91 for critical (in degrees Celsius). We get new systems almost every year, so we have a rolling set consisting many systems. So, we have a cross section of systems to observe.

bullen 5y ago
My rule of thumb is "if hardware is too hot for you to hold your finger on it indefinitely" it's too hot and it's going to break very soon! Temperature kills hardware, you need to bring those temperatures down, and the only way to do that is to lower the wattage! Atom is the perfect design, no crap and low power!
- bayindirh 5y ago
  > "if hardware is too hot for you to hold your finger on it indefinitely" it's too hot and it's going to break very soon! From my experience, that doesn't happen like that in enterprise hardware. Either wrong voltage (inside the system) or defective design causes premature death. If the server BMC says it's fine, it's fine. > Temperature kills hardware, you need to bring those temperatures down, and the only way to do that is to lower the wattage! High Performance Computing doesn't work like that, unfortunately :) > Atom is the perfect design, no crap and low power! I'm sure it has its own uses and can accomplish a lot, but in HPC, it won't cut it. I use small SBCs at home to do and try a lot of fun and useful stuff, but it has limits.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  > Temperature kills hardware, you need to bring those temperatures down, and the only way to do that is to lower the wattage! The best way to keep your CPU intact for a long time is keep it powered off. But then you have probably no use for this CPU… > it's too hot and it's going to break very soon! “very soon” on your scale from now to 100 years, probably. But most people prefer having a CPU working at full capacity for a few years than having a useless brick of silicon sitting around for a hundred year.
- holoduke 5y ago
  Your rule of thumb is wrong. The thing what kills hardware is temperature fluctuations. Keeping a processor running consistently at 90 degrees is much better than switching it off and on all the time. Running a CPU at full load has a very minor impact on its mechanical properties. Even after running for 10 years. Much less than storing it in your drawer for the same amount of time.
  - adrian_b 5y ago
    Temperature fluctuations damage the interfaces between the different materials inside an integrated circuit, so they will greatly lower the lifetime. Nonetheless, there is a continuous aging of the metal traces (electromigration) and especially of the insulating layers, e.g. the MOS transistor gates, due to the difusion of atoms. This continuous aging is accelerated by steady-state high temperatures and it eventually results in either open circuits or short circuits somewhere, destroying the device. Good MOS integrated circuits are designed for a lifetime at their maximum specified temperature of at least 10 years or even 20 years or more for the better of them. Nevertheless, this is puny in comparison with the lifetime of many semiconductor components produced 40-50 years ago, before the continuous shrinking of the active device sizes, which could have lifetimes of hundreds of years, when free from fabrication defects.
    - bullen 5y ago
      Yes, so I'm betting on these 14nm Atom boards because they are very performant per watt (I get twice the server juice out of these at 25W than I get out of my 6600 desktop at 65W!!!!!!!!!) and I think they will be more reliable at 42 celcius full blast than the still non existent 10 or smaller nm. I even think like you that my 45nm D510MO probably will outlive these! But it's so underpowered (like 1/10 of the perf. at 15W) compared to these that I'm willing to take the risk! The risk of new boards being so much better that I'll have to throw these away ever is zero at this point, memory being the bottleneck!
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  > "if hardware is too hot for you to hold your finger on it indefinitely" That's only like ~45 °C or so.
  - xxs 5y ago
    More like 48, but yeah.
- NavinF 5y ago
  > "if hardware is too hot for you to hold your finger on it indefinitely" it's too hot and it's going to break very soon! Are you talking about junction temperature, package temp, or heatsink temp? The only CPU I own with a package temp that's cold enough to touch is inside my phone. Meanwhile some of my data center machines are a decade old and run at 75C all day. I've never had a CPU fail before the machine became obsolete
  - bullen 5y ago
    linux sensors command, where ever that is.
    - formerly_proven 5y ago
      That data can't really be trusted, because various sensors often have large offsets or are just bogus on specific hardware. E.g. lm-sensors reports both a sensor with 0 °C and one that's usually something like 90-100 °C on my desktop, while also misreporting the CPU temperature due to not taking the AMD offset into account (might be patched in recent versions).
      - bayindirh 5y ago
        In terms of Intel and/or enterprise hardware, the values are reliable. You can cross-check them via IPMI Sensors (provided by BMC itself) or Intel powertop (by crosschecking cpu throttle states). Intel also writes relevant support code (cpufreqd, thermals, etc.) themselves. The biggest offender in my experience is OrangePi Zero, but I need a thermal probe to verify it.
- xxs 5y ago
  >if hardware is too hot for you to hold your finger on it indefinitely That's 50C (bit less)... which is quite low operating temperature and very far from anything that damages silicon. Temperature fluctuations are far worse due to thermal expansion/contraction.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  Does temperature kill hardware? I wasn't very careful with my first laptop (a 2007 model with a dual-core CPU and a discrete GPU), and often used to run it on my lap with the fans blocked. It regularly got up to a sustained temperature of 96c. And it ran fine for 5 years (used for several hours most days) before the screen gave out. It actually still runs fine now with an external display, although it rarely gets used.
- kingosticks 5y ago
  Enterprise networking chips happily run 80C+ junction temperature (much too hot to touch) for the part lifetime - which is 10+ years. There are plenty of things that damage chips, especially those at 7nm and beyond but this too-hot-to-touch "rule" is rubbish.
formerly_proven 5y ago
Server parts are big chips (or a bunch of chiplets) running at fairly moderate clock speeds. For example your XCC CPU should have a die size in the 600-700 mm² neighborhood for a power density of around 0.3 W/mm² (which neglects hotspots because probably half the CPU is cache, which does not consume half the power). Desktop parts like the 10900K can chug down 200+ W on a 200 mm² die, though that's basically impossible to cool. Even more reasonable CPUs like AMD's 5000 series run something like 40-50 W through an 80 mm² die, these are still hard to cool.
- bayindirh 5y ago
  This is a different and refreshing perspective. I've never looked from the perspective of W/mm². OTOH, the number I've given is calculated by eyeballing the per core internal thermistors, provided by lm_sensors (hence by CPU itself). So, per die sensors are probably reading somewhat lower numbers, but the core's cooking at 70 degrees C internally. Nevertheless, bigger die surface inevitably allows better heat conduction and reduces internal stresses considerably, when compared to a desktop part.
  - megous 5y ago
    Desktop use is also very uneven, leading to a lot of large changes in temperature (35 -> 80 and back), which causes more material stress, than when everything is loaded evenly all the time. The same is true for electrical transients.
    - bayindirh 5y ago
      If you have a good cooler with lots of thermal capacity and good fan (like an Arctic Cooling or Noctua, nothing at the extreme end), the increase is very gradual. Also, short spikes in loads are well absorbed with minimal temperature changes. Nevertheless the numbers you mention are neither unrealistic, nor impossible in stock cooling and/or sustained load scenarios.
      - megous 5y ago

Version467 5y ago

Is this an exaggeration, or do you genuinely want to run something on the same hardware for the next 100 years? If so, why? I can't imagine a workload that is so unchangeable in its nature, especially considering the world we live in and how often storage media changes that I'd want to plan ahead for 100 years.

bullen 5y ago
Things are about to not change as fast. My drives are from 2011, peak SSD at 50nm (100.000 writes per bit). My CPU/motherboards are from 2017, I think 2Gflops/watt is about where peak CPU is at. Time will tell... but there is no point waiting for improvements now, time to go all in!
- dieortin 5y ago
  Why would that be “peak SSD” or “peak CPU”? Your CPU is already way behind the latest processors in both performance and performance per watt.
coreblocks 5y ago
A museum obviously

r00f 5y ago

I still have Pentium 4 running at one location. Sometimes the temperature is scary to look at, but it doesn't care. Those things were made to last

bullen 5y ago
What temp. you get?

KronisLV 5y ago

> I'm planning on running my machines for 100 years! Heh, that's an interesting thought that i've also sometimes had. For doing something like that, the hardware would need to be way more resilient and have failover for various components - for example RAID for the HDDs/SSDs and some mechanism for clustering and failover for apps and other stuff you'd want to run on them. But even with those in place, i'm not sure that the hardware that's available to us wouldn't just die long before the 100 year mark. Anyone have any idea what are the oldest computers presently in continuous use? Best i could find was this, but it was just turned on for once, instead of being continuously working: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/watch-the-worlds-oldest-working-computer-turn-on-142521807/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/watch-the-worlds-o... Apart from that, all i can think of are mainframes and such. I really doubt that any piece of currently modern hardware could last 100 years without becoming some hard to understand mess that's incredibly out of touch with the OSes and paradigms of the future. What would you even run on it? Debian? FreeBSD? Haiku? Would there be anyone to debug Python 2 or Python 3 in 100 years? What about Java, .NET, PHP, Golang, Rust, C++ or even C? Considering that many of those ecosystems are more and more migrating to integration with the Internet, especially for the dependencies, what are the chances that any of the software will survive that long?

Marsymars 5y ago
> Anyone have any idea what are the oldest computers presently in continuous use? Voyager 1 and 2 are good candidates. In the end, they'll probably shut off because their generators won't provide enough power to operate their computers after 50 years or so.
- bullen 5y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H62hZJVqs2o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H62hZJVqs2o
bullen 5y ago
I'm going to not use raid and instead mount the drives "manually" (via fstab) because I heard som nasty things about raid. Instead I made my own async. distributed database: http://root.rupy.se http://root.rupy.se That way I can just fix the drives as they fail. As for OS/languages I'm 100% sure linux + Java is the final server platform for eternity. Nothing has improved for 5+ years since NIO got epoll! The io_uring and potentially user network/disk stuff to work around the kernel waste (in my case ~30% of the CPU) might happen but also might not...