xConVirus

Hey guys, I'm working on setting up a personal ESXI server that I can learn and play around with lots of different stuff. I have an i7-2600, 16GB 1333MHz DDR3, Intel DH67CL motherboard, a Zotac GTX 750 Ti, two 120GB Sandisk SSDs, and some random HDDs of varying sizes. The issue I have run into is that ESXI doesn't support "fakeraid" solutions like most onboard controllers provides, and I had intended to use the 2 Sandisk SSDs as a boot drive in RAID1. I need help deciding where to go from here. I've looked into getting an actual hardware RAID controller but the couple cheap ones I've found are still "fakeraid". I'm wondering if I should just give up on ESXI, although part of the reason I wanted to use it is because I know how huge it is in enterprise data centers and I wanted to get some experience with it. I've googled for an hour or two now and some people say I should install ESXI on USB, however that is both 1) slow to boot and 2) if the USB fails then all the settings are gone and I'm not quite sure how I'd back them up/restore them easily without manual configuration. I've also seen people suggesting alternatives like Proxmox, or XenServer. One of the things I'll be experimenting with on this server is FreeNAS, I'm new to it but I'm wondering if it has the capabilities to act as a virtualization server? Then I'd just have FreeNAS as my base instead of ESXI. Very new to this and at the moment quite discouraged so advice and suggestions on where to go from here is appreciated. Thanks guys. EDIT: Googling some more looks like Proxmox doesn't support "fakeraid" either. So the more general question is how can I get the redundancy (RAID 1ish) I want for whichever solution? If I install it on a USB and the USB fails, is it that hard/time consuming to recover from?

That honestly seems to be it. I checked out average PPD data for both GPUs and my estimated PPD is within margins of the correct PPD from the graphs, so it must just be displaying the progress incorrectly. Also, the reason it was failing was because Windows or GeForce Experience seems to have REINSTALLED NVIDIA driver 376.xx...so I used DDU and once again set it back to 373.xx (unless I never uninstalled it correctly in the first place *shrug*). Thanks you both for your assistance.

I installed it just today, so it's been about 6 hours. They've each gone through 2 work units, and now the 750 Ti is in it's "Failed" state. Also, I saw a post earlier about the 373.xx NVIDIA driver being the most recent working one so I am on that driver revision.

Hey guys, so I recently installed a 750 Ti I had laying around into my PC alongside my GTX 980 for folding. For some reason the 750Ti is reporting a higher PPD, and faster completion times than my 980. This seems ridiculous to me. They're folding on the same F@H Core, 0x18 yet the 980 takes way longer. Any thoughts to why this is? I have a 5820K CPU. Also, the 750 Ti fails alot of work units with the error: Error downloading array interaction count, clEnqueueReadBuffer(-5) on 0x21. How can I fix this? I'm not sure what other information to give. Thanks for your help. EDIT: It seems like the 750 Ti keeps trying 0x21 but then falls back to 0x18 and it works? Perhaps 0x18 is not designed to exploit the parallelization of the 980 and for some reason they are both syncing to that core? EDIT2: Playing around with the settings more make it seem like my system or the software is prioritizing the "top" GPU in the folding slots. Here is a screen shot of the timings reversed. I haven't checked to see how much slower the 750 Ti should be compared to the 980, but does my troubleshooting help point to a certain issue? I'm not folding with any CPU cores, so why does it seem like it's prioritizing one GPU over another?

Yeah...The computer has served me well but I wish I had known everything I do now about computers back then. I'm looking to get a replacement in the next couple of years. Thanks for your answer. I see, thank you!

So I got this computer in 2013 which has an APU with Radeon 7660G graphics with 512 MB VRAM and my mom's early 2011 Macbook Pro is listed as having Radeon HD 6750M graphics with 1GB VRAM. Here's my confusion: The HP laptop can barely keep League of Legends above 50 FPS on the lowest settings (1366x768) whereas the Macbook can do max settings at 60+ FPS (1440x900). I looked up some comparisons: http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Radeon-HD-6750M-vs-AMD-Radeon-HD-7660G/m7834vsm8022 http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-HD-7660G-IGP-vs-Radeon-HD-6750M They seem neck and neck with each other, but the I thought the performance discrepancy would be WAY larger considering what each of them are able to handle. Could someone explain why this is? Is the 1GB GDDR5 making all the difference? Is it anything to do with the CPU? Thanks.

Hey guys, I've been playing an older game called Titan's Quest lately and in the options there is this thing called "triple buffering" which I understand the basics of (double vs triple buffering) and I generally understand what VSync does, but I'm wondering what the optimal settings are for me, and when I would need/want to use these settings. As of right now, I have a 5820K and a GTX 980 playing at 1080p with a 144 Hz monitor. I've gotten the idea that VSync here is fine because the 980 easily gets over 144 Hz, so capping it at 144 using VSync is a "decent" option with little to no detriment to performance. I'm wondering now whether I should enable triple buffering as well, and I've Googled it but I can't find a definite answer about what configuration works best. If someone could explain the benefits/cons of VSync and triple buffering and when I would want/not want to use them, I would greatly appreciate it.

I have the Define R4 now and I'm planning on getting the Define R5 to swap because the R5 solves some of the problems I have with the R4. If you don't have the money for the R5 I recommend the R4.

Wow you three hit each part really well. @mikat Thanks for the utility, I think I've heard of that before. I'll definitely try it out later tonight. @BaileyFY Great links, makes a lot more sense now. I didn't think it was as simple as just looking at higher Read/Write speeds. @juretrn Your short summary helped me make sense of the links ^ provided, thank you. Would you mind linking me an article about the caching you're talking about?

Hey guys, I've got some questions about effective performance of hard drives and solid state drives. It's advertised all the time how much faster SSDs are than HDDs in terms of Read/Write speed and IOPS, but I was wondering if someone might be able to explain or link me some articles that explain sufficiently well the relation between these numbers and actual daily use performance. For example, I have an M.2 SM951 128GB drive from Samsung advertised for ~1900MB/s Read and ~600MB/s Write speeds but I don't recall ever seeing actual performance over about 60MB/s Read/Write speed monitoring through the performance manager in Windows (not the most reliable monitor I guess). When I use the performance benchmark utility Samsung provided, it's telling me I'm getting about ~1800MB/s and ~530MB/s Read/Write. But I'm assuming this means Sequential and not random. So my question is, how do you find out the average performance in daily use situations with these drives? Does higher sequential read/write always been higher random performance? Or does higher IOPS mean higher random performance? Thanks guys.

Thanks guys that did it!

Hey guys, so I've had this HP Envy m6-1205dx for about two years now. In the past 6 months I increased the RAM to 16GB and put an SSD in it. It has also been upgraded to Windows 10. Here's my problem: I intend to run virtual machines on this laptop and I have in the past with no problems. But at some point it stopped working, and I just discovered today that in the Task Manager Performance tab, when you select CPU, it says Virtualization is disabled. I think this is the reason why I can no longer run virtual machines on this laptop, but I'm wondering why and how this setting ever got changed, and how I change it back so I can run VMs. Thanks for the help guys.

I went into the BIOS and the Turbo Boost option was set to "Auto", I switched it to "Enabled" and now it honestly seems like all cores are running at 3.599GHz which is what I thought it should have been. Thank you for all the advice and information.

CPUID HWMonitor. I will check that out. I don't really want to overclock it myself just yet. I just thought the difference between the GHz I'm getting and the GHz advertised was curious.

So I'm running F@H on my computer here at full, and I just noticed that with my CPU usage between 97-100% usage, and temps barely touching 60 degrees Celsius, it's looking like the maximum GHz I'm hitting is 3.339GHz. This seems odd to me because according to Intel Ark, the 5820K Turbos up to 3.6GHz, so I'm wondering why it's lower. I haven't overclocked it at all, I'm just wondering whether there may be some setting I don't have enabled or something? Not a pressing matter, I'm just curious and procrastinating. Thoughts are appreciated, thanks.