Jump to content
Phishing Emails & YouTube Messages - Fake Giveaway Read more... ×
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Wild Penquin

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

1 Follower

About Wild Penquin

  • Title

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location


  • CPU
  • Motherboard
    Asus Maximus VII Gene
  • RAM
  • GPU
    EVGA GTX 970 (04G-P4-3975-KR)
  • Case
    Lian Li DX-04
  • Storage
  • PSU
    Works and is silent
  • Display(s)
    Samsung LC34F791
  • Cooling
  • Keyboard
    Corsair K95RGB Platinum
  • Mouse
    Logitech G703
  • Sound
    Jazz, Progressive Rock, electronic music!
  • Operating System
    Arch Linux

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Wild Penquin

    EK Custom Loop high temps

    I believe Cinebench is too short to reach a plateau in temperatures. It doesn't matter what you use, as long as it is synthtetic test (i.e. worst-case scenario, pegs all cores at 100%; I think your real core count of threads is enough, actually using HT number of threads might be less taxing on the CPU). You also need to run it so long that the temperature reaches a plateau (as in: look at my graph. The temperature is "going down" to reach the plateau, since my fans are software controlled and were not at 100% at the start of stress. But my example is a bit special case; usually this is reversed as fans are usually set to 100% before starting a test - or at least any sane user would do that, but maybe I'm not sane ) I believe a lot of Windows users use something that calculates Pi indefinitely (any numbers of threads - until the user stops it of course). I don't use Windows so I can not give a definitive recommendation, you will need to Google for it.
  2. Wild Penquin

    EK Custom Loop high temps

    Hmm, I believe a picture tells more than some sentences, and gives a rough idea about a certain system. Without the GPU folding on my system, CPU temps decrease almost 10°C by over 5°C (while folding). See the screenshot and draw your own conclusions. Of course this is just one example, and any conclusions can not be generalized to other systems. (Rad exhaust is from an extra temperature sensor at the radiator exhaust). EDIT: realized the screenshot does not have time legend; well, 1 pixel = 1 second. Vertical lines are 30pixels = 30 seconds apart.
  3. Wild Penquin

    EK Custom Loop high temps

    What are your GPU temps (at load) ? Just testing my loop; 1 x 360mm radiator, GPU block (RX Vega 64) and i4790k. All are EK Phoenix MLC series (the pump is the cheap SPC kind integrated into the rad). If folding ~180W+ (it varies a bit depeding on work unit) and burning CPU (burnK7) at 8 x 100% processes, and pump and fans at 100% -> GPU temp plateau at ~45°C and CPU plateau ~55-65°C (there's some delta between cores, and I've delidded the CPU - there's a possibility I've not applied the TIM optimally between the die and the IHS, since core temperatures varies a bit; but it was like this even before delidding, so it could be just this individual CPU). I never get these kind of tempeartures at real-world workloads, this is an extreme example. Our systems are not directly comparable; I'm not sure how hot do compare the i7 to the Ryzens thermal output, but I believe the Vega puts out more W of heat than the 1080 SC, and you have 2 x 240mm radiators, and I have a 360mm rad. I'd still carefully conclude, the temps you have are are fine, if they were measured under synthetic, 100% pegging the CPU benchmarks. If they are real-world temperatures, something could be wrong. In other words: what do you mean "under load"? Was the GPU also under load (I presume having 180W of extra heat in addition to the CPU in a loop is different to not having it). My first bet would be a bad contact at the CPU and / or GPU heatblock. In case you have good temperatures at other while the other is bad, points towards this issue (that's why I asked your GPU temps). Hope this helps!
  4. USB 2.0 is just going to be too slow for this kind of task. But it should still be faster than what you are experiencing (take something like 5-10 hours to clone the whole disk; as a sidenote, I think my previous calculation was wrong, it should be way faster with USB 3.0 than what I claimed) so maybe something else is wrong or the USB speed is even slower. Doesn't the computer have any USB 3.0 ports? Or, if you have taken the HDD out of the Chromebook, why not connect it directly to the computer?
  5. It will take a long time, since it is 1TB, but unless my math (from the top of my head) is not totally in the wrong, it should be more closer to 1% every 6-10minutes (EDIT: probably wrong, should be way faster. Too busy to check now). I don't know about Chromebooks, but maybe it has just slow USB ports? Or some are 2.0 while others 3.0? Any other way to connect a hdd? If the copy is slow, the recovery is going to be slow, too!
  6. @Meet8939 , first: don't panic! Unless you did something really destructive, there's a good chance your data is still recoverable.The worst thing to do, is in a hasty recovery attempt write anything on the drive before it is determined what has gone wrong. Some suggestions: Remember to be only in read-mode! I.e. live usb-bootable media only Can you post, step-by-step, what you actually did before your "partition vanished"? Post the output of 'fdisk -l' here If it is indeed your partitions gone missing (I somehow doubt it is fstab or something else instead, since it is quite difficult to mess up partitions unless you actually try it really hard), parted has some rescue commands which will look for filesystems and try to re-create partitions. I'd back up the partition table before making any changes however, and mount ro only (and possibly fsck without committing changes). If it errors, changes are the partition was detected wrongly (delete partition and re-try....) If it is your fstab only, blkid and lsblk might be usefull in repairing it. Cheers and good luck!
  7. Wild Penquin

    GPU pass-though on linux??

    FWIW, I noticed in a quick Google search earlier (after my post) that someone has made something like this with bumblebee. Yes, X.Org can not hotswap a GPU. But if I've understod correctly, this can (and has been?) workaround somewhat like this: run main X.Org does not actually see the main GPU (at all) but a framebuffer (on the secondary GPU). A low-latency Looking Glass is used to copy the rendered content from the VM into the running X.Org. If the VM is shut down, a similar instance can be done on a natively running (separate) framebuffer (running native Linux X.Org applications). So, it is kind of nested X.Org instances??? Actually, I have no idea, just found this youtube clip with some explanation and some links to some scripts... but seems it is doable? Use your own judgement EDIT: Looks like there are latency / input lag issues when running in a VM this way, judging from the comments in youtube
  8. Wild Penquin

    GPU pass-though on linux??

    Disclaimer: never used VMs (not had a strong enough use case to start learning them). I'll point out that while theoretically* possible to detach a GPU from a running software (X.org) and move it to another (the VM in this case), it's not just the VM configuration (and having X.org let go of the GPU); IIRC It's been described that the GPUs need to boot, too, and are running their own microcode (or something). If you do not power them down (i.e. reboot) you may expect problems because of this, too. Seems like quite a daunting thing to do, IMO. But if you, the OP, have a really strong use case for this situation ( 1) using Linux is mandatory, 2) dual-booting is not an option, 3) NAtive Linux games, which are getting more numeruous every day, are not enough) ... well, it might be worth the hassle, but there might definitely bee unseen roadblock on the way. *) I'd be interested how that is done, though. Some kind of custom Bumblebee? Probably more practical to just restart the X.org, but that almost equals a reboot on a desktop computer.
  9. I believe pulseaudio could have some kind of interface to allow applications to reduce volume of other applications when they play sound (especially notifications or something). It could be a DE thing or something (and an intended feature, but I can see it can become intrusive). However, a quick Google search doesn't bring up anything related, and I've never noticed this behavior (Arch/Plasma). Which Mint flavor (DE) are you using?
  10. Wild Penquin

    Merging Boot Partition with Windows 10 already on

    Hi homeap5, This is getting heavily OT. I don't think it helps OP at all anymore at this point and we could go on back-and-forth throwing arguments. I never meant this to be a personal attack or anything like that. I do apologize if my words seemed impolite (in hindsight my words might seem that way). My goal here was to give correct information about partition operations and potential risks involved. I still feel I need to clear up some misunderstanding here; I hope we can both leave this discussion without feeling offended? Well, results in Google (or any other piece of information) of course need to be evaluated and read. I find StackExhange (personal experience and the volume of users using it) to be a quite good source. If there is misinformation in there, someone will correct it quite soon (and it is quite easy to see if a certain answer has had a lot of attention or not). It not just some googled crap (though I think you did not claim it was, but I have some doubts if I've understood correctly what you want to say in your reply). I linked it here since I found some of your claims to be potentially misleading. Other reason is I felt it is good there is some outside information here, since otherwise, this thread has claims made by two random users on some forum (from the point of view someone else reading this). Also, there's always the possibility participants do have some actual information they don't share. In this sense it makes sens to try to reach a consensus. I feel here you are just putting words in my mouth. I've never made the claims (you try to be understood as if they were mine) I never said that there do not exist tools to do what you said - I said it is relatively not as safe (as copying a partition, or expanding towards the end of a disk). I claimed that software which claims to expand backwards most probably (not 100%!) actually does two operations to the partition and automates the operations. As for safety - it's about relativity compared to other operations. (by "not 100%" I mean; theoretically, by actually modifying the file system instead of copying it as a whole, copying some/most of the data could be avoided, if the new partition overlaps the old one - but that involves other potential/theoretical risks and I'm not aware of any software that does that. MiniTool could be one!) I don't see how your comparisons are relative at all to the issue at hand. Defragmenting a filesystem or moving and copying files (inside a file system) is very different to moving whole file systems and partitions, especially if the area the partition is moved to is not empty (i.e. overlapping areas in operations). (also, IMHO, file systems are quite a complicated thing and can break and do break sometimes - though, for fortune of us all, not that often. Some healthy paranoia is in order if dealing with data that can not be easily restored!) Don't use quote marks if someone didn't actually say that. Someone might mistake it as if I've actually said that! But since you asked, yes, I do have some experience. I am well aware of this kind of software exist (such as MiniTool), and have done similar operations on partitions myself, although somewhat manually with GNU parted / fdisk in combination with dd - there might be some utility I've used which automates some parts I've used, but forgot which one (or if I've actually used one - but I believe several exist). But, personally, I'll do operations possibly unsafe (in my view) only with data I know I can restore, or can deal with if it would be lost for good. Of course, it is up to the users evaluation for the value of the data in relation to the risk of any operation. I've never had any errors during said operations, btw (though I've only done it a few times). But I know (for large amount of data, especially if it's on the same disk), it can take a long time - up to many hours, and if it is not a simple copy operation (to an empty space), the filesystem will be inconsistent during this operation. There is no way around that. Even if an operation is safe, they can be so time-consuming that some other workaround can be more practical (YMMV!). I've never had any personal experience with MiniTool. For all I know, it could be an excellent piece of software (note: I've never claim this kind of operations didn't have use cases!). From the screenshots in "Move/Resize Partition", there is a exclamation mark in a triangle and the text: "It's recommended to back up your data before moving or resizing the partition". That's exactly my opinion and main point, which I've already mentioned in this thread, and I'm sure it is there for a reason (but I take it that you disagree?). I can't easily find any documentation about MiniTool, to determine if it automates things or does some kind of more advanced trickery to make things safer (it could have some kind of log system for this, to make sure things can be restored if interrupted for any reason) or faster (which will be more invasive towards the filesystem, and probably will sacrifice some safety in exhange for speed). I don't feel it is the liability of any software to warn a user, but if the software is aimed at less-experienced users, it should have an impact on the UI and documentation. Otherwise, even if a rare occurrence, it can be a quite nasty PR hit if/when a failure happens, if the user was unaware of the possibility. Also, if they charge something from the user, there maybe some monetary claims involved (unless they have appropriate warnings / disclaimers). I believe maybe this whole discussion we (two) are having perhaps boils down to semantics, since "Important" and "safe" are quite ambiguous words. There are different use cases and situations; for example, I'd personally do something I feel potentially unsafe to my Steam Library, or my CDs / Blurays / DVDs I've ripped to a more convenient digital collection - since those can be easily restored (just labor-some) but impractical to backup (or, are duplicated already on the original media in this case). I can see myself doing this on some data I don't mind that much to loose; if it's just some saved games in Civ6, or random s*t I've downloaded off the internet I don't deem important (but don't want to outright delete). A converse example: if the said partitions have my digital Photo Collection (not backed up) or my Thesis I've been working non-stop for the last weeks-months - well, even a very small risk (say, 0,1%) would cause me to at least consider backing up first (my thesis would probably have an automatic backup somewhere already, just in case - but I've heard some people don't!). I'll try to wrap things up, on some things I believe we can agree: "Important" (for the data and or the tools/ways used) here and "safe" (for the partition operation) are ambiguous and relative concepts (since they need to be compared to something). It is a good thing a user (choosing to do some partition operation) be aware of the potential risks involved It is safer to do FS/partition operations where there is always an intact copy of the data at any point (compared to one where there is not), but it is really difficult (or nearly impossible) to give any absolute risk percent or ratio for some these operations (suggested in this thread).
  11. Wild Penquin

    Merging Boot Partition with Windows 10 already on

    You are right, of course, in this regard (let OP choose what to do). I believe it is best if that choice is informed. In this case it is not about opinions but about misinformation. Also, there might be other people in same / similar situation - that's one point of forums, you can search and learn from other peoples problems. That's why when there's misinformation presented in general it is good thing to rectify it. Try a Google search and see the first link that comes up, and see for yourself. There is more in-depth information there why expanding backwards is difficult / infeasible there and other search results (and almost certainly never actually done, for partitions which contain actuall file systems). If you still want to believe expanding backwards (towards the beginning of a disk) is possible, then by all means do so.
  12. Wild Penquin

    Merging Boot Partition with Windows 10 already on

    It doesn't matter what a single application claims to do, but his is a fact: it is very easy and almost instantaneous to expand forward most file systems (well, things like FAT might be more difficult, as their block size is heavily dependent on the file system size, but most modern file systems are easier). You could do some kind of trickery to expand backwards, by actually touching the filesystem (as in, point the nodes and whatnots to where the files actually are, and move indexes to where they are supposed to be etc.), but that is certainly not safe and way more complicated than just moving the partition. Most likely every single tool that claims to expand forwards, probably moves the partition / data backwards instead and then after that operation, expands forwards. Any other kind of operation is way more error-prone. In any case, the end result is what we want, but is way slower and more complicated than expanding forwards (towards the end of disk). And no, I wouldn't call it safe. For example: a electric blackout during this (a longish operation) will most likely render the file system in an unusable state. Or, if actually touching the file system contents, a small (hitherto undetected) error / inconsistency on the filesystem might trip the code, and the filesystem will probably be a mess afterwards. The safest option (only viable if the disk is empty enough), is to copy a partition in it's entirety before touching the original one (that way, there is always an intact copy at any point in time). If the OPs partitions are almost full (and he really needs the data, and can not back it up elsewhere) ... well, it's quite a painfull job to do. I would not recommend multiple moves and resizes - although doable, it will take (comparatively) way more time and / or involve more risks for the data.
  13. That's not very helpful, as "latest version" can practically mean anything, and be different on different distros, distribution version, what branch you are on, PPAs etc... There is a "system information" program which will tell your version numbers (such as: Plasma 5.14.5, KDE Frameworks 5.54.0, Qt 5.12.0, Kernel version). Anyways, I think what you are talking about are different task manager plasmoids (or something - my KDE is not in english). These can be put in any panel, or on the desktop. They have their own separate settings (I believe system settings will have no effect). There's the one that is called just "task manager", one "with icons" and then "window list" (or something - again my Plasma is in finnish so I'm guessing what they are in english). The last one seems to be a different kind of alternative, while the first two are functionally almost the same thing. But the latter one seems to be missing options from it's settings to group things, instead groups always, and pops up all the matching windows to the screen and you need to choose then the one you want. They could consolidate these two plasmoids by just having a "show as icons only" in the first one, since they are in many regards almost the same and have overlapping functionality. (screenshots would be useful to illustrate the problem, but I won't bother since it doesn't bother me ) Why they decided to do this - there could be several reasons, historical or codewise... I think best bet to get this implemented would be to go to KDE Plasma forums and/or their bugzilla and make a feature request. Could take a year, two or more before (if ever) it gets implemented .
  14. Wild Penquin

    Merging Boot Partition with Windows 10 already on

    Except that in this case, the bootable partition, where windows resides, if after E:, so that is not a feasible approach (as you can not expand backwards, only forwards). He needs to move the whole partition / filesystem backwards on the disk (EDIT: or work around somehow), and that is going to be a long (and potentially dangerous) operation.
  15. This advice is also sound, and if it was my computer, and I wish to move Windows to another drive, this is what I'd do. I'd do this from a Live Linux (USB) installation since that is easiest for me and I know what to do (and forget 3rd party software, EDIT: besides the Live Linux of course). I think you can not do this while booting from the Live Windows installation you want to copy the partitions from, and I have no idea if some Windows recovery tool can do these kind of tasks. I believe this is what the Paragon Migrate OS software was supposed to do, but seems to made only half of the job (I'm not familiar with it, maybe it is a user error?).