Advanced search

Message boards : Server and website : The problem with the size of sent jobs.

Author Message
L
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 14
Posts: 17
Credit: 236,685,157
RAC: 232,840
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44363 - Posted: 31 Aug 2016 | 21:35:56 UTC

Good day!

Please explain how to fix the problem with the stupid project planner, who on two different video cards in two different hosts sends only the big WU, although the settings chosen both. Also, there is a problem with the fact that now the calculation only included from 23 to 7 hours and even faster machine does not have time to perform the task on time. This is how you can set up a time to make it work properly and seeing that the host can not do the job machine would send short WU? :(

P.S. currently configured chose WU only small but the scheduler simply does not send.
____________

Gunde
Send message
Joined: 6 Jan 15
Posts: 35
Credit: 2,425,808,123
RAC: 39,843
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwat
Message 44364 - Posted: 31 Aug 2016 | 22:12:03 UTC - in response to Message 44363.

Look at server status to what type of workunits they have active.
https://www.gpugrid.net/server_status.php

As it is now there are only long wu, but they have now also put in in very long wu. I believe it was almost half year since i saw short work units so donĀ“t expect to get those now when they released new long.

As other do set to run only short in app config and wait. Until they have wu ready you can put that host to another project until that day.

L
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 14
Posts: 17
Credit: 236,685,157
RAC: 232,840
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44365 - Posted: 31 Aug 2016 | 22:24:53 UTC - in response to Message 44364.

Thank you. Perhaps with my hardware it makes no sense to consider all GPUGRID too much fuss is obtained.
as far as I can determine in here http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=4301#43339 the subject with 660 and 650 cards right to go to other projects.
____________

Profile caffeineyellow5
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 14
Posts: 225
Credit: 2,658,976,345
RAC: 0
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 44367 - Posted: 1 Sep 2016 | 1:32:36 UTC
Last modified: 1 Sep 2016 | 2:07:47 UTC

If the GPU can finish the non GIANNI tasks in the 5 day time period, I think it is worth running GPUGRID still and just keeping an eye on it, if you are inclined to keep an eye on it anyway, and make sure it is running a working ADRIA or a GERRARD.

Also consider all the acceleration methods of completing tasks faster. I think if my mobile NVIDIA K2100M is doing the work in just under 5 days with all the mods on like SWAN_SYNC, running no CPU tasks, setting the config files right to optimize performance and priority, and setting the NVIDIA Control Panel settings to optimize the virtual 3d rendering.
____________
1 Corinthians 9:16 "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!"
Ephesians 6:18-20, please ;-)
http://tbc-pa.org

[CSF] Aleksey Belkov
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 13
Posts: 28
Credit: 384,296,401
RAC: 536,589
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44376 - Posted: 1 Sep 2016 | 15:15:59 UTC - in response to Message 44365.

Thank you. Perhaps with my hardware it makes no sense to consider all GPUGRID too much fuss is obtained.
as far as I can determine in here http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=4301#43339 the subject with 660 and 650 cards right to go to other projects.

Not necessary. Recently my GTX 660 finished 2 long GIANNI tasks in 2.3 days.
More than enough time to return task before deadline.
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15244862
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15258440

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 1073
Credit: 4,497,101,754
RAC: 415,156
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44377 - Posted: 1 Sep 2016 | 15:46:42 UTC - in response to Message 44376.

Thank you. Perhaps with my hardware it makes no sense to consider all GPUGRID too much fuss is obtained.
as far as I can determine in here http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=4301#43339 the subject with 660 and 650 cards right to go to other projects.

Not necessary. Recently my GTX 660 finished 2 long GIANNI tasks in 2.3 days.
More than enough time to return task before deadline.
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15244862
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15258440

Now if these super long WUs were put in a separate queue where the GTX980/TI users could opt in they'd be done much more reliably and efficiently. Then those with normal GPUs could also more efficiently run the normal long WUs without having to try to avoid the crazy super long ones. Very easy to implement.

[CSF] Aleksey Belkov
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 13
Posts: 28
Credit: 384,296,401
RAC: 536,589
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44386 - Posted: 1 Sep 2016 | 22:01:00 UTC - in response to Message 44377.

I agree that it would be nice to have additional function, to get only the recommended jobs for your hardware.

Profile caffeineyellow5
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 14
Posts: 225
Credit: 2,658,976,345
RAC: 0
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 44388 - Posted: 2 Sep 2016 | 6:31:28 UTC - in response to Message 44377.
Last modified: 2 Sep 2016 | 6:31:56 UTC

Thank you. Perhaps with my hardware it makes no sense to consider all GPUGRID too much fuss is obtained.
as far as I can determine in here http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=4301#43339 the subject with 660 and 650 cards right to go to other projects.

Not necessary. Recently my GTX 660 finished 2 long GIANNI tasks in 2.3 days.
More than enough time to return task before deadline.
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15244862
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15258440

Now if these super long WUs were put in a separate queue where the GTX980/TI users could opt in they'd be done much more reliably and efficiently. Then those with normal GPUs could also more efficiently run the normal long WUs without having to try to avoid the crazy super long ones. Very easy to implement.

Or they could just change the description of "Long Runs" to "8-27 hours on fastest cards" and the "Short Runs" to "3-9 hours on fastest cards". Either way, new classifications, new categories, none of them are in danger of the 5 day timeout except on the oldest cards that according to the "Stats" page are already phased out and yet can still complete a task, so they continue to run them. Remember that 5 days is the threshold for a task, not a bonus period of credit. If you can return a task in 5 days including upload, download, actual running, paused periods, etc, then you don't have any problems, you just have a grudge about the credit. And since the longer running units do offer more credit (though maybe not proportional completely in all timed runs[the longer it is the less credit there is per runtime hour] which is always true anyway) anyway, so a long run or a longer run, it doesn't matter. If you can't finish and return a WU within 5 days of real time, then it is time to consider a different project. Until/unless then, its not a problem, let them run.

Profile caffeineyellow5
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 14
Posts: 225
Credit: 2,658,976,345
RAC: 0
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 44389 - Posted: 2 Sep 2016 | 6:46:30 UTC

Also something to consider is that the "Time estimated to complete" may run much faster than realtime at some points when taking averages of different WUs and learning how fast your system can do WUs. Like sometimes it will tell me after doing several GIANNI WUs that the next GERRARD will take 1 day 6 hours, but the time counts at 2-3 seconds per second and completes in 8-12 hours. Then if it does a bunch of the GIANNIs and ADRIAs in a row and gets a GIANNI, it will say it has 15 hours to go and it takes a day and 6 hours moving at 1 second ever 2-3 or real time. The estimated time is not an exact thing, but an estimation based on the other tasks you have been doing and the expected time of the task.

My laptop, for example, does a GIANNI in 4 days and 20 hours. That is just short of the timeout and they do complete and upload in time and get credit. In actuality, the average credit for the laptop has been up by 15,000 on RAC since doing these (very close to) 5 day WUs. A GERRARD will take it 2 days and 10-15 hours. I do have to wait longer to see a credit jump and it does drop in the meantime, but the avg goes up on the stats pages and such. My point is, currently one has run 1 day and 4 hours. It took maybe 5 minutes at most to download. It will take maybe 10 minutes to upload. It says there is an estimated time to complete at 4 days and 13.5 hours. I know it will complete at 4 days 20 hours or so and the estimated time is running 20 second of realtime per 30 seconds of estimated time.It is 26% done and 1 day 4 hours. So in all actuality, this one may finish at about 4 days 16 hours or less! It is a K2100M, so it in no way is as powerful as many of even the older desktop model cards and speed.

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 1073
Credit: 4,497,101,754
RAC: 415,156
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44400 - Posted: 2 Sep 2016 | 14:45:58 UTC - in response to Message 44388.

Remember that 5 days is the threshold for a task, not a bonus period of credit. If you can return a task in 5 days including upload, download, actual running, paused periods, etc, then you don't have any problems, you just have a grudge about the credit.

This would be true if they fix the app in the next version. Right now there's better than a 50/50 chance that a WU will fail if a power glitch occurs. A 5 day WU is 5 times more likely for this to happen than a 1 day WU. In addition look at the normal failure rate of the super long WUs right now. It's almost 50%. It doesn't make anyone very happy to lose 5 days worth of crunching due to a bad WU or any other reason for that matter.

Profile caffeineyellow5
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 14
Posts: 225
Credit: 2,658,976,345
RAC: 0
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 44426 - Posted: 5 Sep 2016 | 14:05:35 UTC - in response to Message 44400.

The GIANNI and ADRIA tasks aside, my point is valid. As Zoltan points out, when a new task batch is put out, the first few returned are usually failures, not based on the task, but based on the hosts that get them, fail them, and return them as failed at a much faster and higher rate than the normal host that works can return them. So that does indeed make the % listings on the Performance page misleading to a point and moreso if the task batch is newer. And I suspect that the ADRIA and GIANNI failures have been making the other tasks fail by affecting them inside the BOINC software, inside the OS, or because of a reboot/crash of the system. That perhaps if the GIANNI and ARDIA tasks had not been failing as they do, the GERRARD tasks would have a slightly better success ratio right now.

But I do agree completely that a 5 day run WU has 5 times more potential time to fail than a 1 day (or 22 hour one over a 7 hour one depending on your card ability) and that is a problem that is surely compounded by power issues.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1844
Credit: 10,641,672,694
RAC: 9,893,237
Level
Trp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44429 - Posted: 5 Sep 2016 | 18:13:46 UTC - in response to Message 44400.
Last modified: 5 Sep 2016 | 18:15:24 UTC

Right now there's better than a 50/50 chance that a WU will fail if a power glitch occurs. A 5 day WU is 5 times more likely for this to happen than a 1 day WU.

This problem happens more likely on hosts with fast GPUs (GTX 970 and above), so the chance of such failure is *not* in direct ratio with the runtime (as longer runtime means slower GPU, thus the OS has time to write the contents of the files needed for restart to the disk). I think the chance of the error is in inverse ratio (non-linear) with the GPU speed.

In addition look at the normal failure rate of the super long WUs right now. It's almost 50%.

This error rate includes user aborted workunits too, as such workunits are considered as failures. So this error rate is distorted by users (including you) selectively aborting tasks based on their length / error rate / earned bonus. It's quite awkward that you refer to the error rate of these tasks, while you are actively increasing it. However, they should have been put to another queue, but there won't be more than two. Brace yourself, that workunits get longer every time a new GPU generation is released, and we're facing this right now.

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 1073
Credit: 4,497,101,754
RAC: 415,156
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44434 - Posted: 6 Sep 2016 | 1:55:18 UTC - in response to Message 44429.

Right now there's better than a 50/50 chance that a WU will fail if a power glitch occurs. A 5 day WU is 5 times more likely for this to happen than a 1 day WU.

This problem happens more likely on hosts with fast GPUs (GTX 970 and above), so the chance of such failure is *not* in direct ratio with the runtime (as longer runtime means slower GPU, thus the OS has time to write the contents of the files needed for restart to the disk). I think the chance of the error is in inverse ratio (non-linear) with the GPU speed.

Yet another thunderstorm last night and only the 2 WUs on the 650Ti cards survived. All 15 of the 750Ti WUs either crashed or restarted from zero. I'm finding also that if a WU restarts from zero after a power outage it will almost always either error later or fail validation if it somehow finishes. If it happens to restart where it left off it is generally good to go. Therefore it's best to abort the restarts (from zero type).
Sure hope that the admins do something to make this app more fault tolerant.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1844
Credit: 10,641,672,694
RAC: 9,893,237
Level
Trp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44437 - Posted: 6 Sep 2016 | 8:03:47 UTC - in response to Message 44434.

Yet another thunderstorm last night and only the 2 WUs on the 650Ti cards survived. All 15 of the 750Ti WUs either crashed or restarted from zero.

Have you tried to turn off write caching for your disks?

Windows key + R ->
Devmgmt.msc <ENTER> ->
Disk drives ->
select your BOINC disk (double click) ->
Policies tab ->
Un-check (both) write caching option(s) ->
OK ->
Close device manager

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 1073
Credit: 4,497,101,754
RAC: 415,156
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44442 - Posted: 6 Sep 2016 | 14:48:15 UTC - in response to Message 44437.
Last modified: 6 Sep 2016 | 14:51:56 UTC

Yet another thunderstorm last night and only the 2 WUs on the 650Ti cards survived. All 15 of the 750Ti WUs either crashed or restarted from zero.

Have you tried to turn off write caching for your disks?

Windows key + R ->
Devmgmt.msc <ENTER> ->
Disk drives ->
select your BOINC disk (double click) ->
Policies tab ->
Un-check (both) write caching option(s) ->
OK ->
Close device manager

Zoltan, THANKS MUCH for this. I've now turned off write caching on the BOINC drive on all the machines. Hopefully that will help. Losing 15 WUs in an instant was irritating. Usually I lose over 50% in an outage, but 15 out of 17 is ridiculous. Last night we had another huge thunderstorm but luckily no power outage. I can hear another storm in the distance moving toward us right now, so this may get a test soon. Hopefully the admins will improve/fix the app when they do the next build so things like this won't be necessary. I don't think that the weather on this planet is going to get less violent at least in the near future. :-(

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1844
Credit: 10,641,672,694
RAC: 9,893,237
Level
Trp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44444 - Posted: 6 Sep 2016 | 16:31:56 UTC - in response to Message 44442.

I've now turned off write caching on the BOINC drive on all the machines. Hopefully that will help.

It should help. You're the best test subject to tell if my theory is right. I'm really curious to know.

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 1073
Credit: 4,497,101,754
RAC: 415,156
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44446 - Posted: 6 Sep 2016 | 17:30:19 UTC - in response to Message 44444.

I've now turned off write caching on the BOINC drive on all the machines. Hopefully that will help.

It should help. You're the best test subject to tell if my theory is right. I'm really curious to know.

The current storm passed by to the north. I will certainly let you know when this happens again. Sometimes we'll go a long time with no outages, sometimes it's frequent. Usually they're only a few seconds. Occasionally longer but of course the damage is the same either way. In fact it's maybe better for the hardware to actually wind all the way down (drives) before restarting. Thanks again for posting this workaround, have my fingers crossed...

Jacob Klein
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 08
Posts: 1068
Credit: 1,147,372,614
RAC: 1,071,233
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44448 - Posted: 7 Sep 2016 | 2:29:45 UTC - in response to Message 44444.

I've now turned off write caching on the BOINC drive on all the machines. Hopefully that will help.

It should help. You're the best test subject to tell if my theory is right. I'm really curious to know.


You *could* flip the switch on a power strip, as a very similar test case. Just sayin'. Probably not nice to the PC or disks, but, is exactly the same test case I believe.

Profile caffeineyellow5
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 14
Posts: 225
Credit: 2,658,976,345
RAC: 0
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 44449 - Posted: 7 Sep 2016 | 4:49:14 UTC - in response to Message 44442.

Also trying this on the 2 systems I get my errors on. The one with all the errors with the 3 TI Classies and the one at the bad power location. Let's see if the error rate goes down on these.

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 1073
Credit: 4,497,101,754
RAC: 415,156
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44451 - Posted: 7 Sep 2016 | 5:18:08 UTC - in response to Message 44448.

I've now turned off write caching on the BOINC drive on all the machines. Hopefully that will help.

It should help. You're the best test subject to tell if my theory is right. I'm really curious to know.

You *could* flip the switch on a power strip, as a very similar test case. Just sayin'. Probably not nice to the PC or disks, but, is exactly the same test case I believe.

Great idea, and wonderful of you to volunteer! Even better, I'd suggest cycling the main house breaker on and off while the family watches a movie or plays online games!

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1844
Credit: 10,641,672,694
RAC: 9,893,237
Level
Trp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44453 - Posted: 7 Sep 2016 | 10:32:22 UTC - in response to Message 44448.
Last modified: 7 Sep 2016 | 10:36:45 UTC

You *could* flip the switch on a power strip, as a very similar test case. Just sayin'. Probably not nice to the PC or disks, but, is exactly the same test case I believe.

You are right: it's similar (from IT view), but not the same (from electricity view). A surge in the electric power grid caused by lightning can result in much more trouble a couple of miliseconds *before* the emergency power switch (or a fuse) goes off; therefore you can't test it by simply switching the power off. However, if my method doesn't protect the data integrity from a simple dirty shutdown, it won't protect the system from the thunderstorms as well.

Jacob Klein
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 08
Posts: 1068
Credit: 1,147,372,614
RAC: 1,071,233
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44454 - Posted: 7 Sep 2016 | 12:02:42 UTC - in response to Message 44451.

I've now turned off write caching on the BOINC drive on all the machines. Hopefully that will help.

It should help. You're the best test subject to tell if my theory is right. I'm really curious to know.

You *could* flip the switch on a power strip, as a very similar test case. Just sayin'. Probably not nice to the PC or disks, but, is exactly the same test case I believe.

Great idea, and wonderful of you to volunteer! Even better, I'd suggest cycling the main house breaker on and off while the family watches a movie or plays online games!


Surely you know that, if I had an expendable PC that was capable of running GPUGrid tasks, this (flipping power strip switch) would be one of my test cases for any proposed fixes that GPUGrid releases.

As it is right now, however, I don't have that setup of equipment, and GPUGrid isn't actively fixing their problem.

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 09
Posts: 790
Credit: 1,423,423,595
RAC: 1,364,343
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44455 - Posted: 7 Sep 2016 | 12:45:37 UTC - in response to Message 44453.

You *could* flip the switch on a power strip, as a very similar test case. Just sayin'. Probably not nice to the PC or disks, but, is exactly the same test case I believe.

You are right: it's similar (from IT view), but not the same (from electricity view). A surge in the electric power grid caused by lightning can result in much more trouble a couple of miliseconds *before* the emergency power switch (or a fuse) goes off; therefore you can't test it by simply switching the power off. However, if my method doesn't protect the data integrity from a simple dirty shutdown, it won't protect the system from the thunderstorms as well.

Which is why a proper business-grade UPS would, IMO, be a better solution to these local weather related problems. A lightning surge can take out a great deal more than the current GPUGrid task, up to and including a motherboard or CPU. You can't ask GPUGrid to take care of that eventuality too.

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 1073
Credit: 4,497,101,754
RAC: 415,156
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44456 - Posted: 7 Sep 2016 | 14:02:28 UTC

Used to have UPSes on all the machines but they're expensive, a pain to maintain and when there was an outage there'd be loud beeping from everywhere. Even the better ones seem to have a rather high failure rate and on those the batteries are expensive. When lightning hit the lightning rod on my house all the Intel based boxes died even though they had UPSes (all the APC sine wave type). As I've mentioned before all the AMD machines survived. Go figure. I switched to high grade surge protectors and haven't had ANY machine failures since. So there's pluses and minuses in my experience. When I was a network manager I had beefy UPSes on all the servers (mostly Novell) and that worked pretty well but mission critical business apps (and my butt) were at stake. ;-)

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3968
Credit: 1,834,518,624
RAC: 292,156
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44546 - Posted: 16 Sep 2016 | 7:59:56 UTC - in response to Message 44456.
Last modified: 16 Sep 2016 | 9:04:18 UTC

We've drifted OT from task size to build issues and tips, but here's my 2p's worth.

Unless you have really expensive kit, have space and can afford a good UPS (which are expensive to buy, increase running costs, produce heat and might require maintenance) all you can do is use a 6 gang surge strip (or similar) and a good PSU. However, these go a long way to protecting you, if you know what you're doing!
Disabling the disk write cache was a good suggestion and might help prevent OS issues too.
In my experience it's best to prevent systems from rebooting following a power failure, as further power issues are likely following an outage (they usually bunch together). You can set most systems to power down following a power failure in most Bios, rather than rebooting. If you find a system in the powered down state, disconnect the power for a minute to allow any components with static to fully discharge before reconnecting and starting up. It might also be good to restart the system after first booting. Obviously, if you know there is likely to be power issues (storms, maintenance, shortages) "turn IT off".

A surge strip can protect up to a certain amount of voltage, but wont protect you from a direct lightning strike (only a lightning rod can do that). It might however protect you from a close by strike - one that hits a local power line or other cable (telephone/fax, modem/coax/Ethernet/Christmas tree lights...); but only if these are plugged into a surge protected adapter/extender. No point having your printer straight into the wall but connected to the computer via a USB cable, or an unprotected modem cable going straight into a PCI port. Remember that small devices (modems/switches/external drives and so on) tend to have low design standards and many don't have an earth, yet they connect into an external power source and directly into the computer via another cable (USB/fire-wire/Ethernet/VGA/Display Port...). It's important to surge-protect the small devices too and if your power strip has a phone connection surge protector, use it.

Good PSU's can handle power fluctuations, which could otherwise wreck systems. An AX750 for example can run normally with the power anywhere between 94V and 264V. Many such PSU's are also capable of handling short spikes and dips (power blips) while standard PSU's cant. High end PSU's come at a premium but their build quality is self protecting and helps shut down systems more gracefully when there is a major dip/outage. The Titanium PSU's are the best and offer 96% power efficiency at 50% power usage. However, you don't invest in a Titanium PSU for the 96% (rather than 92%) as it would take years to recover in running costs (if at all) but rather in the build quality and life expectancy of the unit. Many self acclaimed 80%+ Gold certified PSU's fail after a year or two while most Platinum and Titanium PSU's come with long warranty's and are likely to be around for 6 to 10 years (24/7) and will have provided high end quality power delivery to your components and protection for that time.
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Post to thread

Message boards : Server and website : The problem with the size of sent jobs.