Automating temperature monitoring & response during stress test

[carrierPigeon]

When running a stress test, I don't want to have to constantly look at the computer screen to make sure that the temperature stays at a reasonable level. Does anyone know of a way to either have the computer shut itself off or to alert me when the temperature gets too high (for example, be alerted through audio)?

This is a Mac computer but I'm open to installing another OS to do the stress test.

I am not dead set on one specific stress test right now (I have read several other threads on this site and I am trying to digest the information).

 

[pendragon1]

on mac, none that I know of. why are you trying to stress a mac, troubleshooting?

 

[carrierPigeon]

on mac, none that I know of. why are you trying to stress a mac, troubleshooting?

Hi, thank you for the reply.
I just purchased the computer (used). It's an early 2009 version.
I want to have some confidence that what I purchased doesn't have hardware problems. So far, I tested the ram with memtest 86+ and I ran bad blocks on the hard drive.

 

[pendragon1]

Hi, thank you for the reply.
I just purchased the computer (used). It's an early 2009 version.
I want to have some confidence that what I purchased doesn't have hardware problems. So far, I tested the ram with memtest 86+ and I ran bad blocks on the hard drive.

youll just have to test things individually like it seems youre doing. a hdd prob is not a surprise for that age. drop a new ssd in it and it will run a lot better. . adding more ram if it only has 2GB will help a lot too. I was assigned one of those as my work laptop and it does ok with a 128 ssd and 8Gb.

 

[carrierPigeon]

youll just have to test things individually like it seems youre doing. a hdd prob is not a surprise for that age. drop a new ssd in it and it will run a lot better. . adding more ram if it only has 2GB will help a lot too. I was assigned one of those as my work laptop and it does ok with a 128 ssd and 8Gb.

It's the lower processor (the 2MHz) but it actually does have 4GB of ram (ram must have been upgraded at some point). The hard drive tested ok using this method:
https://hardforum.com/threads/testing-new-hdds.1882968/#post-1043683875
When I was running the hard drive test, I noticed that the number of hours that the hard drive had been used added up to about 3 years of continuous usage so I guess it wasn't used too much over the 9 years. Although I guess it's not that low either.
But yes, an SSD would definitely have good bang for the buck.

I have another core 2 duo computer with 2GB of DDR2 ram (vs Mac mini 4GB DDR3). It's Windows 8.1. It has a 2GB video card, which I think can still mostly function even though it's a PCIe 3.0 8x in a PCIe 2.0 16x slot. I use the computer for web browsing, Word, and Excel. What maxes out is the CPU. Ram is basically always ok. Maybe ram would max out if I had a lot of browser windows opened (10 or 15+) but I haven't actually tested that. Maybe El Capitan is more ram intensive than Windows 8.1, though. But remember this is a core 2 duo laptop processor so almost def. weaker than the 8.1 machine, which is a desktop.

 

[carrierPigeon]

I am now thinking that you are right that RAM would often be the limiting factor with a core 2 duo with 2 GB. You see, in the computer that I mentioned in my last post, I took out the video card and now the RAM is much more often maxed out then the processor. Also, it seems like the processor can handle very little now, too. For example, opening explorer with a folder path as part of the request (and really nothing else running) brings the 2 CPUs to ~75% utilization. The video RAM contributed 0.8 GB. In conclusion, installing a GPU can be a good alternative to motherboard, processor, and RAM upgrade.