I haven't succeeded in getting Oracle VM to run reliably under Linux.
Tom M
One thing, just like in Windows, is you must install the VirtualBox Extension Pack as well and upgrading to the latest version of VirtualBox is not always the best thing in Linux. Some of my Linux pc's run LHC and LHC/dev tasks fine but some just won't. I have also found that they do a lot better on Windows pc's but even then some just won't run them successfully.
I haven't succeeded in getting Oracle VM to run reliably under Linux.
Tom M
One thing, just like in Windows, is you must install the VirtualBox Extension Pack as well and upgrading to the latest version of VirtualBox is not always the best thing in Linux. Some of my Linux pc's run LHC and LHC/dev tasks fine but some just won't. I have also found that they do a lot better on Windows pc's but even then some just won't run them successfully.
Installing the extension pack is not necessary; the only essential thing is that you need to add User boinc to Group vboxusers.
The All-Sky GW v1.07/v1.15 is very sensitive to how fast the CPU is (assuming you hold the GPU make/model constant). I am running Titan V's under Nvidia's MPS mode/server.
I currently am running an Epyc 7282 (16c/32t) which is showing 3191 MHz peak processing speed for the 20 (4 gpus) CPU threads it is running.
I ran across a used 7F52 (16c/32t) for $295. The seller specs are claiming a 3.9Mhz peak (Turbo) processing speed.
So it Looks like I could get another boost in All-Sky GW task performance.
And that SKU also comes in a 24 core version. Which means a 8 GPU system running 5 tasks / GPU could also take advantage of this. This core count appears to have a slightly lower peak performance.
This assumes gpu-only processing.
Anyone want to jump in a try it out?
:)
A Proud member of the O.F.A. (Old Farts Association). Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.® (Garrison Keillor) I want some more patience. RIGHT NOW!
Ignore the peak or turbo clock speed of any cpu. Does not apply to our processing.
You need to use the max all-core clock speed which is usually defined as base clock speed.
That is how fast your cpu will be running with all cores loaded by Boinc work.
If you are only actually using 20 threads, then the clocks will be closer to the peak or turbo speed. Maybe halfway between the base loaded clock and the turbo clock.
Ignore the peak or turbo clock speed of any cpu. Does not apply to our processing.
You need to use the max all-core clock speed which is usually defined as base clock speed.
That is how fast your cpu will be running with all cores loaded by Boinc work.
If you are only actually using 20 threads, then the clocks will be closer to the peak or turbo speed. Maybe halfway between the base loaded clock and the turbo clock.
its not quite so simple as just the base clock speed. It depends on several factors. Like what TDP the CPU has, what application is being run and what optimizations they might run, how many cores the CPU has, etc.
my 7402P would run basically max single core speed even when all cores were loaded because it was only 24-c with 200W TDP and the max boost clock was capped at 3.35GHz anyway. while the 240W 64-c parts do see much more reduction and closer to base clocks under heavy loads.
AMD didn’t really define all core load clocks for the 7000 series EPYCs, but it looks like they do for the 9000 series (Genoa/Bergamo), with caveats/constraints
A Proud member of the O.F.A. (Old Farts Association). Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.® (Garrison Keillor) I want some more patience. RIGHT NOW!
A Proud member of the O.F.A. (Old Farts Association). Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.® (Garrison Keillor) I want some more patience. RIGHT NOW!
Curious to know if anyone else knows the answer to this, I've tried scouring the internet for a definitive answer but really only found threads from 2005/2006.
On PrimeGrid, it was advised to limit PC's to 50% CPU usage as the applications were so optimized that you're harming performance by running the primaility tests on hyperthreads.
For Einstein@Home, is it more time efficient to use hyperthreads or not? I don't really care about credits, just that work is being done in the most optimal way.
In my experience, for my hardware, it is the same as you quote for PrimeGrid with the Gamma Ray Pulsar search. Limiting to 50% CPU and then 100% CPU gives roughly the same credit/hour for me.
Curious to know if anyone else knows the answer to this, I've tried scouring the internet for a definitive answer but really only found threads from 2005/2006.
On PrimeGrid, it was advised to limit PC's to 50% CPU usage as the applications were so optimized that you're harming performance by running the primaility tests on hyperthreads.
For Einstein@Home, is it more time efficient to use hyperthreads or not? I don't really care about credits, just that work is being done in the most optimal way.
Alot of the reason PrimeGrid recommends reducing cpu usage to 50% is because the Hyper Threads can be detrimental to faster crunching, so reducing your cpu settings to 50% means you will crunch faster than if you use those 'extra' cpu corers. Now todays cpu's require some testing to see if they do in fact slow down the crunching as they are not like the older Intel cpu cores with HT. The AMD cpu's also have a form of HT and todays AMD cpu's are, like the Intel cpu's, much better at using those 'extra' cpu cores so again testing is required to see if reducing the crunching 50% is really faster.
Tom M wrote: I haven't
)
One thing, just like in Windows, is you must install the VirtualBox Extension Pack as well and upgrading to the latest version of VirtualBox is not always the best thing in Linux. Some of my Linux pc's run LHC and LHC/dev tasks fine but some just won't. I have also found that they do a lot better on Windows pc's but even then some just won't run them successfully.
mikey wrote: Tom M wrote: I
)
Installing the extension pack is not necessary; the only essential thing is that you need to add User boinc to Group vboxusers.
The All-Sky GW v1.07/v1.15 is
)
The All-Sky GW v1.07/v1.15 is very sensitive to how fast the CPU is (assuming you hold the GPU make/model constant). I am running Titan V's under Nvidia's MPS mode/server.
I currently am running an Epyc 7282 (16c/32t) which is showing 3191 MHz peak processing speed for the 20 (4 gpus) CPU threads it is running.
I ran across a used 7F52 (16c/32t) for $295. The seller specs are claiming a 3.9Mhz peak (Turbo) processing speed.
So it Looks like I could get another boost in All-Sky GW task performance.
And that SKU also comes in a 24 core version. Which means a 8 GPU system running 5 tasks / GPU could also take advantage of this. This core count appears to have a slightly lower peak performance.
This assumes gpu-only processing.
Anyone want to jump in a try it out?
:)
A Proud member of the O.F.A. (Old Farts Association). Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.® (Garrison Keillor) I want some more patience. RIGHT NOW!
Ignore the peak or turbo
)
Ignore the peak or turbo clock speed of any cpu. Does not apply to our processing.
You need to use the max all-core clock speed which is usually defined as base clock speed.
That is how fast your cpu will be running with all cores loaded by Boinc work.
If you are only actually using 20 threads, then the clocks will be closer to the peak or turbo speed. Maybe halfway between the base loaded clock and the turbo clock.
Keith Myers wrote: Ignore
)
its not quite so simple as just the base clock speed. It depends on several factors. Like what TDP the CPU has, what application is being run and what optimizations they might run, how many cores the CPU has, etc.
my 7402P would run basically max single core speed even when all cores were loaded because it was only 24-c with 200W TDP and the max boost clock was capped at 3.35GHz anyway. while the 240W 64-c parts do see much more reduction and closer to base clocks under heavy loads.
AMD didn’t really define all core load clocks for the 7000 series EPYCs, but it looks like they do for the 9000 series (Genoa/Bergamo), with caveats/constraints
_________________________________________________________________________
Thank you Keith and
)
Thank you Keith and Ian&SteveC.
A Proud member of the O.F.A. (Old Farts Association). Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.® (Garrison Keillor) I want some more patience. RIGHT NOW!
https://www.xda-developers.co
)
https://www.xda-developers.com/is-arm-efficient-x86/
Say Duh!
A Proud member of the O.F.A. (Old Farts Association). Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.® (Garrison Keillor) I want some more patience. RIGHT NOW!
Curious to know if anyone
)
Curious to know if anyone else knows the answer to this, I've tried scouring the internet for a definitive answer but really only found threads from 2005/2006.
On PrimeGrid, it was advised to limit PC's to 50% CPU usage as the applications were so optimized that you're harming performance by running the primaility tests on hyperthreads.
For Einstein@Home, is it more time efficient to use hyperthreads or not? I don't really care about credits, just that work is being done in the most optimal way.
In my experience, for my
)
In my experience, for my hardware, it is the same as you quote for PrimeGrid with the Gamma Ray Pulsar search. Limiting to 50% CPU and then 100% CPU gives roughly the same credit/hour for me.
Sabrina Tarson
)
Alot of the reason PrimeGrid recommends reducing cpu usage to 50% is because the Hyper Threads can be detrimental to faster crunching, so reducing your cpu settings to 50% means you will crunch faster than if you use those 'extra' cpu corers. Now todays cpu's require some testing to see if they do in fact slow down the crunching as they are not like the older Intel cpu cores with HT. The AMD cpu's also have a form of HT and todays AMD cpu's are, like the Intel cpu's, much better at using those 'extra' cpu cores so again testing is required to see if reducing the crunching 50% is really faster.