LINUX Beta Test App 4.17 available

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 3,918
Credit: 193,663,940
RAC: 21,015
Topic 191630

A new Beta Test App is available on our usual Beta Test Page.

This has some changes to the code used in the 4.16 App that apparently further speed it up, though I'm still puzzled why. These changes are only suitable for the SSE code, the generic code (on non-SSE CPUs) probably won't show an improvement over the 4.16 App.

I've seen very large variations regarding the speed compared to the 4.01 App depending on the CPU type, so if you report speed values here, please also report the CPU.

Happy tessting!

BM

BM

RenaudKener
RenaudKener
Joined: 11 Jun 06
Posts: 91
Credit: 5,614,714
RAC: 0

LINUX Beta Test App 4.17 available

Quote:

A new Beta Test App is available on our usual Beta Test Page.

This has some changes to the code used in the 4.16 App that apparently further speed it up, though I'm still puzzled why. These changes are only suitable for the SSE code, the generic code (on non-SSE CPUs) probably won't show an improvement over the 4.16 App.

I've seen very large variations regarding the speed compared to the 4.01 App depending on the CPU type, so if you report speed values here, please also report the CPU.

Happy tessting!

BM

What do we do with 4.16's files ? Delete or keep them in the ../einstein... directory ?

"Entia non sunt multiplicandam praeter necessitatem"
(OKHAM)

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 3,918
Credit: 193,663,940
RAC: 21,015

Leave them. Overwrite the

Leave them. Overwrite the app_info.xml with the new one. The tasks already assigned to 4.16 will be finished with that, new work should be assigned to the 4.17.

BM

BM

Gray Handcock
Gray Handcock
Joined: 11 Mar 05
Posts: 211
Credit: 135,567
RAC: 0

RE: Leave them. Overwrite

Message 43164 in response to message 43163

Quote:

Leave them. Overwrite the app_info.xml with the new one. The tasks already assigned to 4.16 will be finished with that, new work should be assigned to the 4.17.

BM

Yup got the permissions right this time and the next batch are designated for 4.17

Thanks - Gray

BTW did another WU using 4.16 and got this time: 28,137.84

Pete Yule
Pete Yule
Joined: 4 Mar 05
Posts: 5
Credit: 175,072
RAC: 0

Here are some timings for the

Here are some timings for the new version (4.17), in seconds:

9998.97
9881.78
9971.07

avg: 9950.61

Compared with my timings for the previous beta (4.16, timings here), whose avg=10225.20, there is an increase of about 2.7%, or compared with the 4.01 data I cited (avg=11596.44), there's an overall increase of 14.2%

Curiously, the claimed credit is now 19.56, as compared with 19.55 claimed for all my previously cited wus.

Bernd, you said the speed increase was mysterious. Does the (albeit small) change in credit claim shed light on that?

As I said before, I'm using a P3 coppermine, 600MHz, with sse and 256 KB cache. It's nice to get below 10000s on this machine.

Pete

Blue Northern Software
Blue Northern S...
Joined: 10 Dec 05
Posts: 38
Credit: 144,621
RAC: 0

Speaking of trusty old

Message 43166 in response to message 43165

Speaking of trusty old Coppermines, here's how mine has fared, comparing the last 6 units crunched with 4.01 and the first 6 crunched with 4.17.
[pre]
CPU: Genuine Intel Celeron 1GHZ (Coppermine)
OS: Debian Linux 3.1
All Workunits h1_028x range.

v4.01 v4.17
------- -------
7063.02 5991.15
6732.55 5934.10
6761.93 5910.45
6832.57 6397.05
6909.30 5933.99
7123.99 6162.89
--------- ---------
6903.89 6054.93 (Average)

14.15% increase over 4.01
[/pre]

Based on the above, this old slowboat should be able to average a couple more workunits per day (from 12 to 14).

Nice work!

Gray Handcock
Gray Handcock
Joined: 11 Mar 05
Posts: 211
Credit: 135,567
RAC: 0

Hello Using 4.17 I just

Hello

Using 4.17 I just got 28,092.47 on a big WU compared to a best of 33,290.42 for same size WU using 4.10 - nice, very nice ! Thankyou for the hard work.

Gray

LiborA
LiborA
Joined: 8 Dec 05
Posts: 74
Credit: 337,135
RAC: 0

Comparing 4.01 - 4.16 - 4.17

Comparing 4.01 - 4.16 - 4.17 with WUs h1_1278.5_S5R1 (credit176,31)

avg. time (sec): 29108 - 25444 - 25546
No. of results: 4 - 5 - 1

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 3,918
Credit: 193,663,940
RAC: 21,015

What CPUs are these? I've

What CPUs are these?

I've seen a bit more speedup, but I mostly tested it on Xeon and Pentium-M ...

BM

BM

Rockhount
Rockhount
Joined: 12 Dec 05
Posts: 12
Credit: 50,946,510
RAC: 100,814

I've installed 4.17 but first

I've installed 4.17 but first there are the results vom 4.16 to compare.
First there are no validation errors.

I've 4 Linux boxes running:

Dual Xeon 2,2GHz (SSE2 capable)
4.01 4.16
4153 3726
4156 3719

Speedup ~11.5 %

Pentium M 725 @ 2,13GHz
4.01 4.16
27325 22533
27300 22563

Speedup ~ 21 %

Celeron M 380 @ 2,4GHz
atm there ist only one compare
4.01 4.16
25938 21470

Speedup ~ 20 %

The last Linux Box doesn't have any new result. But I think the 1200er Tualatin should be around 11% faster.

LiborA
LiborA
Joined: 8 Dec 05
Posts: 74
Credit: 337,135
RAC: 0

RE: Comparing 4.01 - 4.16 -

Message 43171 in response to message 43168

Quote:

Comparing 4.01 - 4.16 - 4.17 with WUs h1_1278.5_S5R1 (credit176,31)

avg. time (sec): 29108 - 25444 - 25546
No. of results: 4 - 5 - 1

Sorry, CPU is AMD64 2800+ (Socket 754)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.