LINUX Beta Test App 4.17 available

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

Hello Short WUs (20.40

Hello

Short WUs (20.40 credit sized) are being done in 2,972.94 with 4.17
Previously with 4.10 the best I got was 3,640.14

System is Pentium 4 2.66 (with sse2 capability) and 768 megs ram running Gentoo Linux 2.6.17-r4 and BOINC plus all deps, kernel etc have been compiled from source.

Cheers - Gray

PS: no errors due to the application thus far - and now I know how to change file ownership there should be no more human errors either (grin)

Michael Karlinsky
Michael Karlinsky
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 888
Credit: 23,502,182
RAC: 0

Hi. Just finished my first

Hi.

Just finished my first result using v4.17.

37950001 CPU time: 23,695.24s (claim: 174.58)

The last result using v4.01

37663847 CPU time: 25,847.26s (claim: 172.32)

The speedup is approx. 9%. CPU is AMD X2 3800+.

Michael

tullio
tullio
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 2,118
Credit: 61,407,735
RAC: 0

4.17 is about 5% slower than

4.17 is about 5% slower than 4.16 on my Pentium II, while 4.16 was 7% faster than 4.01. So I only gain 2%.
Tullio

Melvyn Bobo Slacke
Melvyn Bobo Slacke
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 32
Credit: 1,692,164
RAC: 0

8 results in and they are

8 results in and they are around 18,900 sec, about 17% faster than 4.01.
All still pending.
20-30 small x in each.
Opteron 170 @2.4gig.

EclipseHA
EclipseHA
Joined: 19 Feb 05
Posts: 41
Credit: 10,540,182
RAC: 0

cruch times for a long WU

cruch times for a long WU went from about 9 hours (4.01) to about 8 hours with both 4.16 and 4.17 on an AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2000+, 256 mb memory, Linux fc3.

4.16 amd 4.17 results are all within a few minutes of each other.

tullio
tullio
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 2,118
Credit: 61,407,735
RAC: 0

RE: 4.17 is about 5% slower

Message 43177 in response to message 43174

Quote:
4.17 is about 5% slower than 4.16 on my Pentium II, while 4.16 was 7% faster than 4.01. So I only gain 2%.
Tullio


Latest result with 4.17 is even worse than with 4.01. I see 4.17 is using very little physical memory (1.8% of total). Can this be a clue?

tekwyzrd
tekwyzrd
Joined: 25 Feb 05
Posts: 49
Credit: 2,922,090
RAC: 0

For my 800 MHz P3

For my 800 MHz P3 processors:

v4.01 times: approx. 9,200 - 9,300 seconds
v4.16 times: approx. 8,900 - 9,000 seconds
v4.17 times: approx. 7,800 - 8,000 seconds

The computer only gets short runtime tasks.
Since S5 started it's never gotten a long one.

Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.
Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

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

Good morning everybody. Here

Good morning everybody. Here are my first results obtained under beta 4.17

AuthenticAMD mobile AMD Athlon XP-M 2400+ Linux 2.6.8-24.24-default (Suse 9.2)
Computation times ( in seconds )

v4.01 average: 31881.45 v4.01 std dev: 775.56 [sample of 15 results]
v4.16 average: 27903.87 v4.16 std dev: 301.39 [sample of 5 results]
v4.17 average: 28109.39 v4.17 std dev: 185.97 [sample of 2 results]

Compare v4.16/v4.01 = 12.48% faster
Compare v4.17/v4.01 = 11.83% faster
Compare v4.17/v4.16 = -0.74% slower

Caution ! I need 1 more result before calculating acurate average time and std deviation.

However, first data ocuring for an Athlon 64 3500+ tends to show an even greater loss of speed of v4.17 vs 4.16 [about -2 %]

"Patience et longueur de temps font mieux que force et que rage"
La Fontaine

"Entia non sunt multiplicandam praeter necessitatem"
(OKHAM)

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

Hi again :-) AuthenticAMD

Hi again :-)

AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon64 3500+ Linux 2.6.13-15.8-default (Suse 10.1)
Computation times ( in seconds )

v4.01 average: 55562,95 v4.01 std dev: 836.75 [sample of 15 results]
v4.16 average: 44060,07 v4.16 std dev: 56.75 [sample of 3 results]
v4.17 average: 44979,89 v4.17 std dev: 7.48 [sample of 2 results]

Compare v4.16/v4.01 = 20.70% faster
Compare v4.17/v4.01 = 19.05% faster
Compare v4.17/v4.16 = -2.09% slower

Am I the only one who believes that 4.17 is slower than 4.16 ? On AMD and non-Xeon Intel, anyway.

"Entia non sunt multiplicandam praeter necessitatem"
(OKHAM)

tullio
tullio
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 2,118
Credit: 61,407,735
RAC: 0

RE: Am I the only one who

Message 43181 in response to message 43180

Quote:

Am I the only one who believes that 4.17 is slower than 4.16 ? On AMD and non-Xeon Intel, anyway.


On my Pentium II (no SSE) 4.17 is slower than 4.16 and also 4.01.
Tullio

Comment viewing options

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