LINUX Beta Test App 4.17 available

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

RE: What does 'small x'

Message 43192 in response to message 43191

Quote:


What does 'small x' mean? The number of times it appears differs for each WU?

Great work Bernd, keep it up.

small x

Michael

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4,273
Credit: 245,238,998
RAC: 13,109

I'm still a bit puzzled. The

I'm still a bit puzzled. The changes I made from 4.16 to 4.17 were some that I would have expected to slow things down. However on my Xeons they sped things up quite noticably. My current guess is that CPUs with large caches will rather benefit from these changes, while they slowed down things on all others (though not much).

Does this sound reasonable?

BM

BM

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

I installed 4.17 on an P4

I installed 4.17 on an P4 1.7. Compared to 4.01 there is a speedup of roughly 25%!

See 37890519 (4.17) and 37874836 (4.01).

Michael

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

RE: I'm still a bit

Message 43195 in response to message 43193

Quote:

I'm still a bit puzzled. The changes I made from 4.16 to 4.17 were some that I would have expected to slow things down. However on my Xeons they sped things up quite noticably. My current guess is that CPUs with large caches will rather benefit from these changes, while they slowed down things on all others (though not much).

Does this sound reasonable?

BM

Hi Bernd

Well I only have 512 L2 cache, which isn't exactly huge these days and noticed a speedup here...

Gray

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

I didn't run 4.16 but now on

I didn't run 4.16 but now on 4.17 my Opteron with 1mb L2 cache seem to be a little bit faster than the X2 with 512kb L2 cache. On 4.01 they were alike.

Dave Burbank
Dave Burbank
Joined: 30 Jan 06
Posts: 275
Credit: 1,548,376
RAC: 0

Thanks for the link Michael,

Thanks for the link Michael, I missed out on 4.16 so I didn't see the post.
So I gather 'small x' is for debugging, to show how often some bit of code is executed, or some value is returned.

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman

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

RE: I'm still a bit

Message 43198 in response to message 43193

Quote:

I'm still a bit puzzled. The changes I made from 4.16 to 4.17 were some that I would have expected to slow things down. However on my Xeons they sped things up quite noticably. My current guess is that CPUs with large caches will rather benefit from these changes, while they slowed down things on all others (though not much).

Does this sound reasonable?

BM


I have a 512K L2 cache on my Pentium II and 4.17 was slower than 4.16 and also 4.01. What I saw was that 4.17 used very little of my 320 MB RAM, which means it did not cache disk.SuSE Linux 9.3.

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4,273
Credit: 245,238,998
RAC: 13,109

RE: I have a 512K L2 cache

Message 43199 in response to message 43198

Quote:
I have a 512K L2 cache on my Pentium II and 4.17 was slower than 4.16 and also 4.01. What I saw was that 4.17 used very little of my 320 MB RAM, which means it did not cache disk.SuSE Linux 9.3.

I payed most attention to the SSE code, the "generic" on hasn't changed much, so my statement about cache referrs to the SSE code only.

The Einstein@Home Application doesn't use much memory at all, just a few MB, plus the stuff that the code for the OS it's running on needs (code, libraries etc.). It also doesn't write much. It'ts totally CPU bound.

BM

BM

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

679091authentic mobile AMD

679091authentic 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: 27677.37 v4.17 std dev: 297.40 [sample of 13 results]

Compare v4.16/v4.01 = 12.48% faster
Compare v4.17/v4.01 = 13.19% faster
Compare v4.17/v4.16 = +0.81% faster

"Entia non sunt multiplicandam praeter necessitatem"
(OKHAM)

thor-nordic23
thor-nordic23
Joined: 4 Jun 06
Posts: 1
Credit: 61,916
RAC: 0

so far the switch for me from

so far the switch for me from v4.01 to v4.17 has speeded up one of my systems 22.5% and another by 16.7%. I have just updated my other remaining system and will have to monitor it for a while to know on it.
Thor-nordic23
Member of: Linux Users Everywhere

Don't be a windows crash dummy, USE LINUX!!

Comment viewing options

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