Linux S5R2 App 4.35 available for Beta test

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4,297
Credit: 246,154,519
RAC: 10,835
Topic 193003

A new Linux App is available from our Beta Test page.

This App is part of a new generation of Apps that follow our attempts to track down and fix the remaining problems of the new software we're using since S5R2. It has the same codebase as the 4.33 Windows App, thus basically the same features.

For the "SIN/COS LUT" it uses the original modf() variant which showed to be fastest (no surprise - the original code was tuned on Linux).

BM

BM

Desti
Desti
Joined: 20 Aug 05
Posts: 117
Credit: 23,762,214
RAC: 0

Linux S5R2 App 4.35 available for Beta test

You have forgotten to update the beta page :-)

Direct link

http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/app_test/linux/einstein_S5R2_4.35_i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz

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

I have crunched 33% of a big

I have crunched 33% of a big WU using App. 4.31. Can I switch to 4.35 or it's better for me to wait until it's finished?
Tullio

Bikeman (Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein)
Bikeman (Heinz-...
Moderator
Joined: 28 Aug 06
Posts: 3,522
Credit: 692,177,560
RAC: 911

RE: I have crunched 33% of

Message 70724 in response to message 70723

Quote:
I have crunched 33% of a big WU using App. 4.31. Can I switch to 4.35 or it's better for me to wait until it's finished?
Tullio

Hi Tullio!

You can switch at any time, no need to wait until the WU is finished.

CU

BRM

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4,297
Credit: 246,154,519
RAC: 10,835

RE: You have forgotten to

Message 70725 in response to message 70722

Quote:

You have forgotten to update the beta page :-)

Direct link

http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/app_test/linux/einstein_S5R2_4.35_i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz


Fixed, thanks. The md5sum was correct, though.

BM

BM

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

RE: Hi Tullio! You can

Message 70726 in response to message 70724

Quote:


Hi Tullio!

You can switch at any time, no need to wait until the WU is finished.

CU

BRM


Thanks Bikeman. 4.35 certainly looks faster than 4.31, which was painfully slow.
Tullio

Bikeman (Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein)
Bikeman (Heinz-...
Moderator
Joined: 28 Aug 06
Posts: 3,522
Credit: 692,177,560
RAC: 911

RE: RE: Hi Tullio! You

Message 70727 in response to message 70726

Quote:
Quote:


Hi Tullio!

You can switch at any time, no need to wait until the WU is finished.

CU

BRM


Thanks Bikeman. 4.35 certainly looks faster than 4.31, which was painfully slow.
Tullio

Absolutely. The speed difference will vary depending on the CPU type, but between 15% and 25 % seems to be usual speedup.

It' so amazing what a single line of code can do, it shows how "hot" the hot-loop in E@H is (and how tedious it is to get the code optimized across different combinations of CPUs, OS & compilers).

CU

BRM

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

My host (sorry I'm lazy and

My host (sorry I'm lazy and don't feel like linking many results) has completed 8 WU with 4.35, 4 of them fully with the latest beta, and the other 4 were split between the 4.35 and 4.31 which is reflected in crunch time.

4.35 is much faster than the other betas, but is still slower than the official app.

Data pack frequency 464 :

Approximate times
Official app - 42,600s
4.31 beta - 50,200s
4.35 beta - 45,800s

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

Gary Roberts
Gary Roberts
Moderator
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 5,869
Credit: 112,906,771,556
RAC: 36,067,414

I can confirm what Dave is

I can confirm what Dave is reporting. This is the results list for an overclocked Athlon XP 2400+ running around 3200+ speed. It was running 500.70 frequency data in 90.4K secs with the 4.21 official app. This slowed to 104.4K secs under 4.31 and the first result, largely but not fully under 4.35 is now in. The time is back down to 94.1K and should drop a little more with the next result which will be fully 4.35 crunched. Unfortunately it will still be a little slower than 90.4K secs.

For me, the biggest plus in all of this (for Linux) is the almost complete lack of validation problems. That's really encouraging, thanks.

Cheers,
Gary.

josep
josep
Joined: 9 Mar 05
Posts: 63
Credit: 1,156,542
RAC: 0

My own results do not show

My own results do not show any noticeable difference in speed between 4.35 and 4.21 apps, they are very close. 4.35 seems to be even slightly faster, with a completion time of 11856 seconds, against 12900 seconds for 4.21

I m testing 4.35 on a single machine (AMD Duron 1600 Applebred) and with only one WU already completely computed with this app (correctly validated against a Windows box).

This WU has the same data packet frequency (473) than the ones I completed three weeks ago with 4.21 (already deleted by the server). The granted credit is lower now, but in a very small amount: 394.67 against a previous value of 394.69

If the size of WU's has really changed a bit, then perhaps I could say that 4.35 is not really faster than 4.21. But I can say also that it is not slower. At least on my machine.

But I suppose that a small difference in speed could be possible, because 4.35 has much more debug code.

juergen.mell
juergen.mell
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 9
Credit: 11,111,244
RAC: 4,641

I have cunched two WUs with

I have cunched two WUs with the 4.35 application on an Intel Core 2 @ 2.13 GHz. Computing time here is about 7 to 15% more than with the official 4.21.

Comment viewing options

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