New (Albert) application and workunits

ForumsCruncher's Corner

Bruce Allen
Bruce Allen
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 1104
Credit: 171802774
RAC: 915
Topic 190442

I wanted to tell the dedicated crunchers a bit about the new application (called 'Albert') and workunits, that I have started testing on the public project today.

We've been doing private testing within the small group of Einstein@Home developers for several months, and are no longer finding problems and errors. So I have started to distribute a few thousand of these workunits to 'the general public'. If they work well we will start issuing primarily these workunits in the coming days.

A couple of key differences between the 'albert' (new) and 'einstein' (old) workunits.

- The new WU have different execution times, typically ranging from about 25% to 100% the previous execution times

- The new WU application incorporates all BOINC graphics and other bug fixes to date

- The new WU application has a slightly re-arranged screensaver, which includes our top wish-list item: a real time clock

I'll update (edit) this post if questions arise about how these new WU are structured. In many cases I'll then delete the post which asked the question, to keep the thread as compact as possible.

I have not forgotten that when we launched Einstein@Home in February 2005, we found a number of bugs because of the vigilance and sharp eyes of Einstein@Home users. So please call attention to strange behavior, either in this thread or in the Problems and Bug Reports message board.

Bruce Allen

[Edit Dec 24, questions from Paul Buck]

Quote:
1) We wouldn't have been lucky enough to get FLOPS counting this time around would we?


No, but I'll take a quick look at the API, and implement this if it's easy.

Quote:
2) Are the improved run times from optimized compiles for windows?


The compilation process is no more and no less optimized than before. The differences in run times come about because we are now using a sky search grid and frequency band which depends upon frequency. This makes it impossible for all workunits to be the same length.

Quote:
3) Is the Mac version still using Altiec?


Yes, the Mac version still uses Altivec optimization if the CPU supports the Altivec instruction set.

Quote:
I got one running right now by the way (thanks), and it is hard to tell over RealVNC, but the graphics looks like they are a little "prettier". Estimated run time is ~3 hours so that looks like about 25% of the prior (though I am only 13% through).


If you have a real-time clock in the upper right hand corner of the screensaver/graphics screen and the wording in the corners has slightly cleaner layout, then yes, you are running 'Albert'.

[EDIT 25 December, questions from various people]

Quote:
Will we be switching back and forth between Einstein and Albert apps?


Yes, for some time now, until we are sure that the Albert app is working as required.

Quote:
Does the Albert application have its own number (like 4.80) or is it still 4.79?


The Albert app has its own number and name. You will know you are running this by seeing what the name of the application is in the BOINC manager, or in the title bar of the graphics window. See the list of applications for more info.

Quote:
Is there any way we can download the new Albert application?


No. What work (and hence, what application) your computer gets is determined by chance. The 'scheduler' decides this when work is sent out.

[EDIT December 27]

Quote:
Is is intentional that the target number of results is three rather than the old value of four?


Yes, this is intentional. It may slow down result validation in some cases but will increase our computing power by ~ 25%.

Stef_5
Stef
Joined: 8 Mar 05
Posts: 149
Credit: 12267522
RAC: 0

Linux optimisation seem to

Linux optimisation seem to got even worse:
http://einsteinathome.org/workunit/3061680
The same CPUs and the same WU: 28848s for linux and 18498s for win.

Stick
Stick
Joined: 24 Feb 05
Posts: 786
Credit: 1089187
RAC: 1072

RE: Linux optimisation seem

Message 22584 in response to message 22583

Quote:
Linux optimisation seem to got even worse:
Workunit in question
The same CPUs and the same WU: 28848s for linux and 18498s for win.

.

Check again. The 18498s result also indicates a Linux OS.

Michael Karlinsky
Michael Karlinsky
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 888
Credit: 21702680
RAC: 14868

RE: Workunit in

Message 22585 in response to message 22584

Just noticed that "initial replication" is set to 3, instead of 4
for the old application.

Was that intentional?

Michael

Stef_5
Stef
Joined: 8 Mar 05
Posts: 149
Credit: 12267522
RAC: 0

RE: Check again. The

Message 22586 in response to message 22584

Quote:

Check again. The 18498s result also indicates a Linux OS.


Oops, you're right. Why the difference then?

Paul D. Buck
Paul D. Buck
Joined: 17 Jan 05
Posts: 754
Credit: 5385205
RAC: 0

RE: RE: Check again.

Message 22587 in response to message 22586

Quote:
Quote:

Check again. The 18498s result also indicates a Linux OS.

Oops, you're right. Why the difference then?


Number of CPUs = 1, = 2 ...

One is HT, the other is not most likely.

HT gives you 2 logical processors but does not give 2x speed. I see 20-40% better THROUGHPUT at a loss of individual processing time, they take longer ...

Stick
Stick
Joined: 24 Feb 05
Posts: 786
Credit: 1089187
RAC: 1072

RE: Just noticed that

Message 22588 in response to message 22585

Quote:

Just noticed that "initial replication" is set to 3, instead of 4
for the old application.

Was that intentional?

Michael

I've processed one Albert unit so far - and its "initial replication" was also 3 - so, my guess is it was intentional.

But, getting back to this unit, I noticed the "failed" result's computer is still using BOINC 4.19. Is BOINC 4.19 "too old" for Albert or was this just a coincidence?

Paul D. Buck
Paul D. Buck
Joined: 17 Jan 05
Posts: 754
Credit: 5385205
RAC: 0

Can't find the minimum

Can't find the minimum requirement any longer. But, if the BOINC Software was out of date the work should not have been issued. But, this may need project attention. Did they test Albert with 4.19?

Of course, with the better versions out there I have no idea why anyone would still use 4.19 ... :)

AnRM
AnRM
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 213
Credit: 4346941
RAC: 0

Daily quota problems with

Daily quota problems with 'Albert'.....please see 'Problems and Bug Reports' for details.....Cheers, Rog.

Desti
Desti
Joined: 20 Aug 05
Posts: 117
Credit: 13239894
RAC: 13739

RE: RE: Workunit in

Message 22591 in response to message 22585

Quote:

Just noticed that "initial replication" is set to 3, instead of 4
for the old application.

Was that intentional?

Michael

3 is a good idea. 4 is a big waste of resources, because a lot of WUa are done with 3 valid results and the fourth is completed for nothing.

Boris_siberia
Boris@siberia
Joined: 30 Apr 05
Posts: 2
Credit: 3471463
RAC: 0

to Paul Because 4.19 has a

to Paul
Because 4.19 has a progress bar.
Knowing is important with heavy WU which is like "Einstein@home".

I want to run with "Albert" soon.

Thanks.

Comment viewing options

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