S40.12 Observation thread

anders n
anders n
Joined: 29 Aug 05
Posts: 123
Credit: 1,656,300
RAC: 0
Topic 191111

Lets try it out.:)

Anders n

anders n
anders n
Joined: 29 Aug 05
Posts: 123
Credit: 1,656,300
RAC: 0

S40.12 Observation thread

Ok first result thru.

http://einsteinathome.org/task/25862848

Akofs it seems to be the same ver. number (S40.04)on this exe.

Anders n

Richard Haselgrove
Richard Haselgrove
Joined: 10 Dec 05
Posts: 1,933
Credit: 198,707,992
RAC: 402,410

My result 25633836 shows

My result 25633836 shows S40.12 as expected.

This one did about half on the previous .04, and the second half after I switched apps - so no useful timing, but it validated OK and got granted credit.

anders n
anders n
Joined: 29 Aug 05
Posts: 123
Credit: 1,656,300
RAC: 0

So I downloaded the file

So I downloaded the file again and now it is the right one.

http://einsteinathome.org/task/25844876

First result fine . Crunch time about the same as S40.04

Anders n

archae86
archae86
Joined: 6 Dec 05
Posts: 2,741
Credit: 2,912,576,384
RAC: 3,291,349

RE: Akofs it seems to be

Message 28337 in response to message 28334

Quote:
Akofs it seems to be the same ver. number (S40.04)on this exe.
Anders n

My initial partially processed result has the expected entry:

2006-04-20 12:56:23.1718 [normal]: Optimised by akosf S40.12 --> 'projects/einstein.phys.uwm.edu/albert_4.37_windows_intelx86.exe'

rbpeake
rbpeake
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 247
Credit: 219,266,664
RAC: 0

Dramatic increase in speed on

Dramatic increase in speed on my AMD 3500+ machine:

On the longer workunits, about a 17% increase versus S40.04.

Akofs is the guru of optimization! :)

M. Schmitt
M. Schmitt
Joined: 27 Jun 05
Posts: 478
Credit: 15,872,262
RAC: 0

It seems, this version is

It seems, this version is about 2 min. faster on my X2 with longer WUs:

z1_1196.5__1041_S4R2a_0: 2872.46875 sec with S40.04
z1_1196.5__1040_S4R2a_0: 2875.625 sec with S40.04
z1_1196.5__1039_S4R2a_0: 2872.640625 with S40.04
z1_1196.5__1034_S4R2a_1: 2869.46875 with S40.04
z1_1196.5__1254_S4R2a_3: 2873.71875 with S40.04

z1_1196.5__1033_S4R2a_0: 2813.78125 with S40.04/S40.12
z1_1196.5__1032_S4R2a_0: 2800.984375 with S40.04/S40.12

z1_1196.5__1031_S4R2a_0: 2749.703125 with S40.12
z1_1196.5__1030_S4R2a_0: 2753.90625 with S40.12
z1_1196.5__1029_S4R2a_0: 2750.671875 with S40.12
z1_1196.5__1028_S4R2a_0: 2753.421875 with S40.12

I've recognized, that the time to calculate WUs out of the same series might change at a sudden point, but the chance this has happened exactly when I changed the app is pretty improbable.

Ziran
Ziran
Joined: 26 Nov 04
Posts: 194
Credit: 60,800
RAC: 0

Wasn’t 40.12 supposed to be

Wasn’t 40.12 supposed to be slower? First result with 40.12 is the fastest I have seen on this machine ever. 17seconsd faster and it will break the 4000seconds barrier. And I thought that the people over at LHC would create the first artificial black hole, but I suspect that they are going to be beaten to it by one of akosf’s hosts, then its crunch time goes towards cero and implodes. :)

Then you're really interested in a subject, there is no way to avoid it. You have to read the Manual.

_heinz
_heinz
Joined: 4 Jan 06
Posts: 79
Credit: 91,546
RAC: 0

Started with s40.04 ended

Started with s40.04 ended with s40.12 sucessful
5.2.13

2006-04-20 23:57:42.8906 [normal]: Optimised by akosf S40.04 --> 'projects/einstein.phys.uwm.edu/albert_4.37_windows_intelx86.exe'
2006-04-20 23:57:42.8906 [normal]: Started search at lalDebugLevel = 0
2006-04-20 23:57:44.2187 [normal]: Checkpoint-file 'Fstat.out.ckp' not found.
2006-04-20 23:57:44.2187 [normal]: No usable checkpoint found, starting from beginning.

2006-04-21 00:27:06.1406 [normal]: Optimised by akosf S40.04 --> 'projects/einstein.phys.uwm.edu/albert_4.37_windows_intelx86.exe'
2006-04-21 00:27:06.1562 [normal]: Started search at lalDebugLevel = 0
2006-04-21 00:27:07.6250 [normal]: Found checkpoint-file 'Fstat.out.ckp'
2006-04-21 00:27:07.6250 [normal]: Trying to read Fstat-file into toplist ...
2006-04-21 00:27:16.2656 [normal]: Checksum Ok. Successfully read_toplist_from_fp()
2006-04-21 00:27:16.2656 [normal]: Resuming computation at (835/218308371/4396566).
2006-04-21 00:29:23.7343 [normal]: Fstat file reached MaxFileSizeKB ==> compactifying ... done.

2006-04-21 01:33:12.1718 [normal]: Optimised by akosf S40.12 --> 'projects/einstein.phys.uwm.edu/albert_4.37_windows_intelx86.exe'
2006-04-21 01:33:12.1718 [normal]: Started search at lalDebugLevel = 0
2006-04-21 01:33:14.0312 [normal]: Found checkpoint-file 'Fstat.out.ckp'
2006-04-21 01:33:14.0312 [normal]: Trying to read Fstat-file into toplist ...
2006-04-21 01:33:19.1250 [normal]: Checksum Ok. Successfully read_toplist_from_fp()
2006-04-21 01:33:19.1250 [normal]: Resuming computation at (65102/143452553/2886824).
2006-04-21 01:56:51.4531 [normal]: Search finished successfully.

thx akosf
seti_britta (-:

archae86
archae86
Joined: 6 Dec 05
Posts: 2,741
Credit: 2,912,576,384
RAC: 3,291,349

RE: Wasn’t 40.12 supposed

Message 28342 in response to message 28340

Quote:
Wasn’t 40.12 supposed to be slower?

I did not do a controlled rerun, but the first five results returned running S40.12 on my Gallatin (Northwood-descended P4 EE 8k L1, 512k L2, 2M L3 cache) are definitely slower than most recent results from the same two major datafiles.

Maybe this one is faster/slower based on processor, or maybe those of us not grabbing a trial sample and running it twice are fooling ourselves. I must say Ziegenmelker's case looks pretty persuasive because of the low noise in his before/after results.

Misfit
Misfit
Joined: 11 Feb 05
Posts: 470
Credit: 100,000
RAC: 0

I wonder if the zero credit

I wonder if the zero credit errors are processor specific? I haven't had a single error on my Prescott on the S39's, or the S40.x

me-[at]-rescam.org

Comment viewing options

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