S5GC1HF 2.07 x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

Donald A. Tevault
Donald A. Tevault
Joined: 17 Feb 06
Posts: 439
Credit: 73,516,529
RAC: 0

RE: I added a fake 64 Bit

Quote:

I added a fake 64 Bit plan class (X8664), should work now.

BM

It does. Thanks!

KSMarksPsych
KSMarksPsych
Moderator
Joined: 15 Oct 05
Posts: 2,702
Credit: 4,090,227
RAC: 0

RE: I added a fake 64 Bit

Quote:

I added a fake 64 Bit plan class (X8664), should work now.

BM

I got it too. Wonderful!

Kathryn :o)

Einstein@Home Moderator

_badger
_badger
Joined: 8 Mar 05
Posts: 12
Credit: 4,623,547
RAC: 0

RE: I don't expect any

Quote:
I don't expect any difference e.g. in runtime.

Run times on my task list show it to be about 10% slower than 1.07, at least on my system (Ubuntu 10.10 with an i7 930).

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

I can sign that.

I can sign that.

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 3,962
Credit: 203,706,818
RAC: 28,851

RE: Run times on my task

Quote:
Run times on my task list show it to be about 10% slower than 1.07, at least on my system (Ubuntu 10.10 with an i7 930).

I wouldn't trust the predictions of the Client too much before it has actually finished at least one task.

But it could well be that the 64Bit App is slightly slower than the 32Bit App. Although people find it hard to believe, 32Bit Apps could be way more efficient even on 64Bit systems than "native" ones.

BM

BM

Donald A. Tevault
Donald A. Tevault
Joined: 17 Feb 06
Posts: 439
Credit: 73,516,529
RAC: 0

RE: RE: Run times on my

Quote:
Quote:
Run times on my task list show it to be about 10% slower than 1.07, at least on my system (Ubuntu 10.10 with an i7 930).

I wouldn't trust the predictions of the Client too much before it has actually finished at least one task.

But it could well be that the 64Bit App is slightly slower than the 32Bit App. Although people find it hard to believe, 32Bit Apps could be way more efficient even on 64Bit systems than "native" ones.

BM

For the ones that have completed here, it seems that the run-times are about the same as the 32-bit ones.

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

CPU time is higher and run

CPU time is higher and run time increased even more.
Host i920 OpenSuse 11.1 64 Bit.

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 3,962
Credit: 203,706,818
RAC: 28,851

Yes, this is my impression

Yes, this is my impression too. The 64Bit app actually seems slightly slower than the 32Bit SSE2 App.

The BOINC Core Client should check for availability of 32Bit compatibility libraries before reporting the 32Bit platform. At least the code is in the BOINC SVN trunk since revision 22890. I don't know yet whether it works and in which official client releases this is incorporated.

I guess I'll drop the plan class again, so that ultimately only 64Bit machines not capable of running 32Bit Apps get this App version.

Anyone observed a crash from missing libraries etc?

BM

BM

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

No crash so far and I think

No crash so far and I think it's a very nice idea to select the app dependent on the presence of the 32-Bit libs.
But don't hurry, you can get more experience about the stability of the 64Bit app.

Comment viewing options

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