S5R2

Arion
Arion
Joined: 20 Mar 05
Posts: 147
Credit: 1,626,747
RAC: 0

RE: Feel free to have a

Message 62130 in response to message 62129

Quote:


Feel free to have a look on this host.
It's a dual P4 2800 Xeon System (with hyperthreading on, so 4 CPU's are available) with 3 CPUs dedicated to E@H.

S5RI times: 18.000 - 19.000 sec. and 54 Cr.
S5R2 times: 89.000 - 90.000 sec. and 204 Cr.

seems fair to me...

Right now the only comparison I have is on this host.

S5R1 times 9200 - 9300 sec and 53 credit
S5R2 times 47000 - 49000 sec and 77 credit.

This is on a dual core AMD 4800+. I have 2 more in my cache that are calling for 29 hours so I'm interested in seeing how they come out stat wise. One of these is at 50% and time for completion should come down to 14 hours instead of 29. Guess my time calulator for units will need to relearn things.

edited to correct S5R2 label and time to completion update.

Arion

Brian Silvers
Brian Silvers
Joined: 26 Aug 05
Posts: 772
Credit: 282,700
RAC: 0

RE: Is there going to be

Message 62131 in response to message 62127

Quote:
Is there going to be any limitation regarding BOINC client ? I still have some clients running Boinc 4.x.

This is a current subject of debate over at SETI, so I have to ask you... Why are you still using 4.x?

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4,244
Credit: 244,499,340
RAC: 23,079

RE: Is there going to be

Message 62132 in response to message 62127

Quote:
Is there going to be any limitation regarding BOINC client ? I still have some clients running Boinc 4.x.


I have, too, on some architectures nothing newer is available. No, no limitation planned other than what existed for S4 - it should be 4.19 or newer.

Our credit system will work even with older clients. The credit is fixed for each workunit on the server side, and measurements are taken so that the claimed credit should be what is granted at the end. For this to work one needs a newer client, with older clients the granted credit may be different from what is claimed, that's all.

And btw. yes, there is a large variation between runtimes of the different WUs. In principle they get longer with higher frequency. The credit rises proportionally, so if you want to compare run times of machines, look for Workunits that claim the same credit (and use newer clients). I'll try to get some chart for WU-time vs. frequency to post it here.

BM

BM

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

Hi Bernd, is it possible

Message 62133 in response to message 62132

Hi Bernd,

is it possible that the Linux application is much faster than the Win-App?

I got the following results about the credit-reduction, which should be 30%:

Athlon64 4400+ (Win XP): ~ -40%
Athlon XP 2600+ (Linux): ~ -15.4%
Athlon XP 3000+ (Linux): ~ -12,8%

All results are compared to at least 3 different groups of "old" WUs.
And both Linux hosts get more credits/h than the faster Win-host(per core)!

cu,
Michael

Annika
Annika
Joined: 8 Aug 06
Posts: 720
Credit: 494,410
RAC: 0

I should test that...

I should test that... dual-booting can be useful ;-)

abinkow
abinkow
Joined: 21 Feb 05
Posts: 38
Credit: 2,724,569
RAC: 0

OK, I received two early S5R2

OK, I received two early S5R2 units (I have a dual processor). They came across with expected runtimes of roughly 12 and 14 hours. They ran for 42 and 44 hours, respectively (it's really depressing when the "time to completion" is going up instead of down). In S5R2 "faster hierarchical search", i was getting somewhere around 53-54 credits per WU, and they were taking 7-8 hours. For the two forty-plus hour runs, I'm getting under 100 credits each -- total of about 160 for the two. So, S5R1, I would get (conservatively) 500-550 credits for 86 hours of CPU work -- and now I'm getting 160.

I'm back to S5R1 work now, but I've downloaded another S5R2 workunit for later. This one shows as 149 hours (that's more than six days). I'm dreading what will happen when it starts.

Bernd and company, you might want to rethink the size of these WUs. I have a pretty big fast machine; most people won't be able to finish the WUs within the deadlines. And the credit is REALLY off -- not just a little!

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4,244
Credit: 244,499,340
RAC: 23,079

RE: is it possible that the

Message 62136 in response to message 62133

Quote:
is it possible that the Linux application is much faster than the Win-App


Would be quite surprising, the output from gcc on Linux is usually slightly slower than what we get from the M$ compiler, but is not impossible. Honestly during the past weeks we have been so busy fixing mere showstoppers that I didn't do a platform / compiler comparison with the latest code versions. Thanks for pointing me to that, I'll look into it.

BM

BM

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

RE: OK, I received two

Message 62137 in response to message 62135

Quote:
OK, I received two early S5R2 units (I have a dual processor). They came across with expected runtimes of roughly 12 and 14 hours. They ran for 42 and 44 hours, respectively (it's really depressing when the "time to completion" is going up instead of down). In S5R2 "faster hierarchical search", i was getting somewhere around 53-54 credits per WU, and they were taking 7-8 hours. For the two forty-plus hour runs, I'm getting under 100 credits each -- total of about 160 for the two. So, S5R1, I would get (conservatively) 500-550 credits for 86 hours of CPU work -- and now I'm getting 160.

These early WUs have a wrong credit information sent to you. The credit will get corrected, as Bruce Allen wrote in his post in this thread.

Quote:
I'm back to S5R1 work now, but I've downloaded another S5R2 workunit for later. This one shows as 149 hours (that's more than six days). I'm dreading what will happen when it starts.

This one has the corrected credit information and therefore is mixing up your Boinc client. Don't worry about that, it will not take that long. ;-)
But it will take a couple of WUs until the client will show reasonably correct times again.

cu,
Michael

adrianxw
adrianxw
Joined: 21 Feb 05
Posts: 242
Credit: 322,654,862
RAC: 0

I am also worried about the

I am also worried about the run times of the newer wu's. Typically on the machine that has it I get 3-4 hour per wu, this one has run for 8½ and is saying it is only 36% finished.

Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

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

Argh, I don't believe it, my

Argh, I don't believe it, my X2@2,63 GHz is crunching a 182.7 Hz WU, and after 5h it has already finished 27.5%!

How much time will slower hosts need for these WUs?

Is it possible that we are using an app that is a kind of AMD unfriendly? ;-)
Some wrong or missing compiler switches?

This would explain, why the Linux app is so dramatically faster than the Win app, at least on AMD.

My longest WU(210.3 Hz) crunched so far took 56,850 sec for 260,21 credits with an AMD XP 2600+@2.2GHz(Linux). This is really ok! But the time my X2(Win) will need, is totally unsatisfying!

Tonight, I will run the X2 under Linux to compare the results. Maybe that tracks down the problem.

cu,
Micha

Comment viewing options

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