For anyone who's interested, here's the latest skinny on the S5R2 units on my machines.
The only machine that's finished one so far is my Pentium III 733 Coppermine machine. It took 41 hours, two minutes and ten seconds for an S5R2 with a claimed credit of 99.99. (Of course, I understand that that credit amount may be adjusted upwards.) My quorum partner isn't finished yet, but considering that he's running a fancy 2.8 GHz P-4, I would hope that he'll be finished soon.
For my other machines. . .
Pentium III 450 Katmai
Elapsed time so far: 52 hours 40 minutes
Progress so far: 77.477%
Duron 950
Elapsed time so far: 31 hours 39 minutes
Progress so far: 92.761%
Athlon64 3500+
Elapsed time so far: 3 hours 56 minutes
Progress so far: 18.536%
Intel coreDuo T5500, 1GB RAM, WinXP
My first S5R2 unit: crunch time almost 18hrs, credit: 258 (14.4 per hour)
average S5R1 unit: crunch time ~3hrs, credit ~54 (18.1 per hour)
It took 6 times the length of a normal unit, 12 hrs versus 2 hrs, but gave only twice the credit.
Edit: and only now of course do I spot the comment about the wrong credit above.
I finally got that 29 hour unit completed at aprox. 14 hours. Credit has changed on this from the first units with the same time. Can see differences here . Maybe they made adjustments but I still think the times are skewed compared to what they used to be. I can understand some adjustment but to cut it that far back seems to be excessive. 5 times as long as the old units and 3 times the credit?
Intel Core 2 CPU X6800 @ 2.93GHz, old work ~1:30, new ~9:20
AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 Dual Core, old ~2:15, new ~14:30
Intel Xeon X5355 Quad Core @ 2.66GHz, old ~1:45, new ~10:35
Intel Xeon 3.40GHz (with HT), old ~4:50, New 31:30
Intel Xeon 3.06GHz (with HT), old ~5:10, New 20:00
The AMD seems like it's haveing problems with the new work units
With the excessive times it takes to run on my machines vs using S5R1,I might just have to quit Einstein@home and go back to doing dnetc(I really like einstein@home,but this just might break me away for good.)
in the former s5r1 wasnt any stuff like that. i guess the coders are working hard, to solve the debug problem, it is an "hierarchic search" of the pulsars, i imagine this like a tree (top->down) and the sorting and filtering of interesting signals would be dramaticly false, if some attribute is wrong, so they need some test results for this. but why didnt they do this on bruce´s cluster with different os ?
the result time is now at a point, where my old machines (w/o 24/7) needs much time, but i guess it is possible to return it in 2 weeks. the credit system from now on is more fair to other boinc.projects, so i can understand the correction so far. our rac falls down from hour to hour, but anyhow - it is science, not warcraft :D
I just tried something. This is on an IBM x360, four 1.9Ghz HT MP Xeons 512 L2 and 1024 L3 cache, 2GB of ECC DDR2100 ChipKill.
Turned off HT, watched the time to completion rise as it had been with HT on. I then set processor affinity for each WU and noticed that the rate of climb started to fall off, by 12sec per 1 minute of run time. These 4 WU's are between 4% and 15% done.
Anyone with an SMP box give it a try and see if you come up with the same kind of results.
I just tried something. This is on an IBM x360, four 1.9Ghz HT MP Xeons 512 L2 and 1024 L3 cache, 2GB of ECC DDR2100 ChipKill.
Turned off HT, watched the time to completion rise as it had been with HT on. I then set processor affinity for each WU and noticed that the rate of climb started to fall off, by 12sec per 1 minute of run time. These 4 WU's are between 4% and 15% done.
Anyone with an SMP box give it a try and see if you come up with the same kind of results.
I've noticed that the "time to completion" will rise for awhile, then drop, then rise.. The WU's that have yet started also get increasing "time to completion"...
I guess this is just boinc trying to figure out what the WU will really take and is adjusting the "Result duration correction factor"... On one box, it's gone from 33 with Sr1 to 55 with Sr2.
They do go up and down, a little. But, since setting affinity the trend in down, not up as it had been. One that I restarted after shutting HT off is at about 11%, and it's time is dropping. Also, the time to completion on the queued WU's is dropping, not increasing.
For anyone who's interested,
)
For anyone who's interested, here's the latest skinny on the S5R2 units on my machines.
The only machine that's finished one so far is my Pentium III 733 Coppermine machine. It took 41 hours, two minutes and ten seconds for an S5R2 with a claimed credit of 99.99. (Of course, I understand that that credit amount may be adjusted upwards.) My quorum partner isn't finished yet, but considering that he's running a fancy 2.8 GHz P-4, I would hope that he'll be finished soon.
For my other machines. . .
Pentium III 450 Katmai
Elapsed time so far: 52 hours 40 minutes
Progress so far: 77.477%
Duron 950
Elapsed time so far: 31 hours 39 minutes
Progress so far: 92.761%
Athlon64 3500+
Elapsed time so far: 3 hours 56 minutes
Progress so far: 18.536%
I hope this helps!
Well I've completed my first
)
Well I've completed my first of these.
http://einsteinathome.org/workunit/33125698
It took 6 times the length of a normal unit, 12 hrs versus 2 hrs, but gave only twice the credit.
Edit: and only now of course do I spot the comment about the wrong credit above.
Intel coreDuo T5500, 1GB RAM,
)
Intel coreDuo T5500, 1GB RAM, WinXP
My first S5R2 unit: crunch time almost 18hrs, credit: 258 (14.4 per hour)
average S5R1 unit: crunch time ~3hrs, credit ~54 (18.1 per hour)
RE: Well I've completed my
)
I finally got that 29 hour unit completed at aprox. 14 hours. Credit has changed on this from the first units with the same time. Can see differences here . Maybe they made adjustments but I still think the times are skewed compared to what they used to be. I can understand some adjustment but to cut it that far back seems to be excessive. 5 times as long as the old units and 3 times the credit?
Here's what I've got so
)
Here's what I've got so far
Intel Core 2 CPU X6800 @ 2.93GHz, old work ~1:30, new ~9:20
AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 Dual Core, old ~2:15, new ~14:30
Intel Xeon X5355 Quad Core @ 2.66GHz, old ~1:45, new ~10:35
Intel Xeon 3.40GHz (with HT), old ~4:50, New 31:30
Intel Xeon 3.06GHz (with HT), old ~5:10, New 20:00
The AMD seems like it's haveing problems with the new work units
With the excessive times it
)
With the excessive times it takes to run on my machines vs using S5R1,I might just have to quit Einstein@home and go back to doing dnetc(I really like einstein@home,but this just might break me away for good.)
hello all R2
)
hello all R2 crunchers,
take care of the results from the second run of these s5r2. i see in the results, that the analysis is still in a debug mode, something like
4555, 4556, 4557, 4558, 4559, 4560, 4561, 4562, 4563, 4564, 4565, 4566, 4567, 2007-04-18 11:39:23.2812 [debug]: set_checkpt(): bytes: 884442, file: 884442
in the former s5r1 wasnt any stuff like that. i guess the coders are working hard, to solve the debug problem, it is an "hierarchic search" of the pulsars, i imagine this like a tree (top->down) and the sorting and filtering of interesting signals would be dramaticly false, if some attribute is wrong, so they need some test results for this. but why didnt they do this on bruce´s cluster with different os ?
the result time is now at a point, where my old machines (w/o 24/7) needs much time, but i guess it is possible to return it in 2 weeks. the credit system from now on is more fair to other boinc.projects, so i can understand the correction so far. our rac falls down from hour to hour, but anyhow - it is science, not warcraft :D
cu crunching
I just tried something. This
)
I just tried something. This is on an IBM x360, four 1.9Ghz HT MP Xeons 512 L2 and 1024 L3 cache, 2GB of ECC DDR2100 ChipKill.
Turned off HT, watched the time to completion rise as it had been with HT on. I then set processor affinity for each WU and noticed that the rate of climb started to fall off, by 12sec per 1 minute of run time. These 4 WU's are between 4% and 15% done.
Anyone with an SMP box give it a try and see if you come up with the same kind of results.
RE: I just tried something.
)
I've noticed that the "time to completion" will rise for awhile, then drop, then rise.. The WU's that have yet started also get increasing "time to completion"...
I guess this is just boinc trying to figure out what the WU will really take and is adjusting the "Result duration correction factor"... On one box, it's gone from 33 with Sr1 to 55 with Sr2.
They do go up and down, a
)
They do go up and down, a little. But, since setting affinity the trend in down, not up as it had been. One that I restarted after shutting HT off is at about 11%, and it's time is dropping. Also, the time to completion on the queued WU's is dropping, not increasing.