I've reverted to production 4.33, and plan to continue running at the same reduced voltage margins for up to a week.
This plan got truncated when the transition of production to 4.38 cut short the reduced-voltage 4.33 leg of the experiment.
The Core 2 Duo E6600 ran four 440-credit 4.33 results, or about 31 hours, without trouble. The Core 2 Quad Q6600 ran seven 656-credit results or a little under two days, also without trouble.
I'm almost sure the Duo would have thrown an error by now as things were in April. Possibly a revision on the way to 4.33 happened to remove this effect. For that matter a Windows Update to XP, or some other change to my machines or their software loads, may be at hand.
It features even more code to track some of the remaining problems. For now we are also distributing the PDB file (containing debugging information) again with the beta package.
This App is the first that has been built with VS2005. I hope that this helps with some of the library problems we see. I don't yet know how this affects the performance.
The voltage reduction tests archae86 did on his E6600 and Q6600 intrigued me to try it on my own Q6600.
Back in May when I overclocked my quad to 3.2GHz I found it to run 8h stable (Prime95/Orthos) at 1.400V, but when I ran E@H a few WU's errored out within the first few days. I ran Orthos again and it failed just under 9h, I bumped the voltage up to 1.4125V and haven't had a single stability issue since in both Linux and XP. I regularly run 4 WU's and play Battlefield 2 at the same time and she's rock solid.
Just after the last 4 WU's started (in Linux) I rebooted at 1.400V to see if they'd complete at a lower voltage. So far so good. They've now completed and the next 4 have begun without issue.
I'll run a 1.400V for the next few days to test the XP and Linux app's and report on my findings.
Either the app's aren't as 'hard' on the CPU's, or somehow my hardware has 'settled' ad requires less voltage. I'm hoping for the latter. ;-)
There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman
The voltage reduction tests archae86 did on his E6600 and Q6600 intrigued me to try it on my own Q6600.
Either the app's aren't as 'hard' on the CPU's, or somehow my hardware has 'settled' ad requires less voltage. I'm hoping for the latter. ;-)
130 days ago I posted some observations during the bringup of the same E6600 I mentioned below in previous voltage thread
I had forgotten, but that posting documents a considerable increase in the voltage this chip required in order to work reliably at 3.006 GHz for Einstein S5R2 over that required for SETI and Einstein S5RI. So there is precedent for a version change effect of this type.
As that thread generated no contributions of the type requested, I stopped posting--but I recall that at decreasing frequency I continued getting the same type of error as I continued to raise voltage, finally settling at 1.40 as two increments above the last one where I saw this error.
I WAS WONDERING WHY IT TAKES "EINSTEIN" SO LONG TO CREDIT THE WORK I TURN IN ?
I ALWAYS TURN IT IN BEFORE THE DEADLINE. (EX. THE LAST FILE WAS A 70 HR. JOB DUE ON 09/14, HOWEVER I FINISHED AND SUBMITTED THE DATA ON 09/03)
COULD IT BE MY "WINGMAN" HAS CRASHED AND I AM WITHOUT SOMEONE TO COMPARE THE RESULTS TO?
ANYWAY THE 460 CREDITS ARE PENDING, I LIKE TO HAVE THE CREDIT ISSUED AND THE NEXT FILE READY TO GO. MAYBE WORK ON A PROGRAM THAT AFTER MEETING CERTAIN PARAMETERS THE CREDITS ARE ISSUED. IF FOR SOMEREASON IT TURNS OUT THAT THE WORK WAS FLAWED, DEDUCT THE POINTS.
WOULD SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO HAVE MY BOINC-STATS APPEAR WHEN I POST ? I TRIED TO ADD THE COMMAND LINE (USER STATS/BOINCSTATS) HOWEVER ONLY THE COMMAND APPEARS... HMMM ?
WOULD SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO HAVE MY BOINC-STATS APPEAR WHEN I POST ? I TRIED TO ADD THE COMMAND LINE (USER STATS/BOINCSTATS) HOWEVER ONLY THE COMMAND APPEARS... HMMM ?
You need to use BBCODE to display images in your signature.
Go to Your Account; select Edit Message Board Preferences. Update the signature box (near the bottom of the page) and add the url for your stats.
Be sure to prefix it with {img} <- replace the { } with [ ], and end it with {/img} <- replace the { } with [ ].
Click update and you should be good.
[edit] One note on nettiquette...using ALL-CAPS is considered shouting at readers and is frowned upon.
Just be patient, your credit will be issued in due time. Your wingman has until 15 SEP 2007 to return his result. If he crashes, the WU will be reissued.
Quote:
I WAS WONDERING WHY IT TAKES "EINSTEIN" SO LONG TO CREDIT THE WORK I TURN IN ?
I ALWAYS TURN IT IN BEFORE THE DEADLINE. (EX. THE LAST FILE WAS A 70 HR. JOB DUE ON 09/14, HOWEVER I FINISHED AND SUBMITTED THE DATA ON 09/03)
COULD IT BE MY "WINGMAN" HAS CRASHED AND I AM WITHOUT SOMEONE TO COMPARE THE RESULTS TO?
ANYWAY THE 460 CREDITS ARE PENDING, I LIKE TO HAVE THE CREDIT ISSUED AND THE NEXT FILE READY TO GO. MAYBE WORK ON A PROGRAM THAT AFTER MEETING CERTAIN PARAMETERS THE CREDITS ARE ISSUED. IF FOR SOMEREASON IT TURNS OUT THAT THE WORK WAS FLAWED, DEDUCT THE POINTS.
RE: I've reverted to
)
This plan got truncated when the transition of production to 4.38 cut short the reduced-voltage 4.33 leg of the experiment.
The Core 2 Duo E6600 ran four 440-credit 4.33 results, or about 31 hours, without trouble. The Core 2 Quad Q6600 ran seven 656-credit results or a little under two days, also without trouble.
I'm almost sure the Duo would have thrown an error by now as things were in April. Possibly a revision on the way to 4.33 happened to remove this effect. For that matter a Windows Update to XP, or some other change to my machines or their software loads, may be at hand.
Null experiment, in any case.
Hi, This wu has finished
)
Hi,
This wu has finished without trouble.
http://einsteinathome.org/task/86649199
Cheers,
Igor
All is well, just ran 4 units
)
All is well, just ran 4 units as a test. http://einsteinathome.org/host/668232
The voltage reduction tests
)
The voltage reduction tests archae86 did on his E6600 and Q6600 intrigued me to try it on my own Q6600.
Back in May when I overclocked my quad to 3.2GHz I found it to run 8h stable (Prime95/Orthos) at 1.400V, but when I ran E@H a few WU's errored out within the first few days. I ran Orthos again and it failed just under 9h, I bumped the voltage up to 1.4125V and haven't had a single stability issue since in both Linux and XP. I regularly run 4 WU's and play Battlefield 2 at the same time and she's rock solid.
Just after the last 4 WU's started (in Linux) I rebooted at 1.400V to see if they'd complete at a lower voltage. So far so good. They've now completed and the next 4 have begun without issue.
I'll run a 1.400V for the next few days to test the XP and Linux app's and report on my findings.
Either the app's aren't as 'hard' on the CPU's, or somehow my hardware has 'settled' ad requires less voltage. I'm hoping for the latter. ;-)
There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman
RE: The voltage reduction
)
130 days ago I posted some observations during the bringup of the same E6600 I mentioned below in previous voltage thread
I had forgotten, but that posting documents a considerable increase in the voltage this chip required in order to work reliably at 3.006 GHz for Einstein S5R2 over that required for SETI and Einstein S5RI. So there is precedent for a version change effect of this type.
As that thread generated no contributions of the type requested, I stopped posting--but I recall that at decreasing frequency I continued getting the same type of error as I continued to raise voltage, finally settling at 1.40 as two increments above the last one where I saw this error.
Just had a WU error out with
)
Just had a WU error out with 4.38 on this machine.
Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.
I WAS WONDERING WHY IT TAKES
)
I WAS WONDERING WHY IT TAKES "EINSTEIN" SO LONG TO CREDIT THE WORK I TURN IN ?
I ALWAYS TURN IT IN BEFORE THE DEADLINE. (EX. THE LAST FILE WAS A 70 HR. JOB DUE ON 09/14, HOWEVER I FINISHED AND SUBMITTED THE DATA ON 09/03)
COULD IT BE MY "WINGMAN" HAS CRASHED AND I AM WITHOUT SOMEONE TO COMPARE THE RESULTS TO?
ANYWAY THE 460 CREDITS ARE PENDING, I LIKE TO HAVE THE CREDIT ISSUED AND THE NEXT FILE READY TO GO. MAYBE WORK ON A PROGRAM THAT AFTER MEETING CERTAIN PARAMETERS THE CREDITS ARE ISSUED. IF FOR SOMEREASON IT TURNS OUT THAT THE WORK WAS FLAWED, DEDUCT THE POINTS.
ANYWAY, GOOD LUCK RYAN, ELLA AND BOBBY
http://www.boincstats.com/signature/user_239796.gif
WOULD SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO
)
WOULD SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO HAVE MY BOINC-STATS APPEAR WHEN I POST ? I TRIED TO ADD THE COMMAND LINE (USER STATS/BOINCSTATS) HOWEVER ONLY THE COMMAND APPEARS... HMMM ?
http://www.boincstats.com/signature/user_239796.gif
RE: WOULD SOMEONE TELL ME
)
You need to use BBCODE to display images in your signature.
Go to Your Account; select Edit Message Board Preferences. Update the signature box (near the bottom of the page) and add the url for your stats.
Be sure to prefix it with {img} <- replace the { } with [ ], and end it with {/img} <- replace the { } with [ ].
Click update and you should be good.
[edit] One note on nettiquette...using ALL-CAPS is considered shouting at readers and is frowned upon.
Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.
Just be patient, your credit
)
Just be patient, your credit will be issued in due time. Your wingman has until 15 SEP 2007 to return his result. If he crashes, the WU will be reissued.
Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.