Windows S5R2/S5R3 App 4.40 available for Beta Test

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

RE: ...So if you check what

Message 72885 in response to message 72884

Quote:

...So if you check what application is _really_ running at run time, for example, using Windows Task Manager, you'll see einstein_S5R2_4.40_windows_intelx86.exe.

...Lastly, if you actually look for executables in the project directory, you'll find the 4.40 actually there, and the 4.38 gone, so that makes it really clear which one is running your work.


Thanks! The switchover worked perfectly on my home machine! I did the two checks you mention above, and 4.40 is indeed doing the work. Thank you very much for the great explanation!

Stick
Stick
Joined: 24 Feb 05
Posts: 790
Credit: 3,476,194
RAC: 5,247

RE: I started a new result

Message 72886 in response to message 72876

Quote:
I started a new result with v4.40 about an hour ago and it seems to be running fine. But, it is "way too early" for me to tell anything about "speed".

The above result has now run about 13.4 hours and is 16.7% complete. That extrapolates to about 80 hours. If it actually takes that long, it will be about 3 hours slower than my last v4.38 result on this P4 Prescott. The WU's appear to be similar, but I guess this new one could turn out to be a bigger "Monster" than the first.

Dave Burbank
Dave Burbank
Joined: 30 Jan 06
Posts: 275
Credit: 1,548,376
RAC: 0

http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/

http://einsteinathome.org/task/86772907
http://einsteinathome.org/task/86771835
http://einsteinathome.org/task/86762576
http://einsteinathome.org/task/86751445

These 4 monster WU's were completed with 4.40, with anywhere form 10-70% of the WU crunched with the official 4.38 app.

2 WU's have validated while the other 2 are waiting on wingmen.

Crunch time appears to be a bit shorter, but I'll need more results to complete to be certain. The first 100% 4.40 WU will be complete in an hour and a half and I'll report back then.

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

Dave Burbank
Dave Burbank
Joined: 30 Jan 06
Posts: 275
Credit: 1,548,376
RAC: 0

http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/

Message 72888 in response to message 72887

http://einsteinathome.org/task/86774658

100% crunched with 4.40, still pending.
Still looks to be a bit faster than 4.38, but slower than 4.33.

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

archae86
archae86
Joined: 6 Dec 05
Posts: 2,841
Credit: 3,365,877,058
RAC: 2,660,050

I have "pure results" from a

I have "pure results" from a Core 2 Duo E6600

and from a Core 2 Quad Q6600

The Quad result appears to come right in sequence from ones for which the 4.33 CPU time was about 87,000 CPU seconds, and the 4.38 time about 98,900. So the time of 97688 is a step back toward faster, but a pretty small step.

The Duo result is slightly less closely related to preceding work, but the credit claim is nearly identical. Assuming that work is well correlated with credit claim, then we have ones for which the 4.33 CPU time was about 57,000 CPU seconds, and the 4.38 time about 65,180. So the time of 64259 is also a small step in the good direction.

I've also reported in a few mixed-application results, with no self-reported trouble. No validations, either.

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

RE: I have "pure results"

Message 72890 in response to message 72889

Quote:

I have "pure results" from a Core 2 Duo E6600

and from a Core 2 Quad Q6600

The Quad result appears to come right in sequence from ones for which the 4.33 CPU time was about 87,000 CPU seconds, and the 4.38 time about 98,900. So the time of 97688 is a step back toward faster, but a pretty small step.

The Duo result is slightly less closely related to preceding work, but the credit claim is nearly identical. Assuming that work is well correlated with credit claim, then we have ones for which the 4.33 CPU time was about 57,000 CPU seconds, and the 4.38 time about 65,180. So the time of 64259 is also a small step in the good direction.

I've also reported in a few mixed-application results, with no self-reported trouble. No validations, either.


Nice report!

Mine are running smoothly as well, but none have yet completed.

And I assume these "monster" workunits are all approximately the same size? So we are comparing apples to apples, so to speak, in terms of run times?

archae86
archae86
Joined: 6 Dec 05
Posts: 2,841
Credit: 3,365,877,058
RAC: 2,660,050

RE: And I assume these

Message 72891 in response to message 72890

Quote:
And I assume these "monster" workunits are all approximately the same size? So we are comparing apples to apples, so to speak, in terms of run times?


in comparing 4.33|4.38|4.40, yes, but not in comparing the Quad to the Duo.

The Duo has had a credit range from 440.01 to 440.58 over the past three weeks, while the Quad has chewed on big ones since the day I turned it on in late July, covering a range from 655.53 to 655.56 in recent weeks.

That was especially annoying for a while, as the Quad apparently represented more than half the computing power of hosts getting assigned results from that series, so for days at a time it would get the _0 result for each sequential WU. You can imagine how long I waited for validation. As we near the end of S5R2, more and more hosts are getting assigned work from this series. At least half the time, I don't get the _0 result now.

Fermat
Fermat
Joined: 22 Nov 05
Posts: 44
Credit: 1,734,217
RAC: 0

My wu has been processing for

My wu has been processing for about 30 hrs, the last 8hrs with 4.40. I'd have thought that 8 hrs was time enough for the time estimate to have settled down, but it seems to be projecting 2 steps forward and 1 back. The seconds part of the 'to completion' column on the Tasks tab typically goes something like 24, 25, 26, 18, 19, 20, 13, 14, 15, 10, 11, .....
Weird.

Mike

Bikeman (Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein)
Bikeman (Heinz-...
Moderator
Joined: 28 Aug 06
Posts: 3,516
Credit: 457,904,257
RAC: 84,638

RE: My wu has been

Message 72893 in response to message 72892

Quote:
My wu has been processing for about 30 hrs, the last 8hrs with 4.40. I'd have thought that 8 hrs was time enough for the time estimate to have settled down, but it seems to be projecting 2 steps forward and 1 back. The seconds part of the 'to completion' column on the Tasks tab typically goes something like 24, 25, 26, 18, 19, 20, 13, 14, 15, 10, 11, .....
Weird.

This is quite normal. The GUI is updated once per second, but the app will report progress more typically about (roughly) every 2-4 seconds depending on you PCs speed. When an update hapens without a progress detected, the time will get up, after next progress "click" it will get down.

CU

H-BE

Fermat
Fermat
Joined: 22 Nov 05
Posts: 44
Credit: 1,734,217
RAC: 0

RE: This is quite normal.

Message 72894 in response to message 72893

Quote:


This is quite normal. The GUI is updated once per second, but the app will report progress more typically about (roughly) every 2-4 seconds depending on you PCs speed. When an update hapens without a progress detected, the time will get up, after next progress "click" it will get down.

CU

H-BE

Thanks for the info Bikeman. I hadn't noticed that before.

Mike

Comment viewing options

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