Windows S5R3 App 4.25 available for Beta Test

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

RE: I think we can

Message 77339 in response to message 77337

Quote:
I think we can reasonably infer that this graph suggests the 4.25 ap requires between 5% and 10% more CPU time on my host than the 4.15 ap.

Here's what I'm wondering... Bernd's notes say:

Quote:

* no additional CPU load when not showing graphics

It has also been stated that EAH_NO_GRAPHICS has no effect now.

Both of those points infer that additional CPU load is encountered when the graphics are now being displayed.

So, did you have EAH_NO_GRAPHICS previously? If so, and you have BOINC set up as your screensaver, what about runtimes if the screensaver is disabled?

archae86
archae86
Joined: 6 Dec 05
Posts: 2,739
Credit: 2,883,590,200
RAC: 3,364,268

RE: So, did you have

Message 77340 in response to message 77339

Quote:
So, did you have EAH_NO_GRAPHICS previously? If so, and you have BOINC set up as your screensaver, what about runtimes if the screensaver is disabled?


I do still have an EAH_NO_GRAPHICS file in my BOINC directory.

I don't use a BOINC-related screensaver.

I believe the EAH_NO_GRAPHICS file had no impact in my execution times.

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

RE: RE: So, did you have

Message 77341 in response to message 77340

Quote:
Quote:
So, did you have EAH_NO_GRAPHICS previously? If so, and you have BOINC set up as your screensaver, what about runtimes if the screensaver is disabled?

I do still have an EAH_NO_GRAPHICS file in my BOINC directory.

I don't use a BOINC-related screensaver.

I believe the EAH_NO_GRAPHICS file had no impact in my execution times.

OK... So far, my times are faster, but like I said, I have no idea where I was in the previous runtime variation and where I'm at for these results...

One curiosity is that every system that has been reported as seeming slower so far have been Pentium M / Core architecture. It would be helpful if there were reports of similar slowdowns on Pentium 4 and AMD...

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

RE: RE: RE: So, did you

Message 77342 in response to message 77341

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, did you have EAH_NO_GRAPHICS previously? If so, and you have BOINC set up as your screensaver, what about runtimes if the screensaver is disabled?

I do still have an EAH_NO_GRAPHICS file in my BOINC directory.

I don't use a BOINC-related screensaver.

I believe the EAH_NO_GRAPHICS file had no impact in my execution times.

OK... So far, my times are faster, but like I said, I have no idea where I was in the previous runtime variation and where I'm at for these results...

One curiosity is that every system that has been reported as seeming slower so far have been Pentium M / Core architecture. It would be helpful if there were reports of similar slowdowns on Pentium 4 and AMD...

Is it still believed that the "0" result out of the set is at the maximum runtime? From your graph, it appears that way. If so, I have h1_0712.40_S5R2__0_S5R3a as the next result in my queue after the one I'm currently working on, which is h1_0712.35_S5R2__31_S5R3a. If that 0 sequence number comes in at around or under what I had for h1_0712.35_S5R2__104_S5R3a_1 (45425.625), then that should be a good indicator...

Akos Fekete
Akos Fekete
Joined: 13 Nov 05
Posts: 560
Credit: 4,510,638
RAC: 0

RE: One curiosity is that

Message 77343 in response to message 77341

Quote:
One curiosity is that every system that has been reported as seeming slower so far have been Pentium M / Core architecture. It would be helpful if there were reports of similar slowdowns on Pentium 4 and AMD...

The 4.25 is 7% slower than 4.15 on K8 (Palermo).
It was checked with the same WU.

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

RE: RE: One curiosity is

Message 77344 in response to message 77343

Quote:
Quote:
One curiosity is that every system that has been reported as seeming slower so far have been Pentium M / Core architecture. It would be helpful if there were reports of similar slowdowns on Pentium 4 and AMD...

The 4.25 is 7% slower than 4.15 on K8 (Palermo).
It was checked with the same WU.

OK, so why did you want this "fast" code to be in there? Does it actually end up producing more accuracy? If so, then perhaps that is a good tradeoff. If not, then I'd suggest removing it if it can't be optimized any better...

Edit: This is assuming that the current "slowdown" is attributable to the linear sin/cos code. Could I call it the tangent code then, as sin/cos=tan? (oh, the math humor!)...

Akos Fekete
Akos Fekete
Joined: 13 Nov 05
Posts: 560
Credit: 4,510,638
RAC: 0

RE: OK, so why did you want

Message 77345 in response to message 77344

Quote:
OK, so why did you want this "fast" code to be in there?


I did not know that how "fast" is this application.
But I'm sure the linear sin/cos is twice as fast as quadratic code.

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

RE: RE: OK, so why did

Message 77346 in response to message 77345

Quote:
Quote:
OK, so why did you want this "fast" code to be in there?

I did not know that how "fast" is this application.
But I'm sure the linear sin/cos is twice as fast as quadratic code.

OK, so where's the slowdown coming from?

josep
josep
Joined: 9 Mar 05
Posts: 63
Credit: 1,156,542
RAC: 0

RE: OK, so why did you

Message 77347 in response to message 77344

Quote:

OK, so why did you want this "fast" code to be in there?

Bernd has already explained the problem here

The good news is that, after S5R2 and four months of S5R3 searching for bugs in the code, we are seeing now the first beta apps that are primary looking for faster code. And I'm sure we will see much faster apps soon...

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

RE: RE: OK, so why did

Message 77348 in response to message 77347

Quote:
Quote:

OK, so why did you want this "fast" code to be in there?

Bernd has already explained the problem here

I had already seen that posting, but he was talking about 4.24. 4.24 is the GNU/Linux application and I believe is compiled completely in GCC. To know if that is the same issue for the Windows app, the involvement of GCC in the compilation process needs to be known. There have been some statements that lead me to believe that the Windows app is a two-stage compilation, part in GCC and the other part in Microsoft Visual C++. If that's true, then the GCC portion would potentially still be contributing to the issue just like it is for the Linux 4.24 app. If 4.25 is compiled totally with MSVC++ and the same issue exists as does with the GCC compiled Linux application, then that would indicate that both compilers are not liking the implementation...

Quote:

The good news is that, after S5R2 and four months of S5R3 searching for bugs in the code, we are seeing now the first beta apps that are primary looking for faster code. And I'm sure we will see much faster apps soon...

This beta is not primarily searching for faster code. The main purpose of the beta is to break out the graphics from the main application to squash the "bug" with BOINC and/or the science application when it ran out of stack space within the OS while displaying graphics. If the graphics bomb, it should no longer take out the science application along with it...

Comment viewing options

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