Windows S5R4 SSE2 power App 6.07 available

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 3,915
Credit: 193,256,930
RAC: 47,141
Topic 194063

A SSE2 App for Windows can be found on the Power User's Apps page.

For this App to run your CPU must support SSE2 instructions.

The science code and build process is the same as for the 6.05 and 6.06 Apps, so the speed shoul dbe exactly the same.

This App should fix a problem with checkpointing introduced in the 6.06 Beta App. If it turns out that this problem is fixed, I'll make this 6.07 into a full-featured S5R4 release candidate.

As for now: Only run this if you're sure of what you're doing

BM

BM

RandyC
RandyC
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 2,663
Credit: 108,316,738
RAC: 19,989

Windows S5R4 SSE2 power App 6.07 available

Quote:

A SSE2 App for Windows can be found on the Power User's Apps page.

For this App to run your CPU must support SSE2 instructions.

Successfully installed and has taken 3 good checkpoints so far on an X2 4600+ system.

Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.

John Clark
John Clark
Joined: 4 May 07
Posts: 1,087
Credit: 3,143,193
RAC: 0

RE: RE: A SSE2 App for

Message 88764 in response to message 88763

Quote:
Quote:

A SSE2 App for Windows can be found on the Power User's Apps page.

For this App to run your CPU must support SSE2 instructions.

Successfully installed and has taken 3 good checkpoints so far on an X2 4600+ system.

Is it any different to the 6.05 power client?

Shih-Tzu are clever, cuddly, playful and rule!! Jack Russell are feisty!

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 3,915
Credit: 193,256,930
RAC: 47,141

RE: RE: RE: A SSE2 App

Message 88765 in response to message 88764

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

A SSE2 App for Windows can be found on the Power User's Apps page.

For this App to run your CPU must support SSE2 instructions.

Successfully installed and has taken 3 good checkpoints so far on an X2 4600+ system.

Is it any different to the 6.05 power client?

Not faster, but two bugs should be fixed: the "crash after done" and the "could not rename".

BM

BM

John Clark
John Clark
Joined: 4 May 07
Posts: 1,087
Credit: 3,143,193
RAC: 0

Thanks I have yet to

Thanks

I have yet to encounter either of the issues you mentioned.

Shih-Tzu are clever, cuddly, playful and rule!! Jack Russell are feisty!

Gary Roberts
Gary Roberts
Moderator
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 5,115
Credit: 36,577,697,119
RAC: 37,815,736

RE: This App should fix a

Quote:
This App should fix a problem with checkpointing introduced in the 6.06 Beta App. If it turns out that this problem is fixed, I'll make this 6.07 into a full-featured S5R4 release candidate.

This is the output for a task (run on a Q6600) that was started with app version 6.05 and finished off with the new 6.07. As you can see, there is no evidence of any problem with checkpointing.

I'm ready to test the SSE version as soon as you're ready to release it.

Cheers,
Gary.

Gary Roberts
Gary Roberts
Moderator
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 5,115
Credit: 36,577,697,119
RAC: 37,815,736

RE: A SSE2 App for Windows

Quote:

A SSE2 App for Windows ....

This App should fix a problem with checkpointing introduced in the 6.06 Beta App. If it turns out that this problem is fixed, I'll make this 6.07 into a full-featured S5R4 release candidate.

I've gone into work and set up a couple of Windows/SSE2 machines (Northwood P4s) with the 6.07 SSE2 app. Both were running 6.05 previously. The upgrading was uneventful and both are writing new checkpoints without issue. Looks to me like the problem is fixed. There are a number of Windows/SSE hosts (Athlon XPs and Tualatin PIIIs) now waiting anxiously in the wings .... :-).

Cheers,
Gary.

Byron S Goodgame
Byron S Goodgame
Joined: 16 Jan 06
Posts: 187
Credit: 56,581
RAC: 0

RE: The upgrading was

Message 88769 in response to message 88768

Quote:
The upgrading was uneventful and both are writing new checkpoints without issue. Looks to me like the problem is fixed.

Same here, checkpoints seem to be working well. I'm curious how many tests it will take for the "crash after done". I ran quite a few of the 605 before I had the one instance of it. From what I've seen, it doesn't seem to be a constant problem, so I'm assuming it will take more tests to determine if it's still an issue.

Winterknight
Winterknight
Joined: 4 Jun 05
Posts: 482
Credit: 89,434,074
RAC: 214,000

Is it me or is 6.07 slow. I

Is it me or is 6.07 slow.
I thought the first one partially completed with 6.07 could have been due to lack of checkpoints in 6.06.
But next one is at 18.5% after 2:10 which if linear progression is assumed would be over 11 hr to completion, 6.05 and 6.06 were completed at about 6:15 +/- a bit.
I'm at about bottom of trough.

edit] Just thought I would mention Seti and Seti Beta tasks are progressing as normal.

Gary Roberts
Gary Roberts
Moderator
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 5,115
Credit: 36,577,697,119
RAC: 37,815,736

RE: Is it me or is 6.07

Message 88771 in response to message 88770

Quote:
Is it me or is 6.07 slow.
I thought the first one partially completed with 6.07 could have been due to lack of checkpoints in 6.06.

Yes, your first one which was started with 6.06 and completed with 6.07 essentially lost all record of the 6.06 crunching when you shut it down to make the switch to 6.07. You could have avoided the loss by deleting the offending checkpoint (.cpt file in the relevant slots directory) and watching for a new one to be written. Doing the switch to 6.07 immediately after this would have avoided the loss. I've posted about what happens if you lose power or shut down your host over in the 6.06 thread.

Quote:
But next one is at 18.5% after 2:10 which if linear progression is assumed would be over 11 hr to completion, 6.05 and 6.06 were completed at about 6:15 +/- a bit.
I'm at about bottom of trough.

I don't think there is any real difference between 6.07 and 6.06 as far as crunching speed on Q6600 hosts is concerned. However, I have 6 Q6600s, 5 on Linux and 1 on Windows which do show the odd dramatic slowdown occasionally for just the odd task here and there. I've been recording crunchtimes on all these hosts for a while now so I'll have a look for some examples and post again later when I find some. I suspect you may be seeing the same effect. I posted about this previously so I'll dig out the link to that as well.

Cheers,
Gary.

Byron S Goodgame
Byron S Goodgame
Joined: 16 Jan 06
Posts: 187
Credit: 56,581
RAC: 0

RE: You could have avoided

Message 88772 in response to message 88771

Quote:
You could have avoided the loss by deleting the offending checkpoint (.cpt file in the relevant slots directory) and watching for a new one to be written. Doing the switch to 6.07 immediately after this would have avoided the loss. I've posted about what happens if you lose power or shut down your host over in the 6.06 thread.


I read your thread and considered doing it (wish I had now) since I was switching task between a Seti MB and the Einstein 6.06 on my AMD XP. BTW thanks for that tip.

I thought since I'd set Boinc to run with the app in memory while suspended I would be ok, but I guess it decided it didn't like the switching and re-started from 0.00%. Deleting the .cpt file now though, and guess I'll have to for any other test I run with the 6.06 on that pc. I'm starting to question if waiting for a version of 6.07 with SSE might be the one I should wait to test on further.

Quote:
Is it me or is 6.07 slow.


I don't notice any difference in the one 6.07 I'm doing right now, but I did notice one of the 6.06 I completed did show a longer crunch time than I'd ever seen with the 6.05

Comment viewing options

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