SPARC/Solaris and workunit processing time.

wumpus
wumpus
Joined: 17 Feb 05
Posts: 50
Credit: 7,809,074
RAC: 0
Topic 190763

Can you compare workunit processing time between workstations with any meaning or do they vary greatly. I seem to be averaging about 60000 per workunit. Another user seems to be about 82000. I am on a Sunblade 100 500Mhz Ultrasparc IIe 2Gb ram and he is on a Sunfire V250 1.2 Ghz Ultrasparc IIIi. I would expect I would have the longer processing times.

Wurgl (speak^Wcrunching for Special: Off-Topic)
Wurgl (speak^Wc...
Joined: 11 Feb 05
Posts: 321
Credit: 140,550,008
RAC: 0

SPARC/Solaris and workunit processing time.

Quote:
Can you compare workunit processing time between workstations with any meaning or do they vary greatly. I seem to be averaging about 60000 per workunit. Another user seems to be about 82000. I am on a Sunblade 100 500Mhz Ultrasparc IIe 2Gb ram and he is on a Sunfire V250 1.2 Ghz Ultrasparc IIIi. I would expect I would have the longer processing times.

The length of WU differs. On the same machine I had some which took 1.400 seconds and now I get some using 14.000 seconds. You can compare boxes only, when they are working on the same WU.

[AF>ALSACE>EDLS] Phil68
[AF>ALSACE>EDLS...
Joined: 30 Dec 05
Posts: 32
Credit: 39,832
RAC: 0

yes, but if i always get only

yes, but if i always get only the half of my "claimed credit" doesn't it show that my box is to slow ??? :-)

16925481 4315576 4 Feb 2006 20:58:40 UTC 5 Feb 2006 23:34:10 UTC Over Success Done 81,918.52 81.31 46.56
16925475 4315574 4 Feb 2006 20:57:38 UTC 5 Feb 2006 23:35:12 UTC Over Success Done 82,051.10 81.44 45.73
16846560 4290769 3 Feb 2006 19:24:29 UTC 4 Feb 2006 20:58:40 UTC Over Success Done 82,097.69 81.48 45.79
16846555 4290768 2 Feb 2006 19:12:40 UTC 4 Feb 2006 19:20:34 UTC Over Success Done 82,226.80 81.61 47.09

wumpus
wumpus
Joined: 17 Feb 05
Posts: 50
Credit: 7,809,074
RAC: 0

How credit is given is

How credit is given is explained here
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/credit.php

[AF>ALSACE>EDLS] Phil68
[AF>ALSACE>EDLS...
Joined: 30 Dec 05
Posts: 32
Credit: 39,832
RAC: 0

yes.. thank you... you are

yes.. thank you... you are everywhere to help :-)
but if my "claimed credit" is so high, it is certainly because of something wrong on my system, isn't it ?

Michael Roycraft
Michael Roycraft
Joined: 10 Mar 05
Posts: 846
Credit: 157,718
RAC: 0

RE: yes.. thank you... you

Message 25137 in response to message 25136

Quote:
yes.. thank you... you are everywhere to help :-)
but if my "claimed credit" is so high, it is certainly because of something wrong on my system, isn't it ?

[AF>...,

Your claim could be high for at least a couple of reasons.
1) The benchmarks code just happens to favor your processor/machine configuration, or..
2) Your machine has now a process running that was not in-process when the benchmarking was done, and so could not be accounted for in benching, and that is processor-intensive enough to slow your machine considerably, for example a screensaver.

Michael

microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK

[AF>ALSACE>EDLS] Phil68
[AF>ALSACE>EDLS...
Joined: 30 Dec 05
Posts: 32
Credit: 39,832
RAC: 0

RE: RE: yes.. thank

Message 25138 in response to message 25137

Quote:
Quote:
yes.. thank you... you are everywhere to help :-)
but if my "claimed credit" is so high, it is certainly because of something wrong on my system, isn't it ?

[AF>...,

Your claim could be high for at least a couple of reasons.
1) The benchmarks code just happens to favor your processor/machine configuration, or..
2) Your machine has now a process running that was not in-process when the benchmarking was done, and so could not be accounted for in benching, and that is processor-intensive enough to slow your machine considerably, for example a screensaver.

Michael

now, i think, it's due to the computation-way from einstein...
because if i compare with the 2 other projects i run on this box... einstein is the only one where i claim the double....

an example with sztaki
1655586 7028 9 Mar 2006 7:16:26 UTC 9 Mar 2006 9:01:59 UTC Over Success Done 1,086.50 1.58 1.58
1655587 5615 9 Mar 2006 7:15:08 UTC 9 Mar 2006 7:50:56 UTC Over Success Done 887.56 2.14 1.58
1655588 8426 9 Mar 2006 7:14:24 UTC 9 Mar 2006 9:59:02 UTC Over Success Done 1,192.25 2.16 1.58
--> 1655589 11445 9 Mar 2006 7:15:04 UTC 9 Mar 2006 7:44:58 UTC Over Success Done 816.84 0.83 1.58

and another with seti
--> 253990747 2187475 8 Mar 2006 9:54:20 UTC 10 Mar 2006 14:09:58 UTC Over Success Done 11,223.52 11.41 31.45
253990748 1858354 8 Mar 2006 9:54:20 UTC 8 Mar 2006 21:44:37 UTC Over Success Done 42,246.00 46.68 31.45
253990749 1909603 8 Mar 2006 9:54:20 UTC 8 Mar 2006 17:04:15 UTC Over Success Done 11,997.53 19.86 31.45
253990750 1791368 8 Mar 2006 9:54:20 UTC 9 Mar 2006 7:09:08 UTC Over Success Done 19,493.59 31.45 31.45

Comment viewing options

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