I have written app_infos for the Mac with TextEdit, what's wrong with saving the file (as long as you didn't modify it to break)?
Just a safety precaution for the inadequately clued. I’ve edited a couple of app_info files myself, but never while BOINC was running … and I have lost work (on S@h) due to erroneous entries.
BTW, Bernd, I have an even bigger speed-up to report with MacBookPro.
Running 4.12, it was returning a WU in 40,000 CPUs
With 4.28 it is completing in ~ 18,000 CPUs
Sadly it does not allow me to open the /app_info.xml/ file
DM
Bodley: What are you doing differently with your MBP? I have an MBP 2.16 and it is consistantly taking around 19,700 cpusec per WU running 4.28. 2 GB RAM, prefs set to never sleep, and dim screen after 5 minutes.
BTW, Bernd, I have an even bigger speed-up to report with MacBookPro.
Running 4.12, it was returning a WU in 40,000 CPUs
With 4.28 it is completing in ~ 18,000 CPUs
Sadly it does not allow me to open the /app_info.xml/ file
DM
Bodley: What are you doing differently with your MBP? I have an MBP 2.16 and it is consistantly taking around 19,700 cpusec per WU running 4.28. 2 GB RAM, prefs set to never sleep, and dim screen after 5 minutes.
C
I am not quite sure WHAT I am doing! Perhaps it is because I have NOTHING else running on the machine? It has settled to 18,500 cpus ... which is only 20 mins faster ... and about 1 credit more than yours.
I too am on "never sleep" and the display goes to sleep after 5 mins ... same as you. I also have a small room fan playing on it (I had to return my battery under the recall scheme!).
Other than that ... it might be in the WU batch? I am crunching a swatch of:
h1_1138.5_S5R1__1222_S5R1a_0 (and _1)
DM
Is the app_info.xml file ok now if I install 427 downloaded from the "Power User Apps" page suggested by BM's original message nr 46252?
My Mac is using 426 at the moment. Is it worth upgrading? How do I measure the effect? Be specific and not to technical please, I'm not used to the lingo here (yet).
Is the app_info.xml file ok now if I install 427 downloaded from the "Power User Apps" page suggested by BM's original message nr 46252?
Yes.
Quote:
My Mac is using 426 at the moment. Is it worth upgrading?
Yes. I think the 4.27 is roughly 20% faster than 4.26 (it only runs on G5, so we can't make it the "official", i.e. automatically downloaded App, though).
Quote:
How do I measure the effect? Be specific and not to technical please, I'm not used to the lingo here (yet).
You should note a reduction of the CPU times you need for a Task, i.e. simply crunching faster. The variation between Tasks from the same set (i.e. having names that start with the same letters and numbers) is about +-5%, so the change should be notable even in "worst case". If the time your machine spends for BOINC is rather constant, over a week you should also notice an increasing RAC for that machine.
I measured a consistent ~35% increase in credits/time.
If you're reading this while the recent units are still displayed, the official-app WUs are the two reported on 21 Oct 2006 17:31:34 UTC and on 20 Oct 2006 15:03:53 UTC. Average execution time 75,600 seconds (@ 113.22 credits).
The 4 WUs dated after that are using the 4.27 optimized app. Average execution time 55,200 seconds (@ 113.22 credits).
I measured a consistent ~35% increase in credits/time.
If you're reading this while the recent units are still displayed, the official-app WUs are the two reported on 21 Oct 2006 17:31:34 UTC and on 20 Oct 2006 15:03:53 UTC. Average execution time 75,600 seconds (@ 113.22 credits).
The 4 WUs dated after that are using the 4.27 optimized app. Average execution time 55,200 seconds (@ 113.22 credits).
This is a 1.8 GHz G5 iMac, with 1 GB RAM.
are you sure of 55,200 seconds of calculation credit 113 ?
on my G5 1,8Ghz with 4.27 app(and BOINC 5.4.9) i have WU of 27000 seconds of calculation that credit 113
BTW, Bernd, I have an even
)
BTW, Bernd, I have an even bigger speed-up to report with MacBookPro.
Running 4.12, it was returning a WU in 40,000 CPUs
With 4.28 it is completing in ~ 18,000 CPUs
Sadly it does not allow me to open the /app_info.xml/ file
DM
RE: Sadly it does not allow
)
Use TextEdit. Remember not to save the file when closing it.
RE: RE: Sadly it does not
)
TextEdit should be able to open the file. However the app_info wasn't buggy for 4.28, so I think I know which one you are using there.
I have written app_infos for the Mac with TextEdit, what's wrong with saving the file (as long as you didn't modify it to break)?
BM
BM
RE: I have written
)
Just a safety precaution for the inadequately clued. I’ve edited a couple of app_info files myself, but never while BOINC was running … and I have lost work (on S@h) due to erroneous entries.
RE: BTW, Bernd, I have an
)
Bodley: What are you doing differently with your MBP? I have an MBP 2.16 and it is consistantly taking around 19,700 cpusec per WU running 4.28. 2 GB RAM, prefs set to never sleep, and dim screen after 5 minutes.
C
Join Team MacNN
RE: RE: BTW, Bernd, I
)
I am not quite sure WHAT I am doing! Perhaps it is because I have NOTHING else running on the machine? It has settled to 18,500 cpus ... which is only 20 mins faster ... and about 1 credit more than yours.
I too am on "never sleep" and the display goes to sleep after 5 mins ... same as you. I also have a small room fan playing on it (I had to return my battery under the recall scheme!).
Other than that ... it might be in the WU batch? I am crunching a swatch of:
h1_1138.5_S5R1__1222_S5R1a_0 (and _1)
DM
Dual 2.7 G5, 10.4.8, BOINC
)
Dual 2.7 G5, 10.4.8, BOINC 5.4.9
Is the app_info.xml file ok now if I install 427 downloaded from the "Power User Apps" page suggested by BM's original message nr 46252?
My Mac is using 426 at the moment. Is it worth upgrading? How do I measure the effect? Be specific and not to technical please, I'm not used to the lingo here (yet).
RE: Is the app_info.xml
)
Yes.
Yes. I think the 4.27 is roughly 20% faster than 4.26 (it only runs on G5, so we can't make it the "official", i.e. automatically downloaded App, though).
You should note a reduction of the CPU times you need for a Task, i.e. simply crunching faster. The variation between Tasks from the same set (i.e. having names that start with the same letters and numbers) is about +-5%, so the change should be notable even in "worst case". If the time your machine spends for BOINC is rather constant, over a week you should also notice an increasing RAC for that machine.
BM
BM
I did a comparison on my G5
)
I did a comparison on my G5 between "official" current app and the 4.27 optimized app:
http://einsteinathome.org/host/416972/tasks
I measured a consistent ~35% increase in credits/time.
If you're reading this while the recent units are still displayed, the official-app WUs are the two reported on 21 Oct 2006 17:31:34 UTC and on 20 Oct 2006 15:03:53 UTC. Average execution time 75,600 seconds (@ 113.22 credits).
The 4 WUs dated after that are using the 4.27 optimized app. Average execution time 55,200 seconds (@ 113.22 credits).
This is a 1.8 GHz G5 iMac, with 1 GB RAM.
Are you a musician? Join the Musicians team.
Meet the Musicians
RE: I did a comparison on
)
are you sure of 55,200 seconds of calculation credit 113 ?
on my G5 1,8Ghz with 4.27 app(and BOINC 5.4.9) i have WU of 27000 seconds of calculation that credit 113