Is Chilango's result (the only one I've seen linked so far) likely to be typical in terms of production run-time - i.e. 5.4 times S5RI run-time, in his estimation? (I stress production run-time, since it looks as if it still has a lot of debug output).
If so, you might like to consider whether 14 days is still the appropriate deadline: my Celeron, allowing for its current 50% share with SETI, would take about 17 days pro-rata. Not that the project should be run for the benefit of one superannuated cruncher, of course!
Our goal is run times in the range from 6 to 24 hours. Note that some optimization is expected in the future so the apps will get faster.
Our goal is run times in the range from 6 to 24 hours. Note that some optimization is expected in the future so the apps will get faster.
Cheers,
Bruce
In my opinion, you should consider either being out of work or reissuing some work and putting S5R2 into public beta, which quite frankly is what this appears like. As far as I'm aware, nothing was posted as beta this time around. I remember 4.24 being beta for a while.
I've got no opinion on whether S5R2 should be made a beta, but if/when another beta project is planned, I hope E@H will consider using the method employed by malariacontrol.net; that is, a Yes/No entry in project preferences:
Quote:
Run test applications?
This helps us develop applications, but may cause jobs to fail on your computer
No need for app_info files or yet another project to attach to. When the test has work, you get some WUs from it, otherwise you continue to crunch the main version; user needs to do nothing else.
I've got no opinion on whether S5R2 should be made a beta, but if/when another beta project is planned, I hope E@H will consider using the method employed by malariacontrol.net; that is, a Yes/No entry in project preferences:
Quote:
Run test applications?
This helps us develop applications, but may cause jobs to fail on your computer
No need for app_info files or yet another project to attach to. When the test has work, you get some WUs from it, otherwise you continue to crunch the main version; user needs to do nothing else.
Very slick, but just my opinion...
That is a good idea. Obviously the default should be "No".
As for S5R2, I was teetering on the edge of leaving my AMD system running this because of starting to see less scientific merit in SETI (not to mention they have plenty of users anyway), but I began to suspect a rushed application based on what was being said. It looks like that has come true.
Again, to Bruce, Bernd, Mike H., and anyone else who may be involved in / influential to the decision-making process, I seriously think consideration should be given to putting S5R2 into a 2-week (minimum) beta. I'm sure you've done the alpha testing (what is known as "unit testing" in my line of work), but it looks like you are taking an awful risk in having something that is this time-consuming and resource intensive (possible loss of dialup users?!?!) out there right now as a production project.
One of my machines takes ~150,000s to do the S5RI workunits. There are only 5 done at any one time on the status page. It tries real hard :(
Then again, it isn't as if it would be doing anything else were BOINC not on it.
Ah, that's nothing! Those are race cars. My slowest old timers take about 1/2 Megasecond to complete an S5RI.
But EAH is the only production project I run them on. Why you ask?
1.) It's one of the few projects that will support them.
2.) The 2/2 IR/Min Q guarantees they don't waste their time or my money crunching just so some yahoo might get credit granted little quicker (like that makes some kind of big difference even in competition scenarios). They may be slow, but I make every effort to ensure they get their work back on time if at all possible.
RE: Thanks to Bernd & Bruce
)
Our goal is run times in the range from 6 to 24 hours. Note that some optimization is expected in the future so the apps will get faster.
Cheers,
Bruce
Director, Einstein@Home
Holy crap. One of my
)
Holy crap.
One of my machines takes ~150,000s to do the S5RI workunits. There are only 5 done at any one time on the status page. It tries real hard :(
Then again, it isn't as if it would be doing anything else were BOINC not on it.
RE: Our goal is run times
)
In my opinion, you should consider either being out of work or reissuing some work and putting S5R2 into public beta, which quite frankly is what this appears like. As far as I'm aware, nothing was posted as beta this time around. I remember 4.24 being beta for a while.
Brian
Here's another finished one;
)
Here's another finished one; 82931739.
7.5 hours on C2D at 3Ghz.
I've got no opinion on whether S5R2 should be made a beta, but if/when another beta project is planned, I hope E@H will consider using the method employed by malariacontrol.net; that is, a Yes/No entry in project preferences:
No need for app_info files or yet another project to attach to. When the test has work, you get some WUs from it, otherwise you continue to crunch the main version; user needs to do nothing else.
Very slick, but just my opinion...
Ken
RE: .. I've got no opinion
)
Didn't know that stuff!
Yes, that is very slick indeed.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: I've got no opinion on
)
That is a good idea. Obviously the default should be "No".
As for S5R2, I was teetering on the edge of leaving my AMD system running this because of starting to see less scientific merit in SETI (not to mention they have plenty of users anyway), but I began to suspect a rushed application based on what was being said. It looks like that has come true.
Again, to Bruce, Bernd, Mike H., and anyone else who may be involved in / influential to the decision-making process, I seriously think consideration should be given to putting S5R2 into a 2-week (minimum) beta. I'm sure you've done the alpha testing (what is known as "unit testing" in my line of work), but it looks like you are taking an awful risk in having something that is this time-consuming and resource intensive (possible loss of dialup users?!?!) out there right now as a production project.
IMO and YMMV...
Brian
RE: Again, to Bruce, Bernd,
)
Thanks for your comments. To clarify: I am a volunteer moderator, so I'm not in any decision loop outside that limited role - thank Heavens! :-)
However I'm sure the development crew ( when suitably rested!! ) will thoughtfully consider any and all feedback.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: RE: Again, to Bruce,
)
There was a specific reason why I said "influential to"... :-) I thought you might be influential... Don't let it go to your head... ;-)
RE: There was a specific
)
LOL! :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: Holy crap. One of my
)
Ah, that's nothing! Those are race cars. My slowest old timers take about 1/2 Megasecond to complete an S5RI.
But EAH is the only production project I run them on. Why you ask?
1.) It's one of the few projects that will support them.
2.) The 2/2 IR/Min Q guarantees they don't waste their time or my money crunching just so some yahoo might get credit granted little quicker (like that makes some kind of big difference even in competition scenarios). They may be slow, but I make every effort to ensure they get their work back on time if at all possible.
Alinator