I haven't seen S5R2 being in test, to be honest, so yes, your anaolgy could be correct. Then again, the same thing happened for S5RI ... :-)
I don't know if the code base was significantly different from R1 to RI. I don't think it was, but I don't know for sure (obviously, since I'm not a developer on the project). There were two executables in the Einstein folder prior to when I did a reset project, an R1 and an RI. I didn't go through doing an MD5 on them, but obviously there was a rename or recompile. What I do know is that 4.24 was put on the beta page, and 4.24 is what was technically being used for RI.
Quote:
And the credit thing is explained: EAH was asking too much.
Since credits are now set server side, it doesn't matter much. Can you even compare it to S5R1 (and RI)?
Credits here have been server-side for quite some time now...including RI. Bruce made adjustments to R1 and/or RI during the run.
Einstein@Home has a beta test page from the beginning of the project.
As far as i know it's open for everybody. S5R2 code was tested on it.
I never once saw it listed Akos... If you are correct, I will revise my strong opinion, but I can say that I personally never saw it...
The only forum with beta on Windows that I found is this... and the last message is from 6 months ago... so, I don't think it was used for S5R2 testing... Again, I have not seen a public beta effort... To me, this is a beta going live without enough testing.. and that is bad, not only because of the problems it carries for a lot of people, but also because a lot of us would had gladly participated in a beta testing, had they offered one.
Has anyone heard if there is going to be an adjustment in the S5R2 credits? Like a lot of people posting here I have seen a big drop with the S5R2, my T2250 went from about 17/HR down to 13 hour. My P2 2.4 going from about 12.5/Hr to about 9/Hr.
Ray
Nope, not your problem. But using an AMD chip may very well be. I have 5 of them, but only one is a 64bit, but from reading several of the posts in this thread as well as others, running these jobs may be significantly faster with an Intel. Oh well, they have to get something right every now and then.
Gary
Well, I do this because I like being part of something bigger than myself but Intel aint gonna happen here. Ill just periodically keep trying to connect until this straightens out then.
Dennis
I don't blame you in the least. It's your time, your computers, and if they can't write a program that will run on AMD, they could very well lose a good number of participants.
Gary
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams
You can find a cross-project credit comparison here. You will see that almost all projects are in good agreement with SAH. EAH was out of line. We're now fixing that.
(The credit comparison chart was created at my request by James Drews. It provides a solid basis for cross-project credit comparisons.)
IMHO, S5R2 hasn't even reached the beta stage with all the problems of credits, times, efficent use of various CPUs, etc.
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree on a number of things in that statement. I do feel that S5R2 is at a "beta" level. I cannot say that it is "alpha" / "pre-beta". The issue with the credit level needs to be taken out of the discussion as well. That isn't determined by the application that you and I have. Credits are a distinctly seperate, although related, issue.
What bothers me are the crashes. Another thing is the literally insane run-times on relatively fast hardware. A lot of this is being caused by significant debug output, but as is becoming evident, there is also an AMD issue. It takes a lot of power to write to disk, believe it or not. I anticipated a 6x difference out the gate. That is not what happened on my "FX-57 equivalent" AMD 3700+. Right now it takes 11 times longer. Of course that is based on a single work unit, but I'm not really motivated to continue to contribute while this thing is being treated by the staff as production-level code when it is clearly a beta in debug mode. I'm still trying to decide what I'm going to do with the 3 S5R2 units that I suspended... I need to do something with them in fairness to the other person who received a download...and in fairness to the project...
Arion: the 40% drops on your 2nd and 3rd machine are about what I saw with my two A64x2 machines. The much larger drop on your first machine makes me think Bruce didn't fix all of the first round of WUs which were issued which much lower credit amounts. One of the moderators probably should send a ping about this his way.
Einstien was giving ~1/3rd too much credit. The s5r2 app is dropping results by about 25% on intel, 40% on AMD. The spread is due to the app using compiled code instead of hand tweaked asm for the hot loops and intels on chip optimizer doing a better job with the output. Eventually the s5r2 app should be optimized the same way as the s5r1 app was and the CPU type difference closed. There are occasional reports of people not having the new app work yet, tracking down the handful of rare bugs is a higher priority.
RE: I haven't seen S5R2
)
I don't know if the code base was significantly different from R1 to RI. I don't think it was, but I don't know for sure (obviously, since I'm not a developer on the project). There were two executables in the Einstein folder prior to when I did a reset project, an R1 and an RI. I didn't go through doing an MD5 on them, but obviously there was a rename or recompile. What I do know is that 4.24 was put on the beta page, and 4.24 is what was technically being used for RI.
Credits here have been server-side for quite some time now...including RI. Bruce made adjustments to R1 and/or RI during the run.
The RI was a name change
)
The RI was a name change only. It was done to purge the last unoffficial akos s5 clients from early in the run.
RE: RE: Einstein@Home has
)
The only forum with beta on Windows that I found is this... and the last message is from 6 months ago... so, I don't think it was used for S5R2 testing... Again, I have not seen a public beta effort... To me, this is a beta going live without enough testing.. and that is bad, not only because of the problems it carries for a lot of people, but also because a lot of us would had gladly participated in a beta testing, had they offered one.
Has anyone heard if there is
)
Has anyone heard if there is going to be an adjustment in the S5R2 credits? Like a lot of people posting here I have seen a big drop with the S5R2, my T2250 went from about 17/HR down to 13 hour. My P2 2.4 going from about 12.5/Hr to about 9/Hr.
Ray
Try the Pizza@Home project, good crunching.
RE: RE: RE: Nope, not
)
I don't blame you in the least. It's your time, your computers, and if they can't write a program that will run on AMD, they could very well lose a good number of participants.
Gary
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams
RE: Has anyone heard if
)
From Dr. Allen's post here:
[quote Credits here have been
)
[quote
Credits here have been server-side for quite some time now...including RI. Bruce made adjustments to R1 and/or RI during the run.
RE: but also because a lot
)
Agreed. Generally this team has made good decisions, but this one was very poor. I hope they take that as constructive criticism...
RE: IMHO, S5R2 hasn't even
)
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree on a number of things in that statement. I do feel that S5R2 is at a "beta" level. I cannot say that it is "alpha" / "pre-beta". The issue with the credit level needs to be taken out of the discussion as well. That isn't determined by the application that you and I have. Credits are a distinctly seperate, although related, issue.
What bothers me are the crashes. Another thing is the literally insane run-times on relatively fast hardware. A lot of this is being caused by significant debug output, but as is becoming evident, there is also an AMD issue. It takes a lot of power to write to disk, believe it or not. I anticipated a 6x difference out the gate. That is not what happened on my "FX-57 equivalent" AMD 3700+. Right now it takes 11 times longer. Of course that is based on a single work unit, but I'm not really motivated to continue to contribute while this thing is being treated by the staff as production-level code when it is clearly a beta in debug mode. I'm still trying to decide what I'm going to do with the 3 S5R2 units that I suspended... I need to do something with them in fairness to the other person who received a download...and in fairness to the project...
Brian
Arion: the 40% drops on your
)
Arion: the 40% drops on your 2nd and 3rd machine are about what I saw with my two A64x2 machines. The much larger drop on your first machine makes me think Bruce didn't fix all of the first round of WUs which were issued which much lower credit amounts. One of the moderators probably should send a ping about this his way.
Einstien was giving ~1/3rd too much credit. The s5r2 app is dropping results by about 25% on intel, 40% on AMD. The spread is due to the app using compiled code instead of hand tweaked asm for the hot loops and intels on chip optimizer doing a better job with the output. Eventually the s5r2 app should be optimized the same way as the s5r1 app was and the CPU type difference closed. There are occasional reports of people not having the new app work yet, tracking down the handful of rare bugs is a higher priority.