I have Rosetta already loaded, and if the AMD is an inferior CPU running E@H THAN I"LL JUST SWITCH
Why don't you give the developers a chance to correct the mistakes? It's not a problem of AMD, it's a problem of the MS compiler they used, respectively the compiler swiches. The Linux app on AMD cpus runs as fast as it is currently possible, so that proves, where the problems are.
Imho a compiler has to produce code that runs proper and quick on every cpu while a cpu doesn't have to iron insufficiency of any compiler output. ;)
And I'm shure they are already working on it, but on the other hand, they can't release a new version whenever they have fixed a bug, that thousands of hosts would have to download.
Why don't you give the developers a chance to correct the mistakes? It's not a problem of AMD, it's a problem of the MS compiler they used, respectively the compiler swiches. The Linux app on AMD cpus runs as fast as it is currently possible, so that proves, where the problems are.
Those problems could be avoided, if at least minimal testing period would be applied. For weeks before introducing R2, there was no info of such tests being done, on http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/app_test.php
We have been also told, that second run was prepared in great hurry, but also to be a small scale test run. Thus we all are now participating in large scale, not completely volounteer, beta testing phase.
Was this situation avoidable? I cannot say, as i dont know all the facts.
I just received my first R2 WU today. Initial ETA is around 34h (Barton 1.8ghz)... but on my machine those are always wrong. Now E@H runs 100% priority, as i`d like to get a few of new WU`s done as soon as possible. Then i`ll be able to decide, either to continue, or maybe wait, doing only S@H, till the app gets debugged. I`m not krunching for credits, but i do not want my cpu`s cycles being wasted... or maybe - not being used effectively.
Now E@H runs 100% priority, as i`d like to get a few of new WU`s done as soon as possible. Then i`ll be able to decide, either to continue, or maybe wait, doing only S@H, till the app gets debugged. I`m not krunching for credits, but i do not want my cpu`s cycles being wasted... or maybe - not being used effectively.
can you say that any other application (QMC, Climateprediction, Malariacontrol, LHC, Rosetta or any other except Seti which is open source) is using your CPU effectively?
you don't know.
LHCs application (sixtrack) is written in Fortran... I don't think that an Fortran compiler on windows is producing well optimized code...
you have to run the application which the project delivers...
Hey, the new run started last Friday... today is the second working day after last Friday for the EAH team.
Be patient...
That`s why i`m running S@H apart from Einstein. LHC has very little work, also getting processed very fast.
I`m patient... i`m not throwing everything overboard, nor panicking...
But this compiler issue is affecting over half of OS`es and almost half of CPU`s... this is not an obscure, hard-to-spot mistake. It should be spotted a bit earlier, than several days after official R2 start. Anyway, it`s too late by now. I just hope some conclusions would be drawn from this accident.
Well I'm probably going to choke on crow with this but I Took all my systems down from Einstein yesterday and went back to running Seti as my primary project. I only run standarized clients on both projects. Based ONLY on the results on my X2 64 4800+ system I'm beginning to get a clearer picture of the parity of the credits granted between Seti and Einstein. I understand that each project grants credits on a different scale. (client side as opposed to server side) And I've found workunits that compare in the amount of time processed and the results were.
Seti - 2 1/2 hours aprox. process time and 27 credits
Einstein S5R1 - 2 1/2 hours aprox. process time and 54 credits
For the S5R2 comparison I had to add 3 seti units to get an equivilant amount of processing time and therefore I added the credits to get a comparison. The times and credits are an aprox. figure as I rounded off for simplicity sake.
Earlier tonight I had decided that I'd been running einstein non stop for 2 years (with exception for when the project was down and we couldn't get workunits)<--- a RARITY as opposed to Seti being up and down numerous times. For a large part of that I had 2 of my systems running both projects with occasional times when I would run Einstein exclusively on them. First when Seti was down and couldn't get work and the past few months devoting all my systems to Einstein as it was short workunits, and the projects servers stablilized after the Jan. problems.
With this in mind and taking into consideration of all the other pluses with Einstein I brought both of my slower systems back on to Einstein figuring that I'd weathered a few rough times in the past and that this was just another small bump on a lengthy journey with Einstein@home. Even though my 2 systems do a miniscule amount of work compared to all the others maybe my workunits can in some small part help the developers figure out what's wrong with the AMD clients and help them get a fix in place. In the meantime, I'm letting my 4800+ system run Seti exclusively so that I can work on bringing my total credits with Seti to the 100k mark. When I reach that goal or Einstein gets the AMD problems worked out (whatever is first) I'll bring it back online with Einstein exclusively.
Back to the credits granted for work - I've never really paid much attention to what I was getting on each project before now. I've mostly looked at the graphs in the clients and watched what my daily averages were on both total credits and individual hosts. There is a lot to be said for looking at the stats and seeing each system spend about the same amount of time on a regular basis and getting about the same amount of credit as well. With Seti the workunits are all over the place and the amount of credits follows suit. With Einstein I could figure that x system runs 18-20 units a day and gets x number of credits. (same applies to both slower systems)
Based on my rudimentary calculations above it appears that Seti and Einstein are granting the same amount of credit for the work done. At the very least it doesn't look like I'm wasting my time and resources for next to nothing in credits granted. Not knowing the difference in granted credit between both projects before the adjustment I thought it was fair. Is it fair now? I honestly don't know. I do know this for a fact though, I devote my time and effort to Einstein for a lot of other reason besides credits. To keep the credit allocation the way it is now or bring it back to what it used to be is not the priority that bothers me as much as bringing the workunit sizes down to a manageable time frame, both in the amount of time it takes to process and for being able to receive the granted credit in a timely manner without having to wait weeks for someone else to return their results. This I leave to the project folks. In the meantime I'm just going to sit back and relax with a fresh cup of coffee.
As we are now seeing a reduction in credits/time compared to S5R1. could it be that the complaints we are seeing be self inflicted.
There are quite a few users that chase credits, so as S5R1 gave the most/hr they migrated here and therefore enabled S5R1 to be completed much faster than otherwise. This possibly had a knock on effect to S5R2 in that in had to be introduced earlier, without the normal testing, and some are now feeling the effect of that.
Just finished my first S5R2 workunit @ 49 hours. Pages and pages of printout about checkpoints etc. I'm accepting the time, but is this stuff in the results to be expected?
Well I'm probably going to choke on crow with this but I Took all my systems down from Einstein yesterday and went back to running Seti as my primary project. I only run standardized clients on both projects.
Arion,
this is your problem. While the E@H was a highly optimized client with little potential for optimization left, the official SETI@Home client is not optimized at all. There are optimized SETI clients out there and these crunch a workunit almost twice as quickly as the standard client. If you put these numbers into your calculation you see that (considering the same level of optimization) both projects grant the same credit/time.
Now the first release of the E@H client is not as optimized as the one before, but this will change with time.
And I'm desperately trying to make my Debian cooperate with the cheap trashy modem my new ISP provided... as that host is an AMD, I'd really prefer running Linux, but it simply won't let me go online and get BOINC and a few WUs...
Well, if it's an option for you and you have 256kB memory left, you could just run Windows and install VMWare Player, like I did. You could do a small Linux installation, get 35% more credits and 35% more benefit for the science. :-)
And the best, if one knows how to do it, it takes just about an hour.
If you like to do so and you have any questions, then come over to our team forum - it's a lot easier for me to write in my mother language. ;-)
cu,
Michael
Thanks a lot, Michael :-) I might do that, but atm my favorite idea (which came to me in an extremely boring maths class) is to simply boot my desktop from a Linux live cd (they are made to cooperate with all sorts of strange setups, so maybe that'll get along okay with the modem, and if not... you know Backtrack und my nooblike neighbors? ;-) ), I mean, the Linux BOINC version is a shell script, so I wouldn't have to install anything, simply mount a partition of my hard disk to store the client and WUs on. Maybe that'll work. I'll try it out as soon as I get home from uni and language class.
If I can't get one of the live cds to run and go online in a reasonable amount of time I'll probably try the VMWare approach, and if I have problems with that I'll gladly accept your offer. It's about time for me to finally register at the Heise boards instead of just reading them anyway ;-) Btw, I have two Gigs of RAM (recently upgraded for a uni project involving Rainbow Tables) so I should be able to run a VM okay.
Somehow, I'll get that box to run under Linux at least on a temporary basis. Anything for the science :-)
Who cares about the other projects points etc.
I do run only einstein and i want the old units/points.
S5R2 as they made it its a bullshit, nobody will stay to the project with units that needs one day to be finish and take 200 points.
If einsten@home bosses want to stay alone and crunch with their computers only, continue like this.
Its the end of the project.
Be serius and bring back the old unit system, otherwise bye bye.
RE: I have Rosetta already
)
Why don't you give the developers a chance to correct the mistakes? It's not a problem of AMD, it's a problem of the MS compiler they used, respectively the compiler swiches. The Linux app on AMD cpus runs as fast as it is currently possible, so that proves, where the problems are.
Imho a compiler has to produce code that runs proper and quick on every cpu while a cpu doesn't have to iron insufficiency of any compiler output. ;)
And I'm shure they are already working on it, but on the other hand, they can't release a new version whenever they have fixed a bug, that thousands of hosts would have to download.
cu,
Michael
RE: Why don't you give the
)
Those problems could be avoided, if at least minimal testing period would be applied. For weeks before introducing R2, there was no info of such tests being done, on http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/app_test.php
We have been also told, that second run was prepared in great hurry, but also to be a small scale test run. Thus we all are now participating in large scale, not completely volounteer, beta testing phase.
Was this situation avoidable? I cannot say, as i dont know all the facts.
I just received my first R2 WU today. Initial ETA is around 34h (Barton 1.8ghz)... but on my machine those are always wrong. Now E@H runs 100% priority, as i`d like to get a few of new WU`s done as soon as possible. Then i`ll be able to decide, either to continue, or maybe wait, doing only S@H, till the app gets debugged. I`m not krunching for credits, but i do not want my cpu`s cycles being wasted... or maybe - not being used effectively.
RE: Now E@H runs 100%
)
can you say that any other application (QMC, Climateprediction, Malariacontrol, LHC, Rosetta or any other except Seti which is open source) is using your CPU effectively?
you don't know.
LHCs application (sixtrack) is written in Fortran... I don't think that an Fortran compiler on windows is producing well optimized code...
you have to run the application which the project delivers...
Hey, the new run started last Friday... today is the second working day after last Friday for the EAH team.
Be patient...
Udo
That`s why i`m running S@H
)
That`s why i`m running S@H apart from Einstein. LHC has very little work, also getting processed very fast.
I`m patient... i`m not throwing everything overboard, nor panicking...
But this compiler issue is affecting over half of OS`es and almost half of CPU`s... this is not an obscure, hard-to-spot mistake. It should be spotted a bit earlier, than several days after official R2 start. Anyway, it`s too late by now. I just hope some conclusions would be drawn from this accident.
Well I'm probably going to
)
Well I'm probably going to choke on crow with this but I Took all my systems down from Einstein yesterday and went back to running Seti as my primary project. I only run standarized clients on both projects. Based ONLY on the results on my X2 64 4800+ system I'm beginning to get a clearer picture of the parity of the credits granted between Seti and Einstein. I understand that each project grants credits on a different scale. (client side as opposed to server side) And I've found workunits that compare in the amount of time processed and the results were.
Seti - 2 1/2 hours aprox. process time and 27 credits
Einstein S5R1 - 2 1/2 hours aprox. process time and 54 credits
For the S5R2 comparison I had to add 3 seti units to get an equivilant amount of processing time and therefore I added the credits to get a comparison. The times and credits are an aprox. figure as I rounded off for simplicity sake.
Seti - 17,000+17,000+14,000 Seconds = 61+61+50 (172) credits
Einstein S5R2 - 48,000 seconds - 172 credits
Earlier tonight I had decided that I'd been running einstein non stop for 2 years (with exception for when the project was down and we couldn't get workunits)<--- a RARITY as opposed to Seti being up and down numerous times. For a large part of that I had 2 of my systems running both projects with occasional times when I would run Einstein exclusively on them. First when Seti was down and couldn't get work and the past few months devoting all my systems to Einstein as it was short workunits, and the projects servers stablilized after the Jan. problems.
With this in mind and taking into consideration of all the other pluses with Einstein I brought both of my slower systems back on to Einstein figuring that I'd weathered a few rough times in the past and that this was just another small bump on a lengthy journey with Einstein@home. Even though my 2 systems do a miniscule amount of work compared to all the others maybe my workunits can in some small part help the developers figure out what's wrong with the AMD clients and help them get a fix in place. In the meantime, I'm letting my 4800+ system run Seti exclusively so that I can work on bringing my total credits with Seti to the 100k mark. When I reach that goal or Einstein gets the AMD problems worked out (whatever is first) I'll bring it back online with Einstein exclusively.
Back to the credits granted for work - I've never really paid much attention to what I was getting on each project before now. I've mostly looked at the graphs in the clients and watched what my daily averages were on both total credits and individual hosts. There is a lot to be said for looking at the stats and seeing each system spend about the same amount of time on a regular basis and getting about the same amount of credit as well. With Seti the workunits are all over the place and the amount of credits follows suit. With Einstein I could figure that x system runs 18-20 units a day and gets x number of credits. (same applies to both slower systems)
Based on my rudimentary calculations above it appears that Seti and Einstein are granting the same amount of credit for the work done. At the very least it doesn't look like I'm wasting my time and resources for next to nothing in credits granted. Not knowing the difference in granted credit between both projects before the adjustment I thought it was fair. Is it fair now? I honestly don't know. I do know this for a fact though, I devote my time and effort to Einstein for a lot of other reason besides credits. To keep the credit allocation the way it is now or bring it back to what it used to be is not the priority that bothers me as much as bringing the workunit sizes down to a manageable time frame, both in the amount of time it takes to process and for being able to receive the granted credit in a timely manner without having to wait weeks for someone else to return their results. This I leave to the project folks. In the meantime I'm just going to sit back and relax with a fresh cup of coffee.
Arion
As we are now seeing a
)
As we are now seeing a reduction in credits/time compared to S5R1. could it be that the complaints we are seeing be self inflicted.
There are quite a few users that chase credits, so as S5R1 gave the most/hr they migrated here and therefore enabled S5R1 to be completed much faster than otherwise. This possibly had a knock on effect to S5R2 in that in had to be introduced earlier, without the normal testing, and some are now feeling the effect of that.
Just finished my first S5R2
)
Just finished my first S5R2 workunit @ 49 hours. Pages and pages of printout about checkpoints etc. I'm accepting the time, but is this stuff in the results to be expected?
Mrs Miggins - A lady of uncommon refinement
RE: Well I'm probably going
)
Arion,
this is your problem. While the E@H was a highly optimized client with little potential for optimization left, the official SETI@Home client is not optimized at all. There are optimized SETI clients out there and these crunch a workunit almost twice as quickly as the standard client. If you put these numbers into your calculation you see that (considering the same level of optimization) both projects grant the same credit/time.
Now the first release of the E@H client is not as optimized as the one before, but this will change with time.
RE: RE: And I'm
)
Thanks a lot, Michael :-) I might do that, but atm my favorite idea (which came to me in an extremely boring maths class) is to simply boot my desktop from a Linux live cd (they are made to cooperate with all sorts of strange setups, so maybe that'll get along okay with the modem, and if not... you know Backtrack und my nooblike neighbors? ;-) ), I mean, the Linux BOINC version is a shell script, so I wouldn't have to install anything, simply mount a partition of my hard disk to store the client and WUs on. Maybe that'll work. I'll try it out as soon as I get home from uni and language class.
If I can't get one of the live cds to run and go online in a reasonable amount of time I'll probably try the VMWare approach, and if I have problems with that I'll gladly accept your offer. It's about time for me to finally register at the Heise boards instead of just reading them anyway ;-) Btw, I have two Gigs of RAM (recently upgraded for a uni project involving Rainbow Tables) so I should be able to run a VM okay.
Somehow, I'll get that box to run under Linux at least on a temporary basis. Anything for the science :-)
Who cares about the other
)
Who cares about the other projects points etc.
I do run only einstein and i want the old units/points.
S5R2 as they made it its a bullshit, nobody will stay to the project with units that needs one day to be finish and take 200 points.
If einsten@home bosses want to stay alone and crunch with their computers only, continue like this.
Its the end of the project.
Be serius and bring back the old unit system, otherwise bye bye.
----------------------------
http://www.boincsynergy.com/stats/teams.php?team=1290&project=eah
----------------------------