That's good to hear. Still doesn't explain why my box sucks so much, though...
I guess because you installed everything fresh, you start at the low end of the frequency band, and the others who still had S5R2 work are having datapacks for the upper end of the frequency band. It really seems there's some credits tweaking needed at the lower end...
I have seen a few S5R3 complete recently. I am going by the app in the results indicating app 4.04 for S5R3. I am not really positively sure they are true S5R3 WUs.
Comparing WU CPU seconds to credit granted (on my computer# 997488) :
a) before S5R3 CPU sec / credit was around 112.4 (stock Mac Intel App)
b) 2 WUs with S5R3 CPU sec / credit is in the 135 range. (App 4.04)
It's worth noting that the variation in runtime for task from the same frequency band and having the same credits attached varies quite remarkably, so before making a final judgment we'll have to do some averaging over many results:
Examples, both from peanut's #1 cruncher :
87108603 34791973 23 Sep 2007 23:31:28 UTC 24 Sep 2007 15:47:03 UTC Over Success Done 30,983.15 219.42 pending
87098575 34788377 23 Sep 2007 7:58:24 UTC 23 Sep 2007 23:16:02 UTC Over Success Done 25,609.36 219.42 pending
That's more than 20 % difference. This is not bad in itself and probably cannot be helped, it just indicates that some results may be much faster than others. The S5R2 units seemed more uniform (like +/- 5% ) in their runtimes.
I am seeing a fairly wide spread of credit per hour for the S5R3 runs. The first ones had a lower credit per hour than recent ones. On my graph the value 1 on the x-axis is the S5R3 points and 2 is my S5R2 points. S5R2 was very consistently around 32 credits per hour. S5R3 seems to be getting closer to 32 over time. As noted in other posts here, there could be many reasons for the spread and I won't pretend to know enough to say much of anything.
My hosts 1001562 and 1001564 are identical boxes, running - as near as I can manage - under identical conditions. 1001562 has already switched to S5R3 - it picked up three 522.10Hz WUs this morning, following on from S5R2 work.
1001564 has got some S5R2 re-issues, so I won't be able to remove the Beta app until tomorrow lunchtime. When I do, I'll do a complete project reset, to see if I can pick up some low-frequency WUs like Annika's. That will give a direct, controlled comparison (if it works) - at least for the Windows/Intel environment.
On AMD Opteron 2218, Linux Debian Lenny x86_64, WUs from seemingly same or similar datapack:
S5R2 ...
h1_0535.60_S5R2__125_S5R2c_0 done using 4.21 in 99,519.90 seconds and got 638.45 credits.
h1_0535.60_S5R2__97_S5R2c_0 done using 4.21 in 98,570.39 seconds and credit pending.
h1_0535.65_S5R2__99_S5R2c_2 done using 4.43 in 107,533.87 seconds and got 638.57 credits.
h1_0535.65_S5R2__77_S5R2c_0 done using 4.43 in 107,940.91 seconds and credit pending.
S5R3 ...
h1_0535.65_S5R2__141_S5R3a_0 done using 4.02 in 52,157.04 seconds and got 219.42 credits.
h1_0535.65_S5R2__140_S5R3a_0 done using 4.02 in 51,492.28 seconds and got 219.42 credits.
So in short: 4.43 introduced 8.4% penalty and 4.02 introduced additional 28.6% penalty on this host.
I have an AMD Athelon 3500+
)
I have an AMD Athelon 3500+ running Windows XP.
Here are some early results:
R3: 53,224 secs. and 218.66 points
R2: 159,000 secs. and 654.41 points;
R2: 115,000 secs. and 466.44 points
The point value per unit time comparison of R3 versus the longer R2 unit is spot on, less than 1% difference.
The point value per unit time comparison of R3 versus the shorter R2 unit is within 1% of the R2 point value.
So I have no complaints, looks good for this processor running Windows! :)
That's good to hear. Still
)
That's good to hear. Still doesn't explain why my box sucks so much, though...
RE: That's good to hear.
)
I guess because you installed everything fresh, you start at the low end of the frequency band, and the others who still had S5R2 work are having datapacks for the upper end of the frequency band. It really seems there's some credits tweaking needed at the lower end...
Bernd, do you copy?
CU
H-B
RE: I have seen a few S5R3
)
It's worth noting that the variation in runtime for task from the same frequency band and having the same credits attached varies quite remarkably, so before making a final judgment we'll have to do some averaging over many results:
Examples, both from peanut's #1 cruncher :
87108603 34791973 23 Sep 2007 23:31:28 UTC 24 Sep 2007 15:47:03 UTC Over Success Done 30,983.15 219.42 pending
87098575 34788377 23 Sep 2007 7:58:24 UTC 23 Sep 2007 23:16:02 UTC Over Success Done 25,609.36 219.42 pending
That's more than 20 % difference. This is not bad in itself and probably cannot be helped, it just indicates that some results may be much faster than others. The S5R2 units seemed more uniform (like +/- 5% ) in their runtimes.
CU
Bikeman
I am seeing a fairly wide
)
I am seeing a fairly wide spread of credit per hour for the S5R3 runs. The first ones had a lower credit per hour than recent ones. On my graph the value 1 on the x-axis is the S5R3 points and 2 is my S5R2 points. S5R2 was very consistently around 32 credits per hour. S5R3 seems to be getting closer to 32 over time. As noted in other posts here, there could be many reasons for the spread and I won't pretend to know enough to say much of anything.
My hosts 1001562 and 1001564
)
My hosts 1001562 and 1001564 are identical boxes, running - as near as I can manage - under identical conditions. 1001562 has already switched to S5R3 - it picked up three 522.10Hz WUs this morning, following on from S5R2 work.
1001564 has got some S5R2 re-issues, so I won't be able to remove the Beta app until tomorrow lunchtime. When I do, I'll do a complete project reset, to see if I can pick up some low-frequency WUs like Annika's. That will give a direct, controlled comparison (if it works) - at least for the Windows/Intel environment.
Sounds like a plan! I'm
)
Sounds like a plan!
I'm looking forward to seeing the results!!
CU
Bikeman
Me, too. It will be really
)
Me, too. It will be really interesting to see the results.
On AMD Opteron 2218, Linux
)
On AMD Opteron 2218, Linux Debian Lenny x86_64, WUs from seemingly same or similar datapack:
S5R2 ...
h1_0535.60_S5R2__125_S5R2c_0 done using 4.21 in 99,519.90 seconds and got 638.45 credits.
h1_0535.60_S5R2__97_S5R2c_0 done using 4.21 in 98,570.39 seconds and credit pending.
h1_0535.65_S5R2__99_S5R2c_2 done using 4.43 in 107,533.87 seconds and got 638.57 credits.
h1_0535.65_S5R2__77_S5R2c_0 done using 4.43 in 107,940.91 seconds and credit pending.
S5R3 ...
h1_0535.65_S5R2__141_S5R3a_0 done using 4.02 in 52,157.04 seconds and got 219.42 credits.
h1_0535.65_S5R2__140_S5R3a_0 done using 4.02 in 51,492.28 seconds and got 219.42 credits.
So in short: 4.43 introduced 8.4% penalty and 4.02 introduced additional 28.6% penalty on this host.
Metod ...
Really seems to be a Linux
)
Really seems to be a Linux problem, apart from my box... or are your WUs maybe from the same frequency band as mine?