Posts by voltron

21) Message boards : Number crunching : New WU Length? (Message 4165) Posted 16 Jul 2008 by voltron Post: Vote with your feet. This topic is reserved for lawyers, bean counters and men of faith which must know the exact number of angels on the head of a pin. Son, Vcore is your salvation. A good mobo and bios will deliver you the credits you desire. Voltron
22) Message boards : Number crunching : Hopefully... (Message 4139) Posted 15 Jul 2008 by voltron Post: Just 2 cents: If the crunching time is 3 hours at least, then having that 20 minutes buffer time to fetch more WUs doesn't make much sense, does it? Econo fix is quick and dirty. Legacy code is to be treated as a "quaint" tourist attraction. Consider it a free memento of an optimistic past . Shoe strings are cheap and often break. Voltron
23) Message boards : Number crunching : No new WU (Message 4055) Posted 13 Jul 2008 by voltron Post: I found a project with a load of WU's waiting to send with rather short due dates (3 days) and have switched to see how their server is doing. They have a 64 bit Linux app, and it has a few bells and whistles missing (like progress indicator only every 10%). Google "superlink@technion" and take it from there. I miss watching the progress meter, but work is work. Voltron
24) Message boards : Number crunching : Since MW keeps acting funny lets all take a guess at why... (Message 4033) Posted 12 Jul 2008 by voltron Post: My guess is bit rot. The server thinks the downloads are complete, my rigs sit there with 20 WU's "downloading" but stuck in limbo. I would blame the routers at MW. One or more are in failing mode. I have had to reset the project on more than one rig to get a new helping of work by deleting the phantom transfers que. Look forward to more trouble. Voltron
25) Message boards : Number crunching : Computation Error with SuSE11.0 (Message 3930) Posted 25 Jun 2008 by voltron Post: By any chance are these the AMD mobile processors?
26) Message boards : Number crunching : Computation Error with SuSE11.0 (Message 3924) Posted 24 Jun 2008 by voltron Post: Make sure your computer is running at spec, run memtest, and if possible uninstall boinc completely and do a clean reinstall of the client and manager. Based on your experience, I will have to give Suse 11 a second chance with KDE. Voltron
27) Message boards : Number crunching : Computation Error with SuSE11.0 (Message 3922) Posted 24 Jun 2008 by voltron Post: I have updated 2 of my machines to SuSE11.0/64bit. Since then the WU's errors out at once. Mi 02 Jul 2008 20:05:55 CEST\|Milkyway@home\|Computation for task gs_607_1213953866_105406_1 finished Mi 02 Jul 2008 20:05:55 CEST\|Milkyway@home\|Output file gs_607_1213953866_105406_1_0 for task gs_607_1213953866_105406_1 absent Mi 02 Jul 2008 20:05:56 CEST\|Milkyway@home\|Computation for task gs_3782_1214382000_74624_0 finished Mi 02 Jul 2008 20:05:56 CEST\|Milkyway@home\|Output file gs_3782_1214382000_74624_0_0 for task gs_3782_1214382000_74624_0 absent This does not address your work units. I tried Suse 11 x64 on a gigabyte p35 board with an ATI 600 vid card and a dual core 4500. What a mess. Ubuntu has absolutely no problem with this config but Suse with Gnome is just awful. Why are you flirting with Suse? Voltron
28) Message boards : Number crunching : Best completion times (Message 3881) Posted 19 Jun 2008 by voltron Post: [quote]What kind of completion times would you Linux boys get if you weren't using a opptimizied app? [quote] I have two rigs that can dual boot Hardy x64 or Vista 32 bit. The only thing I use Vista for is "Windows Update". Why run bloatware when you you have 64 bit Linux? Regards-Voltron
29) Message boards : Number crunching : No new WU (Message 3807) Posted 17 Jun 2008 by voltron Post: I have gone to my backup project 100%. I can't justify shoveling kilowatts into my quads while the milkdud server has to relearn the service routine several times a day. I know it's an alpha project, but I didn't spend alpha dollars for my hardware. I'll check in once in a while to see how the Aussies are taking advantage of their winter weather (vcore, vcore, vcore) . So far, they seem to be doing quite well. Congrats. Regards-Voltron
30) Message boards : Number crunching : Best completion times (Message 3776) Posted 14 Jun 2008 by voltron Post: Just to revive the thread, I added an AMD X2 4800 pushed to 3.2 on a DFI board. Best completion time is 198. Anybody got an Intel dual core that can match this? Too bad I have to shut it down, as I will try to get through the summer running three Quads. I can't afford to cool me and the whole farm. Lets go Aussies, take advantage of that fine winter weather down under. I recently fired up a Phenom 9750 95 watt rig. It takes very little overclock to finish a 20 pack ahead of the server turnaround. AMD makes some Monsta distributed computing chips. Regards-Voltron
31) Message boards : Number crunching : Could We Get a Paper On This? (Message 3583) Posted 29 May 2008 by voltron Post: [/quote] I think Travis and Dave have done a great job on this project, and have always been responsive to problems, despite limitations in the amount of IT support that they receive, they are always polite and helpful, and to be honest this project is certainly in the top 3 of projects with good admin. MW is a very interesting project, and it's going to get even more interesting once the 'real stuff' starts getting crunched. If nothing else, enjoy the decent credit rate and put the odd few thousand lost credits down to experience. [/quote] Al; thanks for the kind words. I ran some errands today and decided to shut down each of my rigs that was stuck on a"nanny" when I returned home. It is 3pm CST and I have two rigs left running. One is a sympathy rig I use to surf, check mail, and burn Linux distros. Shut down is not an efficient option. The other is one of my quads I call "hope". I will monitor the project and the name should be self expanatory. I agree with your comments about Travis and Dave and the merits of the project. I sympathize with the admins. It is the boneheads who believe a computer can compensate for any "alpha" excuse they can produce that tarnishes the reputation of the sponsoring institution. I have reset every rig that was stuck on a "nanny" regardless of work in progress. Time for the Aussies to step up to the leaderboard. Voltron
32) Message boards : Number crunching : Could We Get a Paper On This? (Message 3575) Posted 29 May 2008 by voltron Post: With all the scientific rigor attached to the project, I believe an analysis of the recent clusterf#@K of poison work units is due the loyal crunching community. It should certainly explain the astrological utility of "NAN". The issue of testing certainly deserves mention. The outage of the 27th that supposedly purged the poison workunits begs for illumination. Mandatory should be a full chapter on how the project is run so poorly that this post needs to be made at all. I am getting sick of babysitting poison WU's on individual computers when this is a project issue and can be solved for x number of crunchers at a single point-the server. Nothing brings joy like seeing 6 hours of wasted crunch time on a 3 ghz quad stuck with 4 of the "nannys" overnight. The problem has not gone away. I am close to shutting down. Voltron
33) Message boards : Number crunching : Problem with new W/Us (Message 3545) Posted 28 May 2008 by voltron Post: I killed one on Fedora 7 x64 after it had run 9+ hours. Presumably, the class of noobie programmers that produced this junk will be correcting the code and reissuing them. So be prepared for another round of "weeding" your work que. Thanks Nate! Voltron
34) Message boards : Number crunching : Problem with new W/Us (Message 3535) Posted 28 May 2008 by voltron Post: Don't know if I have had any error out, but all my boxes that were crunching Milkyway overnight had results stuck at 0% after 2 to 5 hours of crunching. All of them had "gs_373082_" as the beginning of the result name. Others (gs_59#_) are working OK All are running 64 bit Ubuntu (Hardy) with 64bit BOINC client. They all worked fine yesterday and I have changed nothing at my end (no software updates installed overnight either). I have aborted all the WU'S "373082" on my rigs. I hope the server stops sending them. This is not the time for the project to start playing that popular distributed computing game called "poison the code" Voltron
35) Message boards : Number crunching : Best completion times (Message 3503) Posted 21 May 2008 by voltron Post: Hi guys, just got my new system set up. Stock Q9450 (2.67GHz) on Windows XP x86 SP3: 350s/WU I'll probably switch to Vista x64 at some point, see what difference that makes. Play too many games to use Linux on a daily basis, sorry :P Why stock? My guess is at least 3.6 ghz on a good board. Regarding my previous post regarding the Abit SLI board, this thing has the latest bios and it is clueless as to what to do with a Q6600. Switched the Q to a Gigabyte p965 board and it is running smooth as silk. Dumped a dual core into the Abit, and it still struggles. The Abit may be a great board for most, but the one I got is an electronic embarrassment. You do know that you can dual boot with Linux and that Redmond product. Boot to Linux to crunch in 64 bit, boot to the "other" to gamo. Voltron
36) Message boards : Number crunching : Best completion times (Message 3500) Posted 20 May 2008 by voltron Post: I have recently acquired a Phenom quad 9550 (2.2 ghz). I have been running a Q6600 (2.4 ghz) for over a month. The Phenom will push to 2.5 ghz, the Q6600 is a b**h to get to 2.9 ghz (I blame the Abit Fatality FP-IN9 SLI board). The Phenom is sitting on a Gigabyte GA-M61P-S3. Anyway, the Phenom has a completion time of 239 seconds. The Q6600 has a completion time of 251 seconds. They are both running versions of Ubuntu 8.04 X64. Either there is a huge difference in the motherboards, or the Phenom @ 2.5 is kicking the c#p out of the Q6600 @ 2.9. Methinks AMD has a few secrets beyond ghz. What say you? Voltron
37) Message boards : Number crunching : Best completion times (Message 3486) Posted 17 May 2008 by voltron Post: Wish I could push my X2 3800+ further but its mobo won't go beyond 230MHz FSB (no PCI lock) So switch the dual core into the good board. One of my X2 3800's is doing 2.8 on an nforce 4 board. Might as well use the single core with the Via chipset. Swapped them around - the X2 is now on the NForce4 mobo. But I dare not push it beyond 2.4GHz - needs too much voltage to go higher and gets too hot (even with two 8cm fans blowing cool air in at full bore above the heatsink. Still, the swap has added a few hundred MHz so I can't complain. FWIW, the other mobo has a ULi chipset (not VIA) Yoda; Good job. Your 3800 should go higher, drop the HT multiplier to 4. The cooler weather in the southern hemisphere should help. I have about a week before I will have to go to impulse power. The high temp later this week is forecast to be 88 F. I am counting on you Aussies to take over the leaderboard. I will hibernate until September. The only thing you can do with the Uli board is replace it. Well done; Voltron
38) Message boards : Number crunching : Best completion times (Message 3474) Posted 11 May 2008 by voltron Post: Wish I could push my X2 3800+ further but its mobo won't go beyond 230MHz FSB (no PCI lock) So switch the dual core into the good board. One of my X2 3800's is doing 2.8 on an nforce 4 board. Might as well use the single core with the Via chipset. Let us know. Voltron
39) Message boards : Number crunching : Best completion times (Message 3469) Posted 9 May 2008 by voltron Post: One of my budget backup boxes got a tune up today, running a new install of Hardy 64. It's an AMD 939 X2 3600 (2 X 256 L2) pushed to 2.7ghz, with 2 sticks of Geil pc 4000. Best completion time is 249 seconds. I hung a 4 pound coolermaster heatsink on it with two 80 mm fans. Don't ya love it? Voltron
40) Message boards : Number crunching : Best completion times (Message 3454) Posted 5 May 2008 by voltron Post: Scrounged together some AMD parts today and have a 939 3800 X2 with a completion time of 231 seconds. The odd part about it is the 3800 @2.9 is beating my Intel 6320 running @3.15. I thought I read somewhere that the Intels are virtual 64 bit while the AMD's are actual. Both the proc's are running Hardy 8.04 64 bit, so the OS is not the issue. Anyone care to comment? Voltron

Previous 20 · Next 20