Welcome to MilkyWay@home

And if we DONT run a "FASTER" App.?

Message boards : Number crunching : And if we DONT run a "FASTER" App.?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

AuthorMessage
Profile The Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
Message 6002 - Posted: 7 Nov 2008, 3:21:27 UTC - in response to Message 5983.  

We all joined because of the science in the first place right?


Very wrong!

I don't know of anyone that can honestly say "I joined Boinc because I wanted to beat everyone else at how many points I can collect."


Then maybe your not really looking, I know many.

I can understand and respect the reasons the "science first" types, but I just can't understand why so many of them refuse to give the same respect and understanding to the competative crunchers, after all the work we do is just as helpfull to the project.


Fair enough, if this is the motivation, than the system of credits has some value to attract those who wish to compete for credits alone. Though it should be pointed out that the system has never been fair, and probably never will be.

Your effort is appreciated just as much as others, if not more so because of the volume you contribute. Thank you for pointing this out, and I will keep it in mind for future posts. I honestly never considered this being a persons sole motivation, since to me anyways, the credits have never represented a tangible value.

If this is your motivation, I would also suggest investing in some CUDA compatible graphics cards, as some cards can produce easily 10,000 - 20,000 credits/day. They are significantly cheaper than the computers required to obtain that output, and will probably grow to be more widely supported by projects in the coming year.

My bold emphasis....

I currently have a 9600GT which gets about 3300 cs a day....cost me $180 Australian. I have been thinking of getting a GTX280 for around A$700 - which would get a RAC of around 15,000. Best bang for a buck going around - anywhere!

ID: 6002 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ChinookFoehn

Send message
Joined: 10 Dec 07
Posts: 36
Credit: 5,152,242
RAC: 0
Message 6003 - Posted: 7 Nov 2008, 5:42:44 UTC - in response to Message 6002.  
Last modified: 7 Nov 2008, 5:47:58 UTC

And what would the theoretical RAC be if you placed a GTX280 onto a Yorkfield Quad? (not that I am planning such)

-ChinookFöhn
ID: 6003 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ZOC999

Send message
Joined: 20 Mar 08
Posts: 2
Credit: 111,498
RAC: 0
Message 6005 - Posted: 7 Nov 2008, 6:53:42 UTC
Last modified: 7 Nov 2008, 6:56:23 UTC

I'm happy with the new, optimized app (on my Windows and Linux machines). It makes sense to me to have one that isn't wasting lots of time in the middle of loops and such.

The current credit arrangement for the faster/optimized app works well for me. Before the changes, I BOINCed both machines 24 hours every day. I still do, though the MilkyWay percentage has increased some.

So, the amount of science being done on my computers has significantly increased (due both to the new MW app running many more WU per hour and to the changed apportionment of hours per machine). I still run all seven BOINC apps that I ran before: it's just that MilkyWay's time portion has increased somewhat.

Well done, MilkyWay team and app optimizers!
ID: 6005 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 08
Posts: 520
Credit: 302,524,931
RAC: 0
Message 6006 - Posted: 7 Nov 2008, 7:00:54 UTC - in response to Message 6005.  

Well, I'm pleased with the optimization, but these itty bitty work units with a 20 work unit per cpu cache combined with the difficulty the project has in keeping the available workunits to download in a reasonable range is something of a pain. I REALLY hope that they come up with an longer cycle work unit (say something that runs for 1 to 2 hours) while keeping up the work unit production volume and existing cache rules. That would reduce the amount of manual forcing to get work that I've found I need to engage in. I suppose one might be able to create a script which essentially continually hammers the server for downloads, but I don't think that's a particularly 'polite' solution.

As it is, for me, the amount of work I'm doing for other projects simply because Milkyway workunits are not on the workstation for fair sized time periods is not a bad thing.


I'm happy with the new, optimized app (on my Windows and Linux machines). It makes sense to me to have one that isn't wasting lots of time in the middle of loops and such.

The current credit arrangement for the faster/optimized app works well for me. Before the changes, I BOINCed both machines 24 hours every day. I still do, though the MilkyWay percentage has increased some.

So, the amount of science being done on my computers has significantly increased (due both to the new MW app running many more WU per hour and to the changed apportionment of hours per machine). I still run all seven BOINC apps that I ran before: it's just that MilkyWay's time portion has increased somewhat.

Well done, MilkyWay team!


ID: 6006 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile The Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
Message 6009 - Posted: 7 Nov 2008, 10:36:42 UTC - in response to Message 6003.  

And what would the theoretical RAC be if you placed a GTX280 onto a Yorkfield Quad? (not that I am planning such)

-ChinookFöhn

Depends on the project and the optimisation used ;)

For example my Q9450 will get 10,000 RAC on Milkyway (if it can get continuous work and I only do MW) plus the GTX280 would give a RAC of 25,000! :drool:
ID: 6009 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ZOC999

Send message
Joined: 20 Mar 08
Posts: 2
Credit: 111,498
RAC: 0
Message 6013 - Posted: 7 Nov 2008, 15:00:18 UTC - in response to Message 6006.  
Last modified: 7 Nov 2008, 15:09:46 UTC

I REALLY hope that they come up with an longer cycle work unit (say something that runs for 1 to 2 hours) while keeping up the work unit production volume and existing cache rules. That would reduce the amount of manual forcing to get work that I've found I need to engage in.

Good point, and I agree. Currently, I check my MW PC a few times per day (and sometimes have to do the manual forcing you mention) due to the 20 WU limit and the short nature of those units. It would be more convenient if the WUs were longer (at least for optimized machines) or if more were permitted for optimized machines.

In my experience, the current arrangement isn't as bad (for me) as others have discussed, but it could be somewhat better as you describe, which would move it from "fine" to "great" for me. In my previous post, I just wanted to mention that things aren't as bad for all crunchers as some posts might indicate <g> and that things are really OK in some cases. But, as your suggestion shows, there's room to go from "OK" to "superior" in the future.
ID: 6013 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 08
Posts: 520
Credit: 302,524,931
RAC: 0
Message 6015 - Posted: 7 Nov 2008, 15:59:38 UTC - in response to Message 6013.  

If I were running Pentium 2's or AMD 450's the current set up might be workable -- I'm not and its not. But my other projects are saying thank you. New work units which run 1 to 2 hours each on the optimized application are critically needed to maintain a steady work flow without manual intervention (which sometimes doesn't work either). Elsewise this project may go the way of other small projects overwhelmed by more CPU's than work.


I REALLY hope that they come up with an longer cycle work unit (say something that runs for 1 to 2 hours) while keeping up the work unit production volume and existing cache rules. That would reduce the amount of manual forcing to get work that I've found I need to engage in.

Good point, and I agree. Currently, I check my MW PC a few times per day (and sometimes have to do the manual forcing you mention) due to the 20 WU limit and the short nature of those units. It would be more convenient if the WUs were longer (at least for optimized machines) or if more were permitted for optimized machines.

In my experience, the current arrangement isn't as bad (for me) as others have discussed, but it could be somewhat better as you describe, which would move it from "fine" to "great" for me. In my previous post, I just wanted to mention that things aren't as bad for all crunchers as some posts might indicate <g> and that things are really OK in some cases. But, as your suggestion shows, there's room to go from "OK" to "superior" in the future.


ID: 6015 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile caspr
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 08
Posts: 90
Credit: 501,728
RAC: 0
Message 6648 - Posted: 25 Nov 2008, 2:28:19 UTC
Last modified: 25 Nov 2008, 2:44:59 UTC

Question:,... I'm trying to get test wu's on a 3.0 Xeon Quad running the "stock" App. I'm also running the optimized app.on a OLD 266g p-4, Both running XP. The credits on the old box (31-per 15min per wu) per wu aren't going to be the same as the Quad are they? The Quad takes about 10hr's per wu! Will I still receive FULL credit (260) for the stock app.?
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory



ID: 6648 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

Message boards : Number crunching : And if we DONT run a "FASTER" App.?

©2024 Astroinformatics Group