Welcome to MilkyWay@home

nm_test 7


Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : nm_test 7
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
ProfileTravis
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 07
Posts: 2046
Credit: 26,480
RAC: 0
10 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 6483 - Posted: 23 Nov 2008, 12:46:14 UTC

how are the new WUs working (hopefully with app v0.2)?
ID: 6483 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileDeleteNull

Send message
Joined: 5 Apr 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 105,356,736
RAC: 28,513
100 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 6499 - Posted: 23 Nov 2008, 17:51:08 UTC - in response to Message 6483.  

On my Linux box (OpenSuse 11.0 64bit) the WU's are running well with application:
1. milkyway_0.2_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and
2. 18% faster with a self compiled version from the tar (no changes in the source code, only a few compiler flags set.)

It seems that the new (test) WU's need about 2 times more cpu-time to complete than the "old" WU's with milksops application.
ID: 6499 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileTravis
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 07
Posts: 2046
Credit: 26,480
RAC: 0
10 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 6513 - Posted: 23 Nov 2008, 18:55:53 UTC - in response to Message 6499.  

On my Linux box (OpenSuse 11.0 64bit) the WU's are running well with application:
1. milkyway_0.2_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and
2. 18% faster with a self compiled version from the tar (no changes in the source code, only a few compiler flags set.)

It seems that the new (test) WU's need about 2 times more cpu-time to complete than the "old" WU's with milksops application.


Well it's good that they're pretty close. After we get the bugs people have been seeing ironed hopefully we can get squeeze some more performance out of it and get it comparable to milksop's app. Also, are you comparing them with or without cuts in the parameter file (because each cut is an additional integral calculation)?
ID: 6513 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileDeleteNull

Send message
Joined: 5 Apr 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 105,356,736
RAC: 28,513
100 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 6520 - Posted: 23 Nov 2008, 19:39:16 UTC - in response to Message 6513.  

<with or without cuts in the parameter file> ??

I have nothing changed (sources nor parameter files). The only changes i have made were in the "make.linux" file (pathes and some flags), that i could compile (statically) on my machine.

So, only you can decide if we are "comparing them with or without cuts". I cannot calculate what "type of cut" will influence the validation of a result.
ID: 6520 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile[AF>Occitania>Lengadocian] F5LCU

Send message
Joined: 30 Mar 08
Posts: 25
Credit: 75,915,107
RAC: 0
50 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 6533 - Posted: 23 Nov 2008, 22:00:59 UTC - in response to Message 6520.  

Hello,

I have tested the new application on windows 32 bits.
It seems that the new (test) WU's need about 2 to 3 times more cpu-time to complete than the "old" WU's with milksops application.

13 min 50s instead of 5 min 35 s with a Q9300 intel core
21 min instead of 8 min on a T7250 core.

Hope thes einfos will help to improve your code.

Regards
ID: 6533 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileTravis
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 07
Posts: 2046
Credit: 26,480
RAC: 0
10 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 6573 - Posted: 24 Nov 2008, 15:26:04 UTC - in response to Message 6520.  

??

I have nothing changed (sources nor parameter files). The only changes i have made were in the "make.linux" file (pathes and some flags), that i could compile (statically) on my machine.

So, only you can decide if we are "comparing them with or without cuts". I cannot calculate what "type of cut" will influence the validation of a result.


So you're just comparing the runtime of milksops app with WUs being generated by the server to the test app with WUs being generated from the server?
ID: 6573 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileTravis
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 07
Posts: 2046
Credit: 26,480
RAC: 0
10 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 6574 - Posted: 24 Nov 2008, 15:27:56 UTC - in response to Message 6533.  

Hello,

I have tested the new application on windows 32 bits.
It seems that the new (test) WU's need about 2 to 3 times more cpu-time to complete than the "old" WU's with milksops application.

13 min 50s instead of 5 min 35 s with a Q9300 intel core
21 min instead of 8 min on a T7250 core.

Hope thes einfos will help to improve your code.

Regards


This is good news -- the new WUs are doing a bit more crunching than the old ones -- they're calculating a similar sized integral, but they're also calculating an additional integral which is being removed from the first integral. The cut isn't as large as the first integral, so it seems the app is a bit slower than milksop's, but it seems it's not TOO bad. Hopefully we can get some more feedback for optimizations and make it even faster :)

ID: 6574 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : Number crunching : nm_test 7

©2020 Astroinformatics Group