app v0.9

Author	Message
Travis Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0	Message 8518 - Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 15:42:54 UTC Please post any problems with app v0.9 here. ID: 8518 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

speedimic Send message Joined: 22 Feb 08 Posts: 260 Credit: 57,387,048 RAC: 0	Message 8522 - Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 17:56:11 UTC - in response to Message 8518. ...no source code for this one? mic. ID: 8522 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Travis Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0	Message 8523 - Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 17:59:01 UTC - in response to Message 8522. ...no source code for this one? Its the same as 0.8. ID: 8523 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

speedimic Send message Joined: 22 Feb 08 Posts: 260 Credit: 57,387,048 RAC: 0	Message 8525 - Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 18:37:12 UTC - in response to Message 8523. ok, then then I got it runnin' since yesterday without any problem... but now I can compare with stock: stock09: fitness: -3.046272445362276 my 08/09: fitness: -3.046272445362276 This host: 43423 mic. ID: 8525 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

[AF>Occitania>Lengadocian] F5LCU Send message Joined: 30 Mar 08 Posts: 25 Credit: 75,915,107 RAC: 0	Message 8535 - Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 20:00:35 UTC Hello, No problem on ubuntu 64 bits. Except time to compute : 1:30 instead of 42 minutes for 0.07. Best regards ID: 8535 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Travis Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0	Message 8537 - Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 20:15:07 UTC - in response to Message 8535. Hello, No problem on ubuntu 64 bits. Except time to compute : 1:30 instead of 42 minutes for 0.07. Best regards really? it's twice as slow? ID: 8537 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

speedimic Send message Joined: 22 Feb 08 Posts: 260 Credit: 57,387,048 RAC: 0	Message 8543 - Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 21:52:23 UTC - in response to Message 8537. For me the new v8/9 is faster. 13min against 17-18. (Intel compiler SSE41) mic. ID: 8543 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Wang Solutions Send message Joined: 22 Dec 07 Posts: 13 Credit: 46,606,530 RAC: 0	Message 8545 - Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 22:02:19 UTC - in response to Message 8543. Last modified: 17 Jan 2009, 22:05:53 UTC I am getting 81 minutes to completion now on 0.09 versus 38 minutes with 0.07. Q6600 on Kubuntu 7.10 64-bit. Proud member of BOINC@AUSTRALIA ID: 8545 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

[AF>Occitania>Lengadocian] F5LCU Send message Joined: 30 Mar 08 Posts: 25 Credit: 75,915,107 RAC: 0	Message 8546 - Posted: 17 Jan 2009, 22:11:25 UTC Last modified: 17 Jan 2009, 22:11:55 UTC Really Travis 0.07 2400 to 2500 s 0.09 5400 s Q9300 on ubuntu 8.04 hardy heron 64 bit see the change here 62198099 62264858 17 Jan 2009 17:32:28 UTC 17 Jan 2009 19:55:32 UTC Over Success Done 5,408.09 42.56 39.84 62182048 61575414 17 Jan 2009 16:17:04 UTC 17 Jan 2009 19:55:32 UTC Over Success Done 5,404.16 42.52 39.84 62182047 61575327 17 Jan 2009 16:17:04 UTC 17 Jan 2009 19:25:53 UTC Over Success Done 5,535.09 43.56 41.09 62178946 62245955 17 Jan 2009 15:51:41 UTC 17 Jan 2009 18:34:30 UTC Over Success Done 5,405.97 42.54 39.84 62178945 62245954 17 Jan 2009 15:51:41 UTC 17 Jan 2009 18:09:50 UTC Over Success Done 5,400.31 42.49 39.84 62169653 62236797 17 Jan 2009 15:06:42 UTC 17 Jan 2009 17:32:28 UTC Over Success Done 2,541.26 20.00 41.09 62169652 62236796 17 Jan 2009 15:06:42 UTC 17 Jan 2009 17:32:28 UTC Over Success Done 2,594.65 20.42 41.09 62165248 62232484 17 Jan 2009 14:45:41 UTC 17 Jan 2009 16:38:01 UTC Over Success Done 2,483.09 19.54 39.84 62165247 62232483 17 Jan 2009 14:45:41 UTC 17 Jan 2009 16:31:23 UTC Over Success Done 2,491.66 19.61 39.84 62160186 62227517 17 Jan 2009 14:21:07 UTC 17 Jan 2009 16:17:03 UTC Over Success Done 2,486.10 19.56 39.84 62160185 62227516 17 Jan 2009 14:21:07 UTC 17 Jan 2009 15:42:47 UTC Over Success Done 2,500.76 19.68 39.84 62157831 62225196 17 Jan 2009 14:09:29 UTC 17 Jan 2009 15:40:00 UTC Over Success Done 2,467.98 19.42 41.09 62151734 62219171 17 Jan 2009 13:38:09 UTC 17 Jan 2009 15:23:51 UTC Over Success Done 2,536.18 19.96 41.09 62151719 62219156 17 Jan 2009 13:38:09 UTC 17 Jan 2009 15:06:42 UTC Over Success Done 2,547.07 20.04 41.09 ID: 8546 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

MB Atlanos Send message Joined: 2 Sep 07 Posts: 18 Credit: 180,611 RAC: 0	Message 8555 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009, 0:53:34 UTC no difference in runtime between v0.7 and v0.9 for PPC on a G4 Mac mini: http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/results.php?hostid=1905 ID: 8555 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

paris Send message Joined: 26 Apr 08 Posts: 87 Credit: 64,801,496 RAC: 1	Message 8556 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009, 1:22:00 UTC Several of my machines (running OS X) are taking about twice as long to complete a unit as they did before. I don't know if it is due to the new types of units or the new application. Is there a new adjustment to the credit award in the works? ID: 8556 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

paris Send message Joined: 26 Apr 08 Posts: 87 Credit: 64,801,496 RAC: 1	Message 8557 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009, 2:11:02 UTC (addendum to previous message): The problem appears to be on the Intel powered Macs; the PPC Macs are running about the same as before. ID: 8557 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Travis Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0	Message 8558 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009, 2:57:08 UTC - in response to Message 8557. (addendum to previous message): The problem appears to be on the Intel powered Macs; the PPC Macs are running about the same as before. I changed some of the compiler flags which supposedly would make it run faster. Seems like they haven't so I'm going to update the app again which should fix the problem. ID: 8558 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

jedirock Send message Joined: 8 Nov 08 Posts: 178 Credit: 6,140,854 RAC: 0	Message 8560 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009, 3:21:49 UTC - in response to Message 8558. I changed some of the compiler flags which supposedly would make it run faster. Seems like they haven't so I'm going to update the app again which should fix the problem. What flags did you use? ID: 8560 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Travis Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0	Message 8574 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009, 14:49:26 UTC - in response to Message 8560. Last modified: 18 Jan 2009, 14:49:49 UTC I changed some of the compiler flags which supposedly would make it run faster. Seems like they haven't so I'm going to update the app again which should fix the problem. What flags did you use? I was trying some of the ones suggested in the code forum. I just went back to the old flags, so v0.10 is using: osx, x86_64: -O3 -mfpmath=sse -mtune=nocona -msse3 -ftree-vectorize -funroll-loops osx, i686: -O2 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -mtune=prescott -ftree-vectorize -funroll-loops osx, ppc: -O2 -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mcpu=7400 -funroll-loops linux, x86_64: -O2 -msse2 -ftree-vectorize -pedantic -funroll-loops linux, i686: -m32 -O2 -ftree-vectorize -pedantic -funroll-loops I'm not sure what compiler flags Dave is using for the windows versions. ID: 8574 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

speedimic Send message Joined: 22 Feb 08 Posts: 260 Credit: 57,387,048 RAC: 0	Message 8578 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009, 15:09:39 UTC - in response to Message 8574. I think -pedantic will slow thing down a bit... mic. ID: 8578 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Travis Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0	Message 8582 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009, 15:20:53 UTC - in response to Message 8578. I think -pedantic will slow thing down a bit... I thought that was just for warnings? ID: 8582 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

speedimic Send message Joined: 22 Feb 08 Posts: 260 Credit: 57,387,048 RAC: 0	Message 8585 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009, 15:48:12 UTC - in response to Message 8582. I think -pedantic will slow thing down a bit... I thought that was just for warnings? You're right. I mixed that up with some fp-whatever-option... mic. ID: 8585 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

jedirock Send message Joined: 8 Nov 08 Posts: 178 Credit: 6,140,854 RAC: 0	Message 8586 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009, 17:27:40 UTC - in response to Message 8574. Last modified: 18 Jan 2009, 17:27:57 UTC I was trying some of the ones suggested in the code forum. I just went back to the old flags, so v0.10 is using: osx, x86_64: -O3 -mfpmath=sse -mtune=nocona -msse3 -ftree-vectorize -funroll-loops osx, i686: -O2 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -mtune=prescott -ftree-vectorize -funroll-loops osx, ppc: -O2 -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mcpu=7400 -funroll-loops ... I'm not sure what compiler flags Dave is using for the windows versions. Yeah, the OS X flags look fine to me (where I specialize ;-) ). ID: 8586 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

mbs Send message Joined: 29 Nov 08 Posts: 1 Credit: 251,947 RAC: 0	Message 8621 - Posted: 18 Jan 2009, 22:24:59 UTC - in response to Message 8586. osx, x86_64: -O3 -mfpmath=sse -mtune=nocona -msse3 -ftree-vectorize -funroll-loops ... Yeah, the OS X flags look fine to me (where I specialize ;-) ). Please use -march=nocona instead of -mtune=nocona. -mtune will tune the code for specific processor, but -march will actually use the processor specific instructions (and implicitly set -mtune for the target architecture) ID: 8621 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote