app v12
Message boards :
Number crunching :
app v12
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 [AF>HFR>RR] Sp0wnSend message Joined: 16 Mar 08 Posts: 10 Credit: 59,990,626 RAC: 0  
|
As I saw that some compuer are using optimized V0.12 app without any problem. I reinstall the Speedimic SSE4.1 and crunch some wus and they get granted .... I don t know what happen ??!! |
Saenger Send message Joined: 28 Aug 07 Posts: 133 Credit: 29,423,179 RAC: 0 
|
Just come in after I read about the news, that you finally start granting no credits for bogus results, to test the new stock apps, first one was 0.10, than 0.12, both on my C2Q9450 @3.2GHz, ubuntu64, BOINC 6.4.5. I did 3 0.10 that lasted 4200 seconds, the 0.12 lasted 2600 - 2700 seconds, seems like a good improvement. I have no idea how fast they would have been with 0.7. http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/results.php?hostid=24253 Grüße vom Sänger 
|
Cori Send message Joined: 27 Aug 07 Posts: 647 Credit: 27,592,547 RAC: 0
|
As I saw that some compuer are using optimized V0.12 app without any problem. If you're talking about the Linux apps: yes, he recompiled them with the appropriate flags! See here Lovely greetings, Cori  
|
|
[AF>HFR>RR] Sp0wn Send message Joined: 16 Mar 08 Posts: 10 Credit: 59,990,626 RAC: 0
|
As I saw that some compuer are using optimized V0.12 app without any problem. Yep , but you see here , I still have some bad wus ... without changing anything.... I think that the new assimilator/validator has some problem ... for validating wus... |
|
Cori Send message Joined: 27 Aug 07 Posts: 647 Credit: 27,592,547 RAC: 0
|
Yep , but you see here , I still have some bad wus ... without changing anything.... *Ouch* That's really a problem then. ;-( Lovely greetings, Cori
|
|
Send message Joined: 1 Jan 08 Posts: 40 Credit: 1,676,165 RAC: 0 
|
Using 4 samples, I am seeing a consistent 5% improvement in performance on my 2,66Mhz, 2 dual core MacPro. That equate to about a minute plus for me. Jim |
|
Send message Joined: 12 Oct 07 Posts: 77 Credit: 404,471,187 RAC: 0 
|
Yep , but you see here , I still have some bad wus ... without changing anything.... I installed speedimics new 64bit SSSE3 opti app on one of my quad cores and it has also suffered from invalid WUs. I've just replaced the SSSE3 app with the SSE3 version, i'll see how that goes. 2 other quads have returned all valid SSSE3 WUs so far. |
 Send message Joined: 6 Sep 07 Posts: 66 Credit: 636,861 RAC: 0 
|
Other hint for compiling : I doubt that my old Opteron (server version of the socket 939 Athlon 64 x2) could beat my Quad 6600 (both @ stock clock). I know, architecture are not the same, but the gap is not normal. The Linux 64 version lacks optimizations. The problem is that Intel has ignored GCC and has not contributed to its development until recently. In particular, up to GCC 4.1, Intel had not contributed a single line of code to it. Intel finally started contributing for GCC 4.2, but only enough to make catch up with AMD processors. In other words, up to GCC 4.1, the x86-64 compiler is pretty much tuned for AMD processors. From 4.2 and on, the outcome is more balanced, with barely any difference when run on either Intel or on AMD processors. Of course, your mileage may vary from application to application. HTH 
|
|
Travis Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0  |
Travis, do you know why, this host : It looks like you might have some kind of problem with that machine if you're consistently getting bad results from BOTH speedimic's and the stock application. The new validator will mark WUs invalid if they return a likelihood that's not possible to be calculated by the application. 
|
|
[AF>HFR>RR] Sp0wn Send message Joined: 16 Mar 08 Posts: 10 Credit: 59,990,626 RAC: 0
|
Travis, do you know why, this host : I don t know, I have sometime some invalid Wus ... in the middle of a bunch of good ones .... I don t understand what happens !! |
|
Send message Joined: 3 Jan 09 Posts: 270 Credit: 124,346 RAC: 0  
|
i TOO JUST HAD 2 WU's out of the latest batch of 32 come back as invalid - 0 credit granted. Those were only the first 2 I have come across. I will keep an eye on things and see if it was just a hiccup or something else. |
|
Send message Joined: 6 Sep 07 Posts: 66 Credit: 636,861 RAC: 0
|
along with the fact that you don't leave much history in the database (I know, other problems, but it makes it hard to go back and calculate a real time average) ... Indeed. I wish that Travis would increase the time that a WU lingers on at least while all these tests are being made. TIA
|
|
Travis Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0 |
i TOO JUST HAD 2 WU's out of the latest batch of 32 come back as invalid - 0 credit granted. Those were only the first 2 I have come across. I will keep an eye on things and see if it was just a hiccup or something else. Are you using the stock app?
|
|
Send message Joined: 3 Jan 09 Posts: 270 Credit: 124,346 RAC: 0
|
no, only realized where I was after I clicked "post reply" All is well :-) |
speedimic Send message Joined: 22 Feb 08 Posts: 260 Credit: 57,387,048 RAC: 0
|
|
|
Send message Joined: 29 Sep 07 Posts: 18 Credit: 4,597,712 RAC: 411 
|
I get today only stock app 0.10 for windows 32bit. They validate, but the application page tells me I should get 0.13. Any explanation why this happens? edit: sample result resultid=63393451 Matthias |
|
Travis Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0 |
I get today only stock app 0.10 for windows 32bit. Dave updated the windows app to 0.13 today, so new WUs should be using that.
|
Kevint Send message Joined: 22 Nov 07 Posts: 285 Credit: 1,076,786,368 RAC: 0 
|
Nice, a release or 2 per day! Awesome, reminds me of Windows!!! |
[AF>HFR>RR] Black Hole S... Send message Joined: 2 Apr 08 Posts: 10 Credit: 8,126,465 RAC: 0 
|
Based on my hosts: Opteron 170 (XP 32) RAC estimation: 2085 (v0.7) / 2070 (v12) => 1% drop Core2Duo 4300 (Ubuntu 64) RAC estimation: 1994 (v0.7) / 1475 (v12) => 26% drop Core2Duo 6600 (Ubuntu 64) RAC estimation: 2385 (v0.7) / 1787 (v12) => 25% drop Core2Quad 6600 (Ubuntu 64) RAC estimation: 4742 (v0.7) / 3564 (v12) => 25% drop Houston, I think we have a problem with the Linux64 version... |
|
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0
|
In a world without fences and walls, who needs Gates and Windows? BTW: This is still "alpha". This is not unusual for that stage of development. From what I can tell, they are doing things fairly properly, with internal unit testing first, then a release. I know you (Kevin) probably know this, but for those who are having a hard time dealing with the changes, perhaps waiting until the project becomes beta might be an option... |
©2025 Astroinformatics Group