app v12
Message boards :
Number crunching :
app v12
Message board moderation
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 TravisSend message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0   |
Let me know if the performance issues have been fixed. thanks! 
|
|
Send message Joined: 11 Nov 07 Posts: 41 Credit: 1,138,218 RAC: 4,759  
|
32-bit Linux a tiny bit slower than before 64-bit Linux 20% or 10 minutes slower than v0.07 (?) but much better than 0.10 |
|
Send message Joined: 1 Sep 08 Posts: 520 Credit: 302,538,504 RAC: 26   
|
Hard to tell at the moment until there is new work to process.... Let me know if the performance issues have been fixed. 
|
UBT - mickyb69 Send message Joined: 23 Feb 08 Posts: 8 Credit: 500,197 RAC: 0 
|
Hi there ... Im probs on the wrong thread. I detached from the project to get rid of the sse3 app and load your standard new app. Im running xp64 on my e4500 and now the WU's are taking about 59 mins for 39 credits compaired to 41 mins for 40 credits a week ago. Anyone else having the same problems ? |
banditwolf Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0
|
@ Travis: Why don't you just put out test runs instead of screwing with everyones computers? You're the one who stresses the need for testing the new apps. 6 version in a few days is too many. Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected? If it makes sense, DON'T do it. |
|
Send message Joined: 11 Nov 07 Posts: 41 Credit: 1,138,218 RAC: 4,759
|
Me likes testing new versions :-) |
speedimic Send message Joined: 22 Feb 08 Posts: 260 Credit: 57,387,048 RAC: 0 
|
@ Travis: Why don't you just put out test runs instead of screwing with everyones computers? You're the one who stresses the need for testing the new apps. 6 version in a few days is too many. this project is still alpha, which means the whole thing is a test - so, in my opinion, no need for tests inside a test... mic. 
|
|
banditwolf Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0
|
@ Travis: Why don't you just put out test runs instead of screwing with everyones computers? You're the one who stresses the need for testing the new apps. 6 version in a few days is too many. I think more time should be spent on one version checking the changes to the code and not making a change or two at a time. And atleast test it on the lab's computers to see if it even runs before a release. It would help eliminate the times that the app doesn't run and causes a load of wu's to be rejected. Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected? If it makes sense, DON'T do it. |
|
Travis Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0 |
@ Travis: Why don't you just put out test runs instead of screwing with everyones computers? You're the one who stresses the need for testing the new apps. 6 version in a few days is too many. We're pretty limited with the different CPUs/architectures that we have to test on at the moment. The apps have been running fine for me, but it seems that it isn't the case for other people. Updates to the stock app should not cause any WUs to be rejected, the only changes lately have been in compiler flags. If WUs are being rejected, let me know.
|
|
Send message Joined: 1 Jan 08 Posts: 40 Credit: 1,676,165 RAC: 0
|
On 1 sample, I have seen a 5% faster time with .12. Not sure if that is in the noise or not. Jim EDIT: Running Mac OS 10.5.6 using BOINC 6.2.18 on a 2 dual core MacPro. |
|
[AF>Occitania>Lengadocia... Send message Joined: 30 Mar 08 Posts: 25 Credit: 75,915,107 RAC: 0
|
Hy, Ubuntu 64 bits version 0.12 around 5400 s 56 minutes much better than 0.10. Still 0.07 the best in time around 42 minutes for my computer. On vista 32 bits no change around same time 0.07, 0.10 and 0.12. |
|
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 12 Apr 08 Posts: 621 Credit: 161,934,067 RAC: 0 
|
On my Mac Pro I have not seen that v0.12 is different from 0.10 ... Roughly 23-24 minutes ... because there is some variation in the run times it is hard to pin down ... 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) ... All in all, I would say that there has been no change ... |
|
niterobin Send message Joined: 11 Mar 08 Posts: 28 Credit: 818,194 RAC: 0
|
0.12 is running at about 57 minutes per woek unit, 0.07 was running at about 55 minutes per work unit. That's on an Athlon XP 3000+ clocked at 2.17 GHZ running Kubuntu 8.04.1 HTH, Rob. |
Conan Send message Joined: 2 Jan 08 Posts: 123 Credit: 69,885,192 RAC: 1,243
|
On AMD 285 Linux Fedora Core 6, times for v0.07 and v0.12 are the same, no change at all. |
|
[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 : http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/results.php?hostid=41246 ( Linux 64 ) has granted credit = 0 ??? I am using the offcial app V0.12 ! I try to detach and reattach but same problem. I try with Speedimic v0.12 optimized application but still no point ? I put this machine in NMW until you can find what happens ! sp0wn edit : All those Wus are 0 Credit granted ! Those ones are using official V0.12 app : http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=63033709 http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=63033710 http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=63033711 http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=63033712 [url]http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=63033713 Those one are using Speedimic SSE4.1_X86_64 optimized app : http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=63040284 http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=63042064 http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=63042087 only that one receive credit ! http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=63042065 Before asking, this machine is not O/C.... |
[AF>HFR>RR] Black Hole S... Send message Joined: 2 Apr 08 Posts: 10 Credit: 8,126,465 RAC: 0 
|
Hi, Opteron 170, 2,0 GHz, XP 32 : 3300 sec average, v10 and V12 Core2Duo 4300, 2,0 GHz, Ubuntu 64 : 4600 sec average V12 (7300 sec average V10) Core2Quad 6600, 2,4 HZz, Ubuntu 64 : 3900 sec average V12 (6200 sec average V10) So, V12 is undoubtly faster. From memories, I would say say V12 is faster than V7 under Windows XP 32. For sure, and completion times show it, Linux 64 V12 is undoubtly slower than V7 (about 30% slower). 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. Good luck |
 Send message Joined: 26 Apr 08 Posts: 87 Credit: 64,801,496 RAC: 0
|
V.7 and v.12 are running the same on OS X for mini core duo and MacBook core 2 duo. This is back to twice as fast as the intervening versions. |
|
[AF>HFR>RR] Black Hole S... Send message Joined: 2 Apr 08 Posts: 10 Credit: 8,126,465 RAC: 0
|
Travis, do you know why, this host : Hi Sp0wn Check the result ;) Validate state is Invalid May be a bad bunch of wus ? |
|
[AF>HFR>RR] Sp0wn Send message Joined: 16 Mar 08 Posts: 10 Credit: 59,990,626 RAC: 0
|
Don't know , it's since this morning ! I did not change anything on the host ! Only when I started to get 0 pts , I tried differents app but look like a kind of bug. Anf it happens only on that computer ... |
|
[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 : Yes, but why the state is invalid ? I make some research and my first Wu to get 0 credit was that one : http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=62999767 I was using speedimic app (SSE4.1) from that thread : http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/forum_thread.php?id=566&nowrap=true#8664 |
©2025 Astroinformatics Group