Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Optimized OS X Applications

Message boards : Number crunching : Optimized OS X Applications
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

AuthorMessage
jedirock
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Nov 08
Posts: 178
Credit: 6,140,854
RAC: 0
Message 15840 - Posted: 17 Mar 2009, 15:52:54 UTC - in response to Message 15726.  

Anytime I change an app on my Mac, I always reinstall the manager because it fixes up the permissions just as fast as editing them by hand or terminal.

Yeah, a reinstall will work too. I'm comfortable in the Terminal, so I find setting the permissions manually is faster, but others may just find a manager reinstall faster/easier.
ID: 15840 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
nick n
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 52,815
RAC: 0
Message 16478 - Posted: 21 Mar 2009, 23:03:55 UTC

Thanks! got it working with a boinc reinstall
ID: 16478 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Alberto Tanikawa

Send message
Joined: 29 Jan 09
Posts: 32
Credit: 1,962,668
RAC: 0
Message 17221 - Posted: 31 Mar 2009, 22:36:09 UTC

There may yet be a LOT more performance to squeeze out of OS X. I just bootcamped Vista 64 and been running it in my Mac Pro for a week. Under OS X (10.5.6) it was crunching about 6-7k daily, maybe 8000+ on a good day. But after I put Vista 64 (and using optimized app under 6.6.18) the MP is pulling 15-19k a day! I'm not knocking on jedirock's efforts, they are truly appreciated, but there may be some more performance that can be gained from OS X - unless OS X itself has some limiting factor that we don't know about.
ID: 17221 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
jedirock
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Nov 08
Posts: 178
Credit: 6,140,854
RAC: 0
Message 17223 - Posted: 31 Mar 2009, 22:49:35 UTC - in response to Message 17221.  

There may yet be a LOT more performance to squeeze out of OS X. I just bootcamped Vista 64 and been running it in my Mac Pro for a week. Under OS X (10.5.6) it was crunching about 6-7k daily, maybe 8000+ on a good day. But after I put Vista 64 (and using optimized app under 6.6.18) the MP is pulling 15-19k a day! I'm not knocking on jedirock's efforts, they are truly appreciated, but there may be some more performance that can be gained from OS X - unless OS X itself has some limiting factor that we don't know about.

Yeah, I know. I'm not sure if the big speed increases are from code tweaks that I don't know about, or if because some of the optimized apps for Windows and Linux are compiled using the Intel compiler, icc. I'm using gcc, because I can't afford icc.
ID: 17223 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Cluster Physik

Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 08
Posts: 627
Credit: 94,940,203
RAC: 0
Message 17228 - Posted: 31 Mar 2009, 23:30:17 UTC - in response to Message 17223.  
Last modified: 31 Mar 2009, 23:31:21 UTC

There may yet be a LOT more performance to squeeze out of OS X. I just bootcamped Vista 64 and been running it in my Mac Pro for a week. Under OS X (10.5.6) it was crunching about 6-7k daily, maybe 8000+ on a good day. But after I put Vista 64 (and using optimized app under 6.6.18) the MP is pulling 15-19k a day! I'm not knocking on jedirock's efforts, they are truly appreciated, but there may be some more performance that can be gained from OS X - unless OS X itself has some limiting factor that we don't know about.

Yeah, I know. I'm not sure if the big speed increases are from code tweaks that I don't know about, or if because some of the optimized apps for Windows and Linux are compiled using the Intel compiler, icc. I'm using gcc, because I can't afford icc.

It's mostly the compiler. Do you know that you can get a 30 day evaluation version of the ICC for OSX for free? As a private user (for a non commercial purpose as here) you can get even an unlimited license (without support) for the Linux version.
ID: 17228 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
jedirock
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Nov 08
Posts: 178
Credit: 6,140,854
RAC: 0
Message 17234 - Posted: 1 Apr 2009, 0:45:15 UTC - in response to Message 17228.  

There may yet be a LOT more performance to squeeze out of OS X. I just bootcamped Vista 64 and been running it in my Mac Pro for a week. Under OS X (10.5.6) it was crunching about 6-7k daily, maybe 8000+ on a good day. But after I put Vista 64 (and using optimized app under 6.6.18) the MP is pulling 15-19k a day! I'm not knocking on jedirock's efforts, they are truly appreciated, but there may be some more performance that can be gained from OS X - unless OS X itself has some limiting factor that we don't know about.

Yeah, I know. I'm not sure if the big speed increases are from code tweaks that I don't know about, or if because some of the optimized apps for Windows and Linux are compiled using the Intel compiler, icc. I'm using gcc, because I can't afford icc.

It's mostly the compiler. Do you know that you can get a 30 day evaluation version of the ICC for OSX for free? As a private user (for a non commercial purpose as here) you can get even an unlimited license (without support) for the Linux version.

I know I can get a 30-day trial, but what good does that do me? And speedimic has the Linux end covered anyway.
ID: 17234 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
nick n
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 52,815
RAC: 0
Message 17242 - Posted: 1 Apr 2009, 2:50:20 UTC

Hello again just wanted to know what SSE version is being used for core 2 duos?
ID: 17242 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
jedirock
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Nov 08
Posts: 178
Credit: 6,140,854
RAC: 0
Message 17246 - Posted: 1 Apr 2009, 4:37:15 UTC - in response to Message 17242.  

Hello again just wanted to know what SSE version is being used for core 2 duos?

Should be everything from SSE to SSSE3 for the Intel 64-bit app. The 32-bit app is the same, but drops the SSSE3 so it's just SSE to SSE3.
ID: 17246 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile arkayn
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 09
Posts: 999
Credit: 74,932,619
RAC: 0
Message 17247 - Posted: 1 Apr 2009, 4:37:17 UTC

The question that comes to mind is how much difference is there between the Linux app and the OS X app. Crunch3r seems to have a good fix for releasing the optimized AP apps for both Linux and OS X.
ID: 17247 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
jedirock
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Nov 08
Posts: 178
Credit: 6,140,854
RAC: 0
Message 17248 - Posted: 1 Apr 2009, 4:39:09 UTC - in response to Message 17247.  
Last modified: 1 Apr 2009, 4:39:19 UTC

The question that comes to mind is how much difference is there between the Linux app and the OS X app. Crunch3r seems to have a good fix for releasing the optimized AP apps for both Linux and OS X.

I believe Crunch3r also has the Intel compiler. If he does have MW compiles for OS X, it'd be interesting to compare their speed and what ICC can actually do compared to GCC.
ID: 17248 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile arkayn
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 09
Posts: 999
Credit: 74,932,619
RAC: 0
Message 17252 - Posted: 1 Apr 2009, 6:00:47 UTC

I will post over on his forums and see if he can look at your code.

Do you have a link to your source code?

He did an earlier build of an optimized app before recent changes.
ID: 17252 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
jedirock
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Nov 08
Posts: 178
Credit: 6,140,854
RAC: 0
Message 17278 - Posted: 1 Apr 2009, 15:02:42 UTC - in response to Message 17252.  

I will post over on his forums and see if he can look at your code.

Do you have a link to your source code?

He did an earlier build of an optimized app before recent changes.

It's the stock source with a tweaked Makefile, which isn't going to help him if he's using icc.
ID: 17278 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Cluster Physik

Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 08
Posts: 627
Credit: 94,940,203
RAC: 0
Message 17280 - Posted: 1 Apr 2009, 15:44:36 UTC - in response to Message 17248.  

it'd be interesting to compare their speed and what ICC can actually do compared to GCC.

Just compare the Linux stock app (compiled using gcc) and speedimics Linux versions available at zslip.com (using icc), preferably the 64bit versions (as both use SSE2 then). Quite a difference without code changes.
ID: 17280 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Elphidieus

Send message
Joined: 29 Jan 09
Posts: 5
Credit: 461,085
RAC: 0
Message 18563 - Posted: 13 Apr 2009, 17:17:09 UTC - in response to Message 17221.  

There may yet be a LOT more performance to squeeze out of OS X. I just bootcamped Vista 64 and been running it in my Mac Pro for a week. Under OS X (10.5.6) it was crunching about 6-7k daily, maybe 8000+ on a good day. But after I put Vista 64 (and using optimized app under 6.6.18) the MP is pulling 15-19k a day! I'm not knocking on jedirock's efforts, they are truly appreciated, but there may be some more performance that can be gained from OS X - unless OS X itself has some limiting factor that we don't know about.


I seriously wonder how you would pull out that much of credit a day when I'm even having trouble getting new WUs regardless of Windows or Mac, let alone maintaining enough WU cache for one day without babysitting my tower every 2 - 3 hours...
ID: 18563 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
SATAN
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Feb 09
Posts: 45
Credit: 305,963
RAC: 0
Message 18565 - Posted: 13 Apr 2009, 17:30:46 UTC - in response to Message 18563.  

I seriously wonder how you would pull out that much of credit a day when I'm even having trouble getting new WUs regardless of Windows or Mac, let alone maintaining enough WU cache for one day without babysitting my tower every 2 - 3 hours...


Alberto was running this when we had a steady supply of units.

The Windows app is 256% faster than that for OSX on Intel at the present moment.

So getting an RAC of approx 16,000 would be very plausible.
Mars rules this confectionery war!
ID: 18565 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Elphidieus

Send message
Joined: 29 Jan 09
Posts: 5
Credit: 461,085
RAC: 0
Message 18566 - Posted: 13 Apr 2009, 17:42:38 UTC - in response to Message 18565.  



Alberto was running this when we had a steady supply of units.

The Windows app is 256% faster than that for OSX on Intel at the present moment.

So getting an RAC of approx 16,000 would be very plausible.


Even if there's a steady stream of WUs, there aren't enough to last even few hours without hitting the Update button, are they...?

I'd just wished the WUs were larger with rather longer datelines so that my offline tower can crunch on them for days without resorting to backup projects. The problem here is that I can only download a maximum of 6 WUs per processor for any given instance.
ID: 18566 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Alberto Tanikawa

Send message
Joined: 29 Jan 09
Posts: 32
Credit: 1,962,668
RAC: 0
Message 18615 - Posted: 13 Apr 2009, 23:57:10 UTC - in response to Message 18566.  

Even if there's a steady stream of WUs, there aren't enough to last even few hours without hitting the Update button, are they...?

I'd just wished the WUs were larger with rather longer datelines so that my offline tower can crunch on them for days without resorting to backup projects. The problem here is that I can only download a maximum of 6 WUs per processor for any given instance.


I left my Mac Pro running 24-7 for a week to try out Vista 64. The MP also has 8 cores, so it had somewhat ample WUs available. I've since throttled down to a more normal few hours a day, so my daily credits have diminished accordingly. I haven't tried 6.6.20 on OS X yet since I've been running Vista almost exclusively of late, so I don't know if things have gotten better. I guess I was lucky with my MP in getting WUs, because some of my other computers weren't getting WUs at all.
ID: 18615 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

Message boards : Number crunching : Optimized OS X Applications

©2024 Astroinformatics Group