Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Posts by Lloyd M.

1) Message boards : Number crunching : 4850 vs 4870 (Message 28235)
Posted 22 Jul 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
One thing that might swing it to the 4770 - the power consumption is low enough to where I might not have to do anything crazy by way of a PSU upgrade.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : 4850 vs 4870 (Message 28127)
Posted 21 Jul 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
Newegg currently has a Sapphire 4870 512MB with an instant $10 savings and a $10 mail-in rebate. Normally $139, with both the instant savings and the mail-in rebate, it's only $119. And free shipping on it right now too. That's not much over $100.

Disclaimer: I have no financial interest in Newegg, I just ordered one this morning. ;)



Huh. I subsequently noticed that Newegg also carries a Sapphire 4770 for $109 straight up, though they were out of stock when I looked. $119 is pretty good, too.

This is all moot while I remain unemployed, though that may change soon.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : 4850 vs 4870 (Message 27900)
Posted 17 Jul 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
A 4350 will not work as it does not support double precision.

Right now it is 38xx, 4770 & 48xx only.


RATS! 46XX can be had for less than $100 U.S. (sometimes a lot less). I did find a 4850 for about $110 U.S. Interestingly enough, neither of my favorite vendors even carry the 4770.

And nVidia cards that will run SETI quite nicely can be had for for less than $100
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Heart of Gold (Message 22256)
Posted 14 May 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
"borandi" wrote:
If you want to load several programs at once, they wipe the floor with Raptors. If you want to transfer large files, why are you using an SSD with not so much space? It's simple - SSDs work well as a boot drive, other HDDs are more suited to large file opening and/or transfer.


This is good information to have.

Do you happen to know what the exchange rate from £ to USD is nowadays?
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Krazy Kenzie’s Kredit Krunch (Message 17770)
Posted 6 Apr 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
Debs wrote:
It's a shame nobody also has a spare AMD system that they can run the same tests on to see how AMD and Intel compare.


I don't have a "spare" working right now, though I have parts to make a BE2300 (AMD X2) I could put together. Or I might be willing to dedicate my main box (an Opteron 170) to the task. I think Cluster Physik has a pretty good handle on it, though.

The other thing is, it would have to be on my Opty if I'm going to run XP, because I don't have a copy to spare. The BE2300 would have to be running linux.

6) Message boards : Number crunching : Krazy Kenzie’s Kredit Krunch (Message 17769)
Posted 6 Apr 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
kenzieB wrote:
Cancelling the test for now because there are very few WU’s flowing from MW at the moment.


Okie dokie. Looking forward to when you can get back to it.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Krazy Kenzie’s Kredit Krunch (Message 17287)
Posted 1 Apr 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
kenzieB wrote:
Whatever else you may be, you are at least mildly amusing.


Damning with faint praise, LOL.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Krazy Kenzie’s Kredit Krunch (Message 17243)
Posted 1 Apr 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
kenzieB wrote:
Sorry about that. So, I should have MW results in a week to ten days, depending on when I get the new MW test started.


No need to apologize, especially considering the circumstances. Hope everything is OK with your family.

We appreciate your efforts. Another week or two won't matter in the grand scheme of things.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Server Updates and Status (Message 17095)
Posted 28 Mar 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
Lord Tedric wrote:
I'm not really bothered either way! The majority of users want fairness and I think some sort of level playing field to see how they compare!

If your not 'doing the same work' how can you compare?


Well, I think it's basically not possible across projects, and quite possible within the same project. Even if the work is somewhat different, the people developing the app can equalize the credits based on difficulty

As for a "level playing field", how can there be such a thing? For instance, on this project, my Opteron 170 outperforms my P4s, even the Xeons (which have a higher clock speed, to boot).

When C2Ds came out, they absolutely annilated my Opty in terms of performance, especially on the KWSN SETI optimized apps, which take advantage of their large L2 cache.

There might be some projects where AMDs can still keep up with C2Qs (though I don't know of any), and I doubt AMD has anything that can run with an i7.

My approach (which suits other things I do with my computers), is to have more machines rather than faster ones. Where's the fairness in that? Though it took a while to accumulate enough of them to be able to outrun a single C2D, I did finally do so. Note that while my rank in this project, measured by TC or RAC is what I consider respectable, it is quite a bit lower when compared to people with the same number of machines.
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Server Updates and Status (Message 17092)
Posted 28 Mar 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
Renata and Neal Chantrill wrote:
I'll pop over to seti and tell them that they need to split their tables as they do different calculations too.


Excellent point. SETI has two types of Astropulse, plus "Enhanced", yet all the credits are earned on one project.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse (Message 17091)
Posted 28 Mar 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
boosted wrote:
I also think that all projects need to have the same rules for credit. It is based on the 'same work done' model.


Aye, there's the rub: quantifying what is the equivalent amount of "work", across projects, across different CPUs/GPUs
12) Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse (Message 17090)
Posted 28 Mar 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
Phil wrote:
Excuse me one moment, is this the five minute argument or the full halfhour?

Depends on whether you are using your CPU or your GPU
13) Message boards : Number crunching : How do I get this type of point production? (Message 17030)
Posted 27 Mar 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
Yeah. Just like the climate researchers have decided they don't need any more CPDN WUs crunched...

Yeah, and CPDN WU's are so small to start with...
14) Message boards : Number crunching : How do I get this type of point production? (Message 16991)
Posted 27 Mar 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
Paul D. Buck wrote:
Completion of the research ...


D'oh!
15) Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse (Message 16987)
Posted 27 Mar 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
The Gas Giant wrote:
I am for cross project parity, call me naive, but I think it can happen and I think it should be a continual goal for the BOINC devs.


I'm for things I don't believe I'll see in my lifetime, and I also have opinions concerning what the best use of very finite BOINC resources would be. Still, and perhaps to certain parties' disappointment if not dismay; I'm not going to disparage you about this.


The Gas Giant wrote:
You should still get the same amount of credit per hour using the stock app, but you do complete more wu's per hour.


Precisely my point. My credit/hour for the Big Gorilla project took a sudden hit of about 40%

The Gas Giant wrote:
No, you still get the same credit per hour as you would have using a stock app.


OK, and it was still reduced across the board.


The Gas Giant wrote:
All with 5% to 10% of each other though on stock apps.


I'll have to take your word on that, as I've heard differently more than once.

16) Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse (Message 16984)
Posted 27 Mar 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
Misfit wrote:
This is Lloyd's room.


How specifically?
17) Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse (Message 16982)
Posted 27 Mar 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
Misfit wrote:
You posting (whining) several times in a row? Yes, quite.


"(Q)uite" what? Pray tell which posts of mine do you characterize as "whining"?
18) Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse (Message 16981)
Posted 27 Mar 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
Paul,
Very, very, very well said. Likewise I will not quote, and for the same reason. I absolutely believe you about anticipating GPUs, your background, and bonafides in general.

BTW, my first machine was assembled from component parts (450+ solder connections on 1/10" centers - and it worked on the first try), circa 1978. I have Byte magazines back to Volume I, was living in the Silicon Valley in those days, and even bought an Apple II from Steve Wozniak's brother Mark.

Back on topic - I get that you get it, and could help straighten out this mess if "the powers that be" would listen. Point well taken on how I myself have been essentially lost as a volunteer to SETI because of their mishandling of my contribution to their project. I admit that I never saw it that way. I guess it's hard to see that kind of thing in ourselves, sometimes. While I still don't think this is actual injury, it is certainly affront, and your point is well taken on how this kind of behavior is harmful to SETI.

While I don't number myself among them, there are certainly a lot of people that have nothing nice to say about SETI, and wouldn't crunch for them on a bet. On a similar vein to your observations, given the amount and type of influence SETI has on BOINC, this can't be a good thing.

I like your idea about trying to apply pressure to the ONE worst project. Or maybe it could be a carrot first - if we could get enough potential RAC to agree to commit to a certain period of crunching, if only they will boost up their credit by x%, or accept help optimizing their app so it processes faster, etc.

Anyway, in general, I stand corrected in many regards, and humbly ask for your forgiveness for any insinuations and my generally snarky tone.
19) Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse (Message 16947)
Posted 26 Mar 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
Paul D. Buck wrote:
That said, the only things that are impossible are those that we decide we are not even going to attempt to do ... things never tried are always impossible.


Yeah, sure. Try telling that to the alchemists.

Let me put it this way - the resources that would have to be expended (to overcome technical barriers, probably on an ongoing basis) and the political considerations that would have to be overcome to achieve anything like cross-project parity as I understand it would be so prohibitive that the likelihood of this ever being achieved is vanishingly small.

Paul D. Buck wrote:
As to who it hurts? Well, just look at the rhetoric here and tell me that there is not hurt ...


Let me be more precise: where is the injury? As long as there aren't projects granting so much credit as to devalue the whole idea for everyone (a sort of credit inflation), who is being harmed by this?

I'll grant that some people are angry about this. Some have even threatened to take their ball and go to a different project (so to speak) en masse. I guess I'm just too dense to see what they're angry about.

Paul D. Buck wrote:
Had we addressed these issues in BOINC Beta when they were small and manageable we would not have seen the long running wars over these topics.


Assuming you could have made up for the performance disparities between AMD and Intel (depending on the project), and also somehow been prescient so you could see the coming emergence of GPU processing, and also managed to compensate for the inevitable performance dispartiy between nVidia and ATI, depending on the project (and, yes, I'm sure that eventually there will be more than one project that supports both).

Yeah, right. If you say so.

Paul D. Buck wrote:
In just the recent past Travis indicated that the only people that he felt made sense were those that agreed with him on reduction of credit awards. Yet, the supposed "pressure" to have MW lower its award could just as easily have been solved by those projects with below average awards raising theirs ...


Except that it is much easier to pressure one high-granting outlier than a bunch of low-granting projects that are somewhat the norm.

Also, how likely is it that an entire team will threaten to quit because the amount of credit granted is too low? As mercenary as some of us are accused of being, I just don't see that happening.

Yet, what did happen on this very project was an entire team threatened to quit because MW was granting "too much" credit.

For my part, if I don't think the credit is worth the electricity I have to spend to get it, I move on. I don't even bother protesting credit being too low. I don't see that as any of my business, anyway. This is a free-will, volunteer relationship, and I can use whatever criteria I see fit to choose which projects I devote what resources to.

Paul D. Buck wrote:
Now, after all the yelling is over about MW being too high have you seen any "pressure" from the developers and project admins for those projects that are awarding credit at below average rates? No, you don't ... because there isn't any ... if awarding too much is so evil, why isn't awarding too little equally evil?


Because the people that try to convince us that too much credit is evil are supposedly doing this "strictly for the science", so credit matters only if there is too much of it (so it's appealing for credit whores, who allegedly care only about credit, and don't give a hoot about the science). Also, their rationale is that projects that grant "too much" credit poach opportunistic credit whore volunteers from the "morally pure" projects who toe the line of the mighty "500 pound gorilla" project. Of course, this flies in the face of the actual facts, which show no such tendency, and some people simply let theory and feelings override the facts.

Paul D. Buck wrote:
Some of these debates do get into the semblance of arguing the merits of religion and I am not particularly interested in that ...


I respect that. I would say it's closer to politics, as I see some of the same traits (sometimes even the same terms, like "fairness") being played out here.

Of course, if anything; in some ways, this is even more dangerous ground to tread than religion.

Paul D. Buck wrote:
but, the original definition of how credit was supposed to work had at its core the idea / ideal that there would be parity across projects.

Well, many people considered Communism to be an "ideal", and that proved to be impossible to implement in the real world.

I'm not saying that cross-project parity is a Communistic idea or even a statist idea. I am saying that certain thing that people hold as ideals are simply unattainable in the real world.
20) Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse (Message 16946)
Posted 26 Mar 2009 by Lloyd M.
Post:
The Gas Giant wrote:
I think you think I said something I didn't say or imply up there,


Probably not. It's sombody else that's advocating for cross-project parity, and other people who are doing this "only for the science"


[snip]

The Gas Giant wrote:
Now if the project then releases another stock app that is partially optimised then purely based on benchmarks or FLOPS counting alone the credit granted for wu's completed utilising that app will be proportionally less. Let's call that Y. (This is what LHC@home did a few years ago). If a 3rd party is still able to release an optimised app that completes it faster, then the granted credit should still be Y.


We can agree to disagree here, or perhaps I don't understand. If the stock app gets some optimizations so it runs faster, that means that the credits have to be lowered accordingly, but if only the optimized app does, then it's OK as it is?

So more efficient software gets penalized (but only if it's the stock app), but more efficient hardware (or hardware made more efficient because of enhanced instruction sets) isn't?

My feeling is that work is work. SETI did two "credit devaluations" in short order, and they pretty much lost me after the second one. I was doing decent RAC on an old quad PIII Xeon box before they started fooling with the credits. So now SETI doesn't get many cycles from me.


The Gas Giant wrote:
My old 3.0GHz P4 with HT is running SETI and MW utilising optimised apps and can get a RAC of 800 on SETI and 1400 on MW. It was doing a RAC closer to 1400 on SETI before they incorporated optimisations in their stock code.


...and then devalued the credits granted for the same amount of work


The Gas Giant wrote:
If it did a project that does not have 3rd party optimised apps (like Malaria Control or LHC@home) it would only do a RAC of around 400. It does not do projects that do not have a 3rd party optimised app available anymore.


So much for "parity"

[snip]

The Gas Giant wrote:
Project stock applications should give similar credits per hour on the same machine no matter what project you do.


Not possible across the board. Some projects run a lot faster on AMD than Intel, or the other way around.

The Gas Giant wrote:
Mind you it does start to get ugly once a project starts releasing different stock apps that are optimised for the different instruction sets and distribute that app as their stock app. If/when that happens (I know there was talk about it) the granted credit should be based around the worst performing app they have.


If only. It appears to me that they generally try to achieve "parity" on some of the better performers, and the old boxes be hanged. That way, the faster boxes aren't earning "too much" credit.

The Gas Giant wrote:
Now we can discuss what I have said or what I hope to have said.


I'm sorry I gave that impression. It seems like you have similar views on cross-project parity as I do, and you seem more interested in a kind of intra-project parity, which I agree is totally doable (not necessarily advisable, but at least doable).


Next 20

©2024 Astroinformatics Group