CPU and GPU av. credit

The tasks being issue now, and since a somewhat over two days ago seem to be of that same sort--so this issue may be upon us again.

That would be huge, by the standards of most UPS systems marketed for individual PC use.

Running Windows 10, I've not figured out how to get the Einstein tasks to suspend when the system is running on UPS power, though it should be possible as two of my three systems are in successful communication with their Cyberpower UPS systems by a UPS connection, so in some sense the "running on battery" status is available at the PC level.

If I learned how to get that to work, my existing UPS systems might get me out well past a half hour, but getting past a day would require a beast, even with that working.  Then I'd get to replace all those batteries about once every three years--unless I found a UPS that does a better job of looking after battery health.

Unfortunately, I don't think you really have 'got it' :-).

Using the BOINC feature to simulate extra cores is not like using a VM and there are no bad settings or events that can happen when you "turn it back on".  It's nothing to do with whether you have stable power or not.  It's simply a fudge factor that allows a fast machine not to completely run out of work in certain circumstances as explained below.

If you set that BOINC feature to simulate some huge number of cores (say 96), there is no change in the number of tasks that the machine can crunch.  If a machine has 8 real cores or threads and one GPU, it can still only crunch the same number of CPU plus GPU tasks simultaneously when you change to 96 simulated cores.  And the time to crunch those tasks wont change.  If there's a power failure and the machine has to be restarted, nothing bad will happen.  The  same tasks that were crunching before the power fail will be restarted from their respective saved checkpoints.

The only reason that people at Einstein have been using simulated cores is to allow their daily GPU task quota to be increased.  At times there are GPU tasks that can be crunched much faster than the usual 'normal' time so that for fast, high end GPUs, the daily allowance may not last for a full day.  That allowance is a value calculated by the project servers depending on the hardware in each machine.  Even though we are talking about GPU tasks, the server uses BOTH number of GPUs AND number of CPUs in working out the quota.  If you 'pretend' to have a lot more CPU cores than you actually have, the server will allow you to have a bigger quota (for everything) and you can avoid running out of work when you have the fast crunching GPU tasks.  End of story.

If you understand that the 'simulated cores' feature doesn't have any benefit for number of simultaneous tasks or individual crunch times, then there is no need to think about adding more RAM or a huge UPS.  If your machine has enough RAM to avoid swapping, there won't be a tangible benefit to crunch times from adding more of it.

Going back to your original set of questions in your opening post, I get the impression you are looking for advice about how to get the best 'bang for your buck' when you setup some additional machines for crunching.  Please be aware that there are many pitfalls in trying to compare the very small number of hosts that you can access at the top of the top computers list.  You really have to focus on the fact that the values shown are a single snapshot only.  The RAC values you are comparing can't be stable unless there has been something like a month of unchanged crunching conditions.

What were the values yesterday, last week, last month?  A machine shows a particular GPU today.  Was it the same GPU yesterday, last week, last month?  Does the machine run 24/7 or not?  Has the owner had it switched off recently while on holidays and just turned it back on?  Has the owner changed the number of GPUs recently?  Does the machine also support other projects besides Einstein?  Unless you consider a lot of factors like these and watch machines of interest over a period of several weeks, at least, you can never be sure that the snapshot credit values you see today have any true meaning whatsoever.

Fortunately, many people do seem to have fairly stable operating conditions.  If you are monitoring a given host and nothing much changes over say a week, you can infer that the current values are probably very close to the long term stable values.  Even then, you still can't infer 24/7 operation.  Some people may schedule their computer to stop crunching during set times, eg to avoid peak electricity costs.  The RAC might be stable but lower than what 24/7 operation would give.

Another factor is that comparisons between different hosts having supposedly similar hardware and similar hours of operation may still give a false impression because one may be crunching multiple GPU tasks concurrently whilst the other may be processing them one at a time.  To work that out, you have to analyse the individual task crunch times for both.

So you really can get a false impression from the current RAC shown on the top hosts list at a single point in time, even if it appears to be stable.

Gavin, thanks very much for your kind words and thanks very much for providing the extra comments.  I agree with what you have added.  I had considered adding more information to my own reply at the time but I thought that what I had was already too long.  I decided to wait and see if the OP had further questions or provided more information about his ultimate aims.

I like your "less is more" comment.  It's often quite true, as is the "vintage computers" thought.  John did mention in the opening post that, "i'm planning to upgrade or to buy some ...".  If he has some older hardware that is (most importantly) suitable and functional, the cheapest way to get a dramatic boost in productivity is to upgrade by adding a modern GPU.  By 'suitable' I'm thinking of a least 'core 2' generation or later - say around 2010 or later - the later the better :-).

As an example, nearly 2 years ago, I was considering retiring a group of 6 machines, first built in late 2008.  They had Intel Q6600 2.4GHz quad core processors with 2x1GB sticks of DDR2 RAM and 300W 80+ efficient PSUs.  They had been doing CPU task crunching all their life.  All 6 are still running, with GPUs ranging from RX 460 to RX 580.  I've upgraded the PSUs for any that have more than an RX 460.  I've upgraded the RAM to at least 3GB (which actually is sufficient, even with a full graphics desktop environment).  They don't run CPU tasks any more, although they did each run a single CPU task until the summer heat arrived last October.  There is virtually no difference in output from those old clunkers when compared with the same GPU in a much more modern machine.

For John's benefit, if contemplating the upgrade of older hardware, you need to pay close attention to the condition of components like capacitors and chokes on the motherboard.  You also need to look closely at the power ratings of the PSU. You really want 80+ efficiency if possible and you must have a decent modern design that can supply virtually its full output at 12V.  It's wise to use a simple plug in type power meter to see what the machine draws from the wall at full load.  Make sure you're not drawing more than about 60% of the PSU's rated output.  PSUs are most efficient in the 40-60% power output range.  Make sure the PSU fan spins freely.  If you can, leave the cases completely open to assist with heat dissipation.

 If you have further questions, please feel free to ask.