I looked at your results Tevault, thats a really impressive speedup, looks like 4.14 is even better for AMD than for Core 2. Is your 6000+ overclocked? My C2D Xeon is 20% higher clocked than a stock 6000+, and only ~30% faster than your 6000+. On average Core 2 is better clock for clock than that, so either 4.14 is better optimized for AMD K8 or this is some result of AMDs considerably faster memory controller. In any case, congratulations, insane improvement you got there.
ps, other users cant see your hostnames in your Computers list.
I looked at your results Tevault, thats a really impressive speedup, looks like 4.14 is even better for AMD than for Core 2. Is your 6000+ overclocked? My C2D Xeon is 20% higher clocked than a stock 6000+, and only ~30% faster than your 6000+. On average Core 2 is better clock for clock than that, so either 4.14 is better optimized for AMD K8 or this is some result of AMDs considerably faster memory controller. In any case, congratulations, insane improvement you got there.
ps, other users cant see your hostnames in your Computers list.
No, it's not overclocked. In fact, it runs so hot that I wouldn't even want to try. (It's still an old-style 90-nanometer design, so overclocking potential is severely limited.)
Odd, of all the times that I've looked at other folks' computer lists, I never noticed that the hostnames weren't visible. From now on, I'll reference computer ID numbers, instead. ;)
Edit:
The 6000+ machine is ID number 924295, and the P-III is number 813895.
Just finished a WU with 4.12 and started a new one with 4.14. All seems OK, 190.78 credits were granted. All my downloads (Einstein, SETI and QMC) work full throttle with core client 5.10.21, so QMC@home has just gone in EDF panic mode. Only boincprog, which I use because it uses very little CPU, has not liked the transition from 5.8.17 to 5.10.21 and behaves lazily, not switching from one app to another. But this is not a great loss, I fire up the manager when I want to check what is going on, then I kill it to spare cycles of my brave PII Deschutes, running SuSE Linux 10.1.
Tullio
You can put a file "EAH_NO_SYNC" in the BOINC directory and restart the Client in order not to immediately sync the file. However it would be interesting to know what's causing it. Do you know which filesystem you're using (ext2, ext3, xfs, ReiserF, whatever)?
You can put a file "EAH_NO_SYNC" in the BOINC directory and restart the Client in order not to immediately sync the file. However it would be interesting to know what's causing it. Do you know which filesystem you're using (ext2, ext3, xfs, ReiserF, whatever)?
BM
reiserfs, but it gives me no problem with either SETI and QMC.
reiserfs, but it gives me no problem with either SETI and QMC.
Well, the immediate syncing is a new feature, currently probably unique to E@h. ReiserFS is rather unusual, in fact I have not used it for years (and not tested the App on this); this might be the reason for the problems you see. Try to switch off syncing.
reiserfs, but it gives me no problem with either SETI and QMC.
Well, the immediate syncing is a new feature, currently probably unique to E@h. ReiserFS is rather unusual, in fact I have not used it for years (and not tested the App on this); this might be the reason for the problems you see. Try to switch off syncing.
BM
I followed your suggestion, with no result. I've gone back to the standard app, and things seem OK. Trouble started with 4.14. Sorry.
Tullio
reiserfs, but it gives me no problem with either SETI and QMC.
Well, the immediate syncing is a new feature, currently probably unique to E@h. ReiserFS is rather unusual, in fact I have not used it for years (and not tested the App on this); this might be the reason for the problems you see. Try to switch off syncing.
BM
I'm also using reiserfs and the next WU that gets downloaded will be crunched by the 4.14 app, so we might see if I get this error too.
Btw, Bernd, did you read my report about a lot of errors with the 4.09 app on a system under heavy load in the 4.09 thread? Since the code didn't change so much, this might still be relevant with 4.14.
Bernd, did you read my report about a lot of errors with the 4.09 app on a system under heavy load in the 4.09 thread? Since the code didn't change so much, this might still be relevant with 4.14.
I read it. The signal handler used in 4.14 is supposed to give some more information about what's happening there. Actually I'm hoping this error occurs with a 4.14 App. Maybe you can help reproduce it?
I looked at your results
)
I looked at your results Tevault, thats a really impressive speedup, looks like 4.14 is even better for AMD than for Core 2. Is your 6000+ overclocked? My C2D Xeon is 20% higher clocked than a stock 6000+, and only ~30% faster than your 6000+. On average Core 2 is better clock for clock than that, so either 4.14 is better optimized for AMD K8 or this is some result of AMDs considerably faster memory controller. In any case, congratulations, insane improvement you got there.
ps, other users cant see your hostnames in your Computers list.
Team Philippines
RE: I looked at your
)
No, it's not overclocked. In fact, it runs so hot that I wouldn't even want to try. (It's still an old-style 90-nanometer design, so overclocking potential is severely limited.)
Odd, of all the times that I've looked at other folks' computer lists, I never noticed that the hostnames weren't visible. From now on, I'll reference computer ID numbers, instead. ;)
Edit:
The 6000+ machine is ID number 924295, and the P-III is number 813895.
Just finished a WU with 4.12
)
Just finished a WU with 4.12 and started a new one with 4.14. All seems OK, 190.78 credits were granted. All my downloads (Einstein, SETI and QMC) work full throttle with core client 5.10.21, so QMC@home has just gone in EDF panic mode. Only boincprog, which I use because it uses very little CPU, has not liked the transition from 5.8.17 to 5.10.21 and behaves lazily, not switching from one app to another. But this is not a great loss, I fire up the manager when I want to check what is going on, then I kill it to spare cycles of my brave PII Deschutes, running SuSE Linux 10.1.
Tullio
Something is going wrong with
)
Something is going wrong with 4.14. Here is an excerpt from stderr.txt:
2007-10-25 04:46:28.0726 [normal]: Start of BOINC application 'einstein_S5R3_4.1
4_i686-pc-linux-gnu'.
FPU status flags: COND_3 PRECISION
FPU masked exceptions now: 37f: PRECISION UNDERFLOW OVERFLOW ZERO_DIVIDE DENORM
ALIZED INVALID
FPU masked exceptions set: 37e: PRECISION UNDERFLOW OVERFLOW ZERO_DIVIDE DENORM
ALIZED
2007-10-25 04:46:29.6159 [debug]: Reading SFTs and setting up stacks ... done
2007-10-25 04:47:02.7584 [normal]: INFO: Couldn't open checkpoint h1_0237.65_S5R
2__24_S5R3a_2_0.cpt
2007-10-25 04:47:02.7587 [debug]: Total skypoints = 1181. Progress: 0,
$Revision: 1.75 $ OPT:0 SCV:2, SCTRIM:8
2007-10-25 04:52:47.3866 [CRITICAL]: ERROR: Couldn't sync h1_0237.65_S5R2__24_S5
R3a_2_0.cpt.tmp: line:811, ferr:0, errno:9: Bad file descriptor
c
1, 2007-10-25 04:58:32.0871 [CRITICAL]: ERROR: Couldn't sync h1_0237.65_S5R2__24
_S5R3a_2_0.cpt.tmp: line:811, ferr:0, errno:9: Bad file descriptor
c
Any hint?
Tullio
RE: Any hint? You can
)
You can put a file "EAH_NO_SYNC" in the BOINC directory and restart the Client in order not to immediately sync the file. However it would be interesting to know what's causing it. Do you know which filesystem you're using (ext2, ext3, xfs, ReiserF, whatever)?
BM
BM
RE: RE: Any hint? You can
)
reiserfs, but it gives me no problem with either SETI and QMC.
RE: reiserfs, but it gives
)
Well, the immediate syncing is a new feature, currently probably unique to E@h. ReiserFS is rather unusual, in fact I have not used it for years (and not tested the App on this); this might be the reason for the problems you see. Try to switch off syncing.
BM
BM
RE: RE: reiserfs, but it
)
I followed your suggestion, with no result. I've gone back to the standard app, and things seem OK. Trouble started with 4.14. Sorry.
Tullio
RE: RE: reiserfs, but it
)
I'm also using reiserfs and the next WU that gets downloaded will be crunched by the 4.14 app, so we might see if I get this error too.
Btw, Bernd, did you read my report about a lot of errors with the 4.09 app on a system under heavy load in the 4.09 thread? Since the code didn't change so much, this might still be relevant with 4.14.
cu,
Michael
RE: Bernd, did you read my
)
I read it. The signal handler used in 4.14 is supposed to give some more information about what's happening there. Actually I'm hoping this error occurs with a 4.14 App. Maybe you can help reproduce it?
BM
BM