Run times on my task list show it to be about 10% slower than 1.07, at least on my system (Ubuntu 10.10 with an i7 930).
I wouldn't trust the predictions of the Client too much before it has actually finished at least one task.
But it could well be that the 64Bit App is slightly slower than the 32Bit App. Although people find it hard to believe, 32Bit Apps could be way more efficient even on 64Bit systems than "native" ones.
Run times on my task list show it to be about 10% slower than 1.07, at least on my system (Ubuntu 10.10 with an i7 930).
I wouldn't trust the predictions of the Client too much before it has actually finished at least one task.
But it could well be that the 64Bit App is slightly slower than the 32Bit App. Although people find it hard to believe, 32Bit Apps could be way more efficient even on 64Bit systems than "native" ones.
BM
For the ones that have completed here, it seems that the run-times are about the same as the 32-bit ones.
Yes, this is my impression too. The 64Bit app actually seems slightly slower than the 32Bit SSE2 App.
The BOINC Core Client should check for availability of 32Bit compatibility libraries before reporting the 32Bit platform. At least the code is in the BOINC SVN trunk since revision 22890. I don't know yet whether it works and in which official client releases this is incorporated.
I guess I'll drop the plan class again, so that ultimately only 64Bit machines not capable of running 32Bit Apps get this App version.
Anyone observed a crash from missing libraries etc?
No crash so far and I think it's a very nice idea to select the app dependent on the presence of the 32-Bit libs.
But don't hurry, you can get more experience about the stability of the 64Bit app.
RE: I added a fake 64 Bit
)
It does. Thanks!
RE: I added a fake 64 Bit
)
I got it too. Wonderful!
Kathryn :o)
Einstein@Home Moderator
RE: I don't expect any
)
Run times on my task list show it to be about 10% slower than 1.07, at least on my system (Ubuntu 10.10 with an i7 930).
I can sign that.
)
I can sign that.
RE: Run times on my task
)
I wouldn't trust the predictions of the Client too much before it has actually finished at least one task.
But it could well be that the 64Bit App is slightly slower than the 32Bit App. Although people find it hard to believe, 32Bit Apps could be way more efficient even on 64Bit systems than "native" ones.
BM
BM
RE: RE: Run times on my
)
For the ones that have completed here, it seems that the run-times are about the same as the 32-bit ones.
CPU time is higher and run
)
CPU time is higher and run time increased even more.
Host i920 OpenSuse 11.1 64 Bit.
Yes, this is my impression
)
Yes, this is my impression too. The 64Bit app actually seems slightly slower than the 32Bit SSE2 App.
The BOINC Core Client should check for availability of 32Bit compatibility libraries before reporting the 32Bit platform. At least the code is in the BOINC SVN trunk since revision 22890. I don't know yet whether it works and in which official client releases this is incorporated.
I guess I'll drop the plan class again, so that ultimately only 64Bit machines not capable of running 32Bit Apps get this App version.
Anyone observed a crash from missing libraries etc?
BM
BM
No crash so far and I think
)
No crash so far and I think it's a very nice idea to select the app dependent on the presence of the 32-Bit libs.
But don't hurry, you can get more experience about the stability of the 64Bit app.