S5R2

Hans-Peter Lehner
Hans-Peter Lehner
Joined: 10 May 05
Posts: 5
Credit: 23452872
RAC: 0

RE: The informations given

Message 62582 in response to message 62581

Quote:
The informations given to the users at this project is far too low for me to accept. I see no rational reason to hold off one of the project members to give daily(or nearby) updates on what's going on. That's only 5 min. of time which the volunteers imho realy deserve.

FACK

solaris is like a wigwam: no windows, no gates and a apache inside !

ErichZann
ErichZann
Joined: 11 Feb 05
Posts: 120
Credit: 81582
RAC: 0

RE: The informations given

Message 62583 in response to message 62581

Quote:


The informations given to the users at this project is far too low for me to accept. I see no rational reason to hold off one of the project members to give daily(or nearby) updates on what's going on. That's only 5 min. of time which the volunteers imho realy deserve.

cu,
Michael

Yeah, i agree with that....
As i remember this was way better in the past, einstein was maybe the project with most information directly from the project leaders and i really liked that, but it has changed as time gone by.....

Lisandro Firman
Lisandro Firman
Joined: 17 May 06
Posts: 22
Credit: 49004
RAC: 0

And the curve keeps

And the curve keeps flattening more and more....

Besides summer breaks... looks like more and more people is leaving....

MattDavis
MattDavis
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 68
Credit: 10565341
RAC: 0

Are we looking at teh same

Are we looking at teh same graph?

You do realize the drop from 100% in the middle of that graph signified the end of the old run?

I mean... wow.

Dave Burbank
Dave Burbank
Joined: 30 Jan 06
Posts: 275
Credit: 1548376
RAC: 0

RE: Are we looking at teh

Message 62586 in response to message 62585

Quote:

Are we looking at teh same graph?

You do realize the drop from 100% in the middle of that graph signified the end of the old run?

I mean... wow.

I think what he means is the curving down of the second part of the graph (after the middle of April), it is not a straight line like one would expect. We should be closer to 50% done, rather than 45%.

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman

Brian Silvers
Brian Silvers
Joined: 26 Aug 05
Posts: 772
Credit: 282700
RAC: 0

RE: RE: Are we looking at

Message 62587 in response to message 62586

Quote:
Quote:

Are we looking at teh same graph?

You do realize the drop from 100% in the middle of that graph signified the end of the old run?

I mean... wow.

I think what he means is the curving down of the second part of the graph (after the middle of April), it is not a straight line like one would expect. We should be closer to 50% done, rather than 45%.

It is summer in the Northern Hemisphere. There is often a reduction during this time of year due to students not being at school, people trying to conserve power, and people that don't have adequate enough cooling to be able to run as much...

jay
jay
Joined: 2 Aug 06
Posts: 21
Credit: 27748
RAC: 0

Hi, Here is a two part

Hi,
Here is a two part question:

The general topic is about poor performance caused by compiler switches and the
"dubious" method the run time lib (Microsoft) used to determine CPU properties.

Part 1 Question (General)
Should this be a separate thread for discussion, or does it only apply
to the S5R2 applications and work?

Part 2 Question (Specific)
I'm running windows 200 on a laptop - that shows:
6/16/2007 2:36:23 AM||Starting BOINC client version 5.8.16 for windows_intelx86
6/16/2007 2:36:23 AM||log flags: task, file_xfer, sched_ops
6/16/2007 2:36:23 AM||Libraries: libcurl/7.16.0 OpenSSL/0.9.8a zlib/1.2.3
6/16/2007 2:36:23 AM||Data directory: C:\\Program Files\\BOINC
6/16/2007 2:36:23 AM||Processor: 1 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 Mobile CPU 1.70GHz [x86 Family 15 Model 2 Stepping 4] [fpu tsc sse mmx]
6/16/2007 2:36:23 AM||Memory: 254.98 MB physical, 981.45 MB virtual

((Yes that's not much memory - There is a problem with the motherboard detecting the second mem card..))

I have noticed that it takes me a LONG tome to do a WU:
137,895 second or 18.3 hours - This is cpu time elapsed time can be 2 to 3 days.

Is this part of the sse detection problem?

If so, is there a way to recompile and force a correction???
I use CYGWIN and use the GCC compiler for running other apps on w2k.

THANKS IN ADVANCE,
Jay

Annika
Annika
Joined: 8 Aug 06
Posts: 720
Credit: 494410
RAC: 0

To the first part of your

To the first part of your question: Yes, these problems afflict only the current S5R2 science app.
Second: Depending on the size of the WUs you get, this completion time does not seem particularly long to me. My Athlon 64 3500+ takes a little under 30 hours for a really big (530 credit) WU (18.3 creds/hour I think was the average) running Linux, so no penalty involved. My Core Duo (clock speed 1.6 GHz, but should be a bit more efficient per clock than yours) gives me about 15 creds/hour per core. You might want to calculate that for your box and compare.
So far there is no evidence of P4-type computers getting a significant penalty under Windows. You see it happen with newer AMD machines, and occasionally with P3s, Intel Mobiles and Cores, but never with a P4 so far. So don't worry too much.
Hope I was able to help.
Annika

Bikeman (Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein)
Bikeman (Heinz-...
Moderator
Joined: 28 Aug 06
Posts: 3522
Credit: 732058372
RAC: 1235037

RE: Hi, Here is a two part

Message 62590 in response to message 62588

Quote:

Hi,
Here is a two part question:

The general topic is about poor performance caused by compiler switches and the
"dubious" method the run time lib (Microsoft) used to determine CPU properties.

Part 1 Question (General)
Should this be a separate thread for discussion, or does it only apply
to the S5R2 applications and work?

Well, it's probably better covered in the "Problems" section than in Crunchers' Corner, but .... nevertheless...

Quote:


Part 2 Question (Specific)
I'm running windows 200 on a laptop - that shows:
6/16/2007 2:36:23 AM||Starting BOINC client version 5.8.16 for windows_intelx86
6/16/2007 2:36:23 AM||log flags: task, file_xfer, sched_ops
6/16/2007 2:36:23 AM||Libraries: libcurl/7.16.0 OpenSSL/0.9.8a zlib/1.2.3
6/16/2007 2:36:23 AM||Data directory: C:\\Program Files\\BOINC
6/16/2007 2:36:23 AM||Processor: 1 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 Mobile CPU 1.70GHz [x86 Family 15 Model 2 Stepping 4] [fpu tsc sse mmx]
6/16/2007 2:36:23 AM||Memory: 254.98 MB physical, 981.45 MB virtual

((Yes that's not much memory - There is a problem with the motherboard detecting the second mem card..))

I have noticed that it takes me a LONG tome to do a WU:
137,895 second or 18.3 hours - This is cpu time elapsed time can be 2 to 3 days.

Is this part of the sse detection problem?

If so, is there a way to recompile and force a correction???
I use CYGWIN and use the GCC compiler for running other apps on w2k.

THANKS IN ADVANCE,
Jay

This is kind of strange, it seems that your CPU is detected by BOINC (not the science app) as NOT being SSE2 capable (only SSE seems to be supported). AFAIK, all Pentium 4s are SSE2 capable, even the "mobile" variants.

If your CPU really does not support the SSE2 instruction set, the Microsoft Runtime lib inside the Windows science app will switch to a slower code path which cannnot be helped at the moment, except maybe by switching to Linux :-).

However, this does not explain fully the far from spectacular performance of this host ;-). The benchmarks don't look that hot either, so I'd guess that the notebook might be running in a power saving mode with reduced clock freq., or maybe your motherboard has some problems in addition to detecting the additional RAM. If you have other applications running at the same time, swapping might be an issue.

EDIT: Annika, you beat me.... I must type a bit faster, I guess..
CU

BRM

Bikeman (Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein)
Bikeman (Heinz-...
Moderator
Joined: 28 Aug 06
Posts: 3522
Credit: 732058372
RAC: 1235037

Hmm.. there seems to be a

Message 62591 in response to message 62590

Hmm.. there seems to be a general issue concerning SSE2 and Windows 2000 ???

See this user on Seti, for example, he/she has a good mix of Win variants and CPUs:

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/hosts_user.php?userid=7801669

All the P4s under Win 2k are lacking the sse2 flag !

Very strange. The OS has to support SSE2 (AFAIK SSE2 is disabled by default and is switched on by the OS when booting, and the OS has to be aware of the SSE2 registers so they are saved and restored on task-switches). But Win 2k should support SSE2! Strange!

CU

BRM

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.