Could you identify which system is the system with the thermal problem?
Yes ... 1414352 is running at about 30% cuz if I go much higher, it does a thermal shutdown at odd times. Fan runs high continuously. CPU cooling fins appear to be clear of dust, but I haven't disassembled to be sure ... too much to do at the moment to try that. I assumed that when it started the behavior (a year after startup) that I just needed to blow the dust out, but that did not suffice. I think that most of the last reported WU was run on the SSE2 version. Ahhh... it may have finished processing using the version in the "slots" folder? BOINC has put the correct version in the "slots" folder.
6.05 installation procedure identical on all 9 Einstein boxes. Put new exe, dbg and app_info files on a thumb drive, stop BOINC, copy the three files into the einstein folder, and restart BOINC.
The other is 1107723 housed in a mini-case. It like the remaining 8, run 100% 7X24 and only go down for a power outage or required maintenance reboot.
6.05 installation procedure identical on all 9 Einstein boxes. Put new exe, dbg and app_info files on a thumb drive, stop BOINC, copy the three files into the einstein folder, and restart BOINC.
The version of BOINC your using 5.10.13 is pretty dated. I'd try going up to version 6.2.19 or 5.10.45 at the very least and see if you don't get better results with that.
6.05 installation procedure identical on all 9 Einstein boxes. Put new exe, dbg and app_info files on a thumb drive, stop BOINC, copy the three files into the einstein folder, and restart BOINC.
The version of BOINC your using 5.10.13 is pretty dated. I'd try going up to version 6.2.19 or 5.10.45 at the very least and see if you don't get better results with that.
Been up to later 5.10.xx release, but backed off because I didn't like how it ran. I'd be really surprised if version-up there helped performance in the app ... but stranger things have happened.
Been up to later 5.10.xx release, but backed off because I didn't like how it ran. I'd be really surprised if version-up there helped performance in the app ... but stranger things have happened.
To be honest I'm not very confident that it will work either. Truth is, I've seen the 2nd pc results and they're as unchanged as the 1st one to the new app. I've looked at what info is available in the WU's as well as on your pc's info, and see nothing that's a clear sign to me why you aren't getting better results. I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel here, and pretty much am at the state where you are. If it turns out this happens to be the cause, stranger things have happened.
[Edit] I guess we could always go into if both pc's have the same type of memory and doing test on those as well as other test, but your stock times don't look abnormal to me, so I'm doubtful there too.[/Edit]
2. Went looking early in the thread for a large chunk of text I recalled seeing earlier. It was missing ... Was it moved? deleted?
Longer threads will have sited above the most distant one displayed on your screen ( at the bottom for me, as I have 'Newest post first' selected ) a message like:
Only the first post and the last Y posts (of the X posts in this thread) are displayed.
and a hotlink like:
Click here to also display the remaining posts.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Looks like you did get a little improvement on this one, running full 6.0.5, (though I was expectng it to be a bit more dramitic), and runnng the BOINC 5.10.13. I do see more memory in this one so could be that has something to do with the difference as well as this being the one I think you said you throtle.
Looks like you did get a little improvement on this one, running full 6.0.5, (though I was expectng it to be a bit more dramitic, maybe because it's throtled it's not up where it should be), and runnng the BOINC 5.10.13. I do see more memory ( and maybe different? ) in this one, so could be that has something to do with the difference from the other AMD.
Looks like you did get a little improvement on this one, running full 6.0.5, (though I was expectng it to be a bit more dramitic, maybe because it's throtled it's not up where it should be), and runnng the BOINC 5.10.13. I do see more memory ( and maybe different? ) in this one, so could be that has something to do with the difference from the other AMD.
Bear in mind the cyclic nature of the runtimes of these tasks. There is a way to calculate cycle period, but I don't know if the people that work on that (archae86, Richard Haselgrove, Mike Hewson, Gary Roberts, et al) have fully perfected it for this science run (S5R4), but the basic idea is that you're going to have a peak and a trough in runtimes. Initially I thought there was not much improvement with my AMD, as times were hovering pretty consistently around 39000-40000 seconds. Now, however, it is only taking 32000 seconds.
Bear in mind the cyclic nature of the runtimes of these tasks. There is a way to calculate cycle period, but I don't know if the people that work on that (archae86, Richard Haselgrove, Mike Hewson, Gary Roberts, et al) have fully perfected it for this science run (S5R4), but the basic idea is that you're going to have a peak and a trough in runtimes. Initially I thought there was not much improvement with my AMD, as times were hovering pretty consistently around 39000-40000 seconds. Now, however, it is only taking 32000 seconds.
Well I hope I can look forward to that additional gain as well, since mine have been and are hovering around where yours were.. I was doing more of a comparison of his and my pc's from the standpoint that his was a 2.5 AMD and mine is a 2.4 (though his is a dual core), along with my Intel 2.0 dual (which completes them in about the same time as he's getting now), to try and gauge what a pc like his should be able to achieve. I figured his cpu time should be closer to my AMD than my Intel, though I know we're crunching different WU's, over all I thought there should be a similar comparison. I know it wouldn't be precise and his numbers are dropping more into the ball park from the last look I had.
Bear in mind the cyclic nature of the runtimes of these tasks. There is a way to calculate cycle period, but I don't know if the people that work on that (archae86, Richard Haselgrove, Mike Hewson, Gary Roberts, et al) have fully perfected it for this science run (S5R4), but the basic idea is that you're going to have a peak and a trough in runtimes.
I don't like the functional form which seems more complicated than ought to be necessary, but I still think the estimator I posted some weeks ago gives usefully accurate answers for the cycle length for S5R4
RE: Could you identify
)
Yes ... 1414352 is running at about 30% cuz if I go much higher, it does a thermal shutdown at odd times. Fan runs high continuously. CPU cooling fins appear to be clear of dust, but I haven't disassembled to be sure ... too much to do at the moment to try that. I assumed that when it started the behavior (a year after startup) that I just needed to blow the dust out, but that did not suffice. I think that most of the last reported WU was run on the SSE2 version. Ahhh... it may have finished processing using the version in the "slots" folder? BOINC has put the correct version in the "slots" folder.
6.05 installation procedure identical on all 9 Einstein boxes. Put new exe, dbg and app_info files on a thumb drive, stop BOINC, copy the three files into the einstein folder, and restart BOINC.
The other is 1107723 housed in a mini-case. It like the remaining 8, run 100% 7X24 and only go down for a power outage or required maintenance reboot.
Stan
RE: 6.05 installation
)
The version of BOINC your using 5.10.13 is pretty dated. I'd try going up to version 6.2.19 or 5.10.45 at the very least and see if you don't get better results with that.
RE: RE: 6.05 installation
)
Been up to later 5.10.xx release, but backed off because I didn't like how it ran. I'd be really surprised if version-up there helped performance in the app ... but stranger things have happened.
Stan
RE: Been up to later
)
To be honest I'm not very confident that it will work either. Truth is, I've seen the 2nd pc results and they're as unchanged as the 1st one to the new app. I've looked at what info is available in the WU's as well as on your pc's info, and see nothing that's a clear sign to me why you aren't getting better results. I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel here, and pretty much am at the state where you are. If it turns out this happens to be the cause, stranger things have happened.
[Edit] I guess we could always go into if both pc's have the same type of memory and doing test on those as well as other test, but your stock times don't look abnormal to me, so I'm doubtful there too.[/Edit]
RE: 2. Went looking early
)
Longer threads will have sited above the most distant one displayed on your screen ( at the bottom for me, as I have 'Newest post first' selected ) a message like:
Only the first post and the last Y posts (of the X posts in this thread) are displayed.
and a hotlink like:
Click here to also display the remaining posts.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: but stranger things
)
Looks like you did get a little improvement on this one, running full 6.0.5, (though I was expectng it to be a bit more dramitic), and runnng the BOINC 5.10.13. I do see more memory in this one so could be that has something to do with the difference as well as this being the one I think you said you throtle.
RE: but stranger things
)
Looks like you did get a little improvement on this one, running full 6.0.5, (though I was expectng it to be a bit more dramitic, maybe because it's throtled it's not up where it should be), and runnng the BOINC 5.10.13. I do see more memory ( and maybe different? ) in this one, so could be that has something to do with the difference from the other AMD.
RE: RE: but stranger
)
Bear in mind the cyclic nature of the runtimes of these tasks. There is a way to calculate cycle period, but I don't know if the people that work on that (archae86, Richard Haselgrove, Mike Hewson, Gary Roberts, et al) have fully perfected it for this science run (S5R4), but the basic idea is that you're going to have a peak and a trough in runtimes. Initially I thought there was not much improvement with my AMD, as times were hovering pretty consistently around 39000-40000 seconds. Now, however, it is only taking 32000 seconds.
RE: Bear in mind the cyclic
)
Well I hope I can look forward to that additional gain as well, since mine have been and are hovering around where yours were.. I was doing more of a comparison of his and my pc's from the standpoint that his was a 2.5 AMD and mine is a 2.4 (though his is a dual core), along with my Intel 2.0 dual (which completes them in about the same time as he's getting now), to try and gauge what a pc like his should be able to achieve. I figured his cpu time should be closer to my AMD than my Intel, though I know we're crunching different WU's, over all I thought there should be a similar comparison. I know it wouldn't be precise and his numbers are dropping more into the ball park from the last look I had.
RE: Bear in mind the cyclic
)
I don't like the functional form which seems more complicated than ought to be necessary, but I still think the estimator I posted some weeks ago gives usefully accurate answers for the cycle length for S5R4
cycle length(freq)=0.42+.00029*(ceiling(freq,10)+1)^2
Making conclusions about performance comparison without taking into account the cycle can certainly be very misleading.