Message boards :
Number crunching :
Program Conflict FYI
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
mlcudd Send message Joined: 11 Apr 03 Posts: 782 Credit: 63,647 RAC: 0 |
Hi All, I recently have been running Boinc projects leaving the Client in memory while switching projects, as a poster on another thread suggested to spped up crunching times. However my crunching time for all projects was actually increased by doing this because I also run a program called FreeRam XP pro 1.40 that cleans up ram. After discontinuing the Free Ram program my crunching times returned to their previous position. I have since switched back to not leaving my WU's in memory and still use the Free Ram. Respectfully, Rocky www.boincsynergy.com |
Chilean Send message Joined: 6 Apr 03 Posts: 498 Credit: 3,200,504 RAC: 0 |
|
Chilean Send message Joined: 6 Apr 03 Posts: 498 Credit: 3,200,504 RAC: 0 |
|
mlcudd Send message Joined: 11 Apr 03 Posts: 782 Credit: 63,647 RAC: 0 |
Hi Miniziper, Here is the link to use the Free Ram program. It is free ware, and it works great. Good luck! respectfully, Rocky http://www.yourwaresolutions.com www.boincsynergy.com |
Chilean Send message Joined: 6 Apr 03 Posts: 498 Credit: 3,200,504 RAC: 0 |
|
RDC Send message Joined: 17 May 99 Posts: 544 Credit: 1,215,728 RAC: 0 |
> Hi All, > I recently have been running Boinc projects leaving the Client in memory > while switching projects, as a poster on another thread suggested to spped up > crunching times. However my crunching time for all projects was actually > increased by doing this because I also run a program called FreeRam XP pro > 1.40 that cleans up ram. After discontinuing the Free Ram program my crunching > times returned to their previous position. I have since switched back to not > leaving my WU's in memory and still use the Free Ram. > I had something similar happen in terms of increased CPU time on another computer I recently added to BOINC but it was a conflict between Seti and Einstein. I just removed Einstein and all seems to be working normal again for SETI but with both BOINC 4.19 and 4.25, the SETI and Einstein CPU cycles were moving up together which created some ridiculously high processing times. Only one was crunching at any given time but both timers continued to run at the same time and would report the erroneous times. Funny thing was that the second computer is much faster than my regular computer but WU's were taking much longer to process due to the timer issue. To truly explore, one must keep an open mind... |
Heffed Send message Joined: 19 Mar 02 Posts: 1856 Credit: 40,736 RAC: 0 |
XP more or less makes the RAM freeing utilities redundant. Unlike some of the older Win OS's, XP is good about giving up RAM (flushing cached .dlls etc...) when an application needs it. There is no need to have large portions of 'free' RAM hanging about on your system. |
mlcudd Send message Joined: 11 Apr 03 Posts: 782 Credit: 63,647 RAC: 0 |
> XP more or less makes the RAM freeing utilities redundant. Unlike some of the > older Win OS's, XP is good about giving up RAM (flushing cached .dlls etc...) > when an application needs it. There is no need to have large portions of > 'free' RAM hanging about on your system. > Thank You Heffed, I did not have any idea about that. I appreciate the info. is there a setting in XP for that, because with 512 memory in both my boxes. They seem to always have about 30% available until I use the free ram. Respectfully, Rocky www.boincsynergy.com |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13720 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
> XP more or less makes the RAM freeing utilities redundant. That was even the case for Win95. Win 0-3.x actually benefited from some of the memory optimisers that were around at the time, but since Win95 every reivew i've seen has found that at best the current bunch do nothing, at worst they bog things down even more. Grant Darwin NT |
Heffed Send message Joined: 19 Mar 02 Posts: 1856 Credit: 40,736 RAC: 0 |
> Thank You Heffed, > I did not have any idea about that. I appreciate the info. is there a > setting in XP for that, because with 512 memory in both my boxes. They seem to > always have about 30% available until I use the free ram. Nope. It's all automatic. Like I said, there really is no need to have large amounts of 'free' RAM sitting on your system. 30% available doesn't mean that's all the RAM you have available if you need it. That's just the chunk that doesn't currently have anything loaded/cached in it. If you are running an application that needs more than the 30% reported as free, it can easily grab whatever else it needs. (assuming all your RAM isn't tied up with active programs) The OS will flush inactive .dlls or parts of programs it had cached to give the application requesting more the RAM it wants. Optimizing RAM can actully hinder performance as MiniZiper has noticed. He mentions the start menu opening slowly. This is because you've flushed your RAM, and these things must now be re-loaded. The optimizer is basically fighting with the OS. The OS has a better idea of what you may need quickly than the optimizer. It tries to intelligently manage the items it keeps cached. Also, most RAM optimizers are memory resident, (they have a neat little real time meter or something, or 'optimise' your RAM at given intervals) so you've got another little app sitting there eating CPU cycles. (as you noticed with your first post in this thread) @Grant(SSSF) Yes, it's gradually been getting better with each OS release, but with Win2000/XP, the OS really does a fairly adequate job of memory management. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.