AK V8 ported release ap. issues, install, questions etc.

Message boards : Number crunching : AK V8 ported release ap. issues, install, questions etc.
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 19 · Next

AuthorMessage
Speedy
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 04
Posts: 1639
Credit: 12,921,799
RAC: 89
New Zealand
Message 749630 - Posted: 7 May 2008, 21:42:25 UTC

I like this app running it on both my rig's. Is this v8 code able to be used over @ AstroPulse?
Thanks
Speedy
ID: 749630 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14649
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 749643 - Posted: 7 May 2008, 22:13:14 UTC - in response to Message 749630.  

I like this app running it on both my rig's. Is this v8 code able to be used over @ AstroPulse?
Thanks
Speedy

No, I'm afraid it isn't - AP is a completely different application, performing a different kind of search, on completely different (8 megabyte) data files. Chalk and cheese, in every way.

Also, it's not regarded as good form to run optimised applications of any sort at Beta - it confuses the test results, and makes it more difficult for the Berkeley staff to check they've got the underlying theory right.

I'm sure optimisations will follow, but they need to get the prototype ready first.
ID: 749643 · Report as offensive
Speedy
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 04
Posts: 1639
Credit: 12,921,799
RAC: 89
New Zealand
Message 749649 - Posted: 7 May 2008, 22:18:52 UTC - in response to Message 749643.  


No, I'm afraid it isn't - AP is a completely different application, performing a different kind of search, on completely different (8 megabyte) data files. Chalk and cheese, in every way.

Also, it's not regarded as good form to run optimised applications of any sort at Beta - it confuses the test results, and makes it more difficult for the Berkeley staff to check they've got the underlying theory right.

I'm sure optimisations will follow, but they need to get the prototype ready first.

OK thankyou I thought that might b the case
Speedy
ID: 749649 · Report as offensive
Profile Alaskan

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 18
Credit: 53,634,823
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 750177 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 0:47:36 UTC

Hi, after installing this AK_v8_win_SSSE3x on my quad q6600, my computing averages have decreased. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks
ID: 750177 · Report as offensive
Profile RandyC
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Oct 99
Posts: 714
Credit: 1,704,345
RAC: 0
United States
Message 750192 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 1:33:12 UTC - in response to Message 750177.  

Hi, after installing this AK_v8_win_SSSE3x on my quad q6600, my computing averages have decreased. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks


My primary thought is that since your computers are hidden, there's no way we can reasonably discuss this.
ID: 750192 · Report as offensive
Profile JDWhale
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 99
Posts: 921
Credit: 21,935,817
RAC: 3
United States
Message 750232 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 3:16:30 UTC - in response to Message 750177.  

Hi, after installing this AK_v8_win_SSSE3x on my quad q6600, my computing averages have decreased. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks


Looking at 2 results with similar Angle Range(AR) from before and after switching.... I see that your CPU time has gone from ~6800 to ~3800.

Yes your CPU times have decreased, as expected by ~44% at this AR...

So where is the problem?

Regards,
JDWhale
ID: 750232 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 750259 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 5:13:49 UTC - in response to Message 750192.  
Last modified: 9 May 2008, 5:21:29 UTC

Hi, after installing this AK_v8_win_SSSE3x on my quad q6600, my computing averages have decreased. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks


My primary thought is that since your computers are hidden, there's no way we can reasonably discuss this.

Hey......but he has a kitty avatar!!! LOL. And he has unhidden his computers.

Anyway, I suspect this is a temporary thing......I assume he meant his RAC on the rig had gone down a little.....
Hang in there, from looking at your crunch times, I suspect all is well and your RAC should start to rise soon.....
You may have seen a temporary dip due to an increase in pending credits....because you are now crunching faster than many of your wingmen, and turning in more results that are waiting for validation because the other cruncher cannot keep up with you.
Keep an eye on your RAC for that rig for a few days and it should come up.....

Oh, and it looks like your 4400 rig is still on the 2.4v app.....it should benefit nicely from the new app as well.....

Happy crunching..........
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 750259 · Report as offensive
Profile David
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 May 99
Posts: 411
Credit: 1,426,457
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 750277 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 6:27:44 UTC

I'm with JD - I found a couple of similar AR WU's and found roughly a 35% increase in speed. Both my main PC's took a dive just after I installed the new client, and I can attribute that to a combination of WU's - they were crunched with the old software but since some of the stats sites are a bit behind, the first update after I installed the new app saw a drop - argh.

Give it a few days and see how things work out. It takes a while for the RAC to increase, so see how it goes. I have been returning over 10,000/day for the last 6 days, but my RAC is still 9400 and climbing - I expect it to top out at close to the 10K mark but thats probably a month or more away until it settles out
ID: 750277 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 750279 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 6:32:41 UTC - in response to Message 750277.  

I'm with JD - I found a couple of similar AR WU's and found roughly a 35% increase in speed. Both my main PC's took a dive just after I installed the new client, and I can attribute that to a combination of WU's - they were crunched with the old software but since some of the stats sites are a bit behind, the first update after I installed the new app saw a drop - argh.

Give it a few days and see how things work out. It takes a while for the RAC to increase, so see how it goes. I have been returning over 10,000/day for the last 6 days, but my RAC is still 9400 and climbing - I expect it to top out at close to the 10K mark but thats probably a month or more away until it settles out

About 4 weeks steady to stabilize the RAC.........
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 750279 · Report as offensive
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 99
Posts: 1681
Credit: 492,052
RAC: 0
United States
Message 750390 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 12:25:49 UTC

I'm running this on my SSE3-capable AMD 3700+ now. I do not have any comparison data from the prior SSE2-generic 2.4 app. Tasks are validating, but I have no idea of if the times are faster, slower, or about the same, and I'm pressed for time today to read the forums (I haven't paid attention to here in probably a month now)...

So, if anyone would like to indulge my laziness and tell me general performance statistics for a Socket 939 AMD, I'd appreciate it... ;-)


ID: 750390 · Report as offensive
Profile RandyC
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Oct 99
Posts: 714
Credit: 1,704,345
RAC: 0
United States
Message 750451 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 15:46:43 UTC - in response to Message 750390.  
Last modified: 9 May 2008, 15:48:38 UTC

I'm running this on my SSE3-capable AMD 3700+ now. I do not have any comparison data from the prior SSE2-generic 2.4 app. Tasks are validating, but I have no idea of if the times are faster, slower, or about the same, and I'm pressed for time today to read the forums (I haven't paid attention to here in probably a month now)...

So, if anyone would like to indulge my laziness and tell me general performance statistics for a Socket 939 AMD, I'd appreciate it... ;-)



My 4000+ X2 system is getting around 22 cr/hr per cpu (around 8450 secs/WU) crunching the 53/54 credit WUs.
[edit]Prior to AK V8, it was pulling in 17-18 cr/hr[/edit]
ID: 750451 · Report as offensive
Bits_of_guy

Send message
Joined: 2 Apr 05
Posts: 43
Credit: 174,260
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 750459 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 16:07:38 UTC

I am running a q66oo 2.4, not oc'd with twin 8800gt's factory oc'd. I just installed the AK v8 64 ssse3x app and noticed huge improvements over previous crunching performance with very little increase in heat.

Currently with 4 cpu's crunching, I get up to 38C. Was running maxed out at 32C prior to the app upgrade.

However, today, I just uploaded a pile (approx 25) WU's with Computational Errors. They had been sitting in my TASK window of BOINC for a couple of days saying 100% and status was Ready to Report. I tried to get them to send, but nothing happened, then they suddenly changed to computational errors and uploaded about 20 minutes ago.
Not sure what that was all about.

stderr out <core_client_version>5.10.45</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
Incorrect function. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
Windows optimized S@H Enhanced application by Alex Kan
Version info: SSSE3x (Intel, Core 2-optimized v8-nographics) V5.13 by Alex Kan
SSSE3x Win64 Build 42 , Ported by : Jason G, Raistmer, JDWhale

CPUID: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz

</stderr_txt>
]]>





Here's another


stderr out <core_client_version>5.10.45</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
Incorrect function. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
Windows optimized S@H Enhanced application by Alex Kan
Version info: SSSE3x (Intel, Core 2-optimized v8-nographics) V5.13 by Alex Kan
SSSE3x Win64 Build 42 , Ported by : Jason G, Raistmer, JDWhale

CPUID: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
Speed: 4 x 2397 MHz
Cache: L1=64K L2=4096K
Features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3

Work Unit Info:
...............
Credit multiplier is : 2.85
WU true angle range is : 0.435267

</stderr_txt>
]]>
ID: 750459 · Report as offensive
Bits_of_guy

Send message
Joined: 2 Apr 05
Posts: 43
Credit: 174,260
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 750479 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 16:26:26 UTC

Additionally,

I had about 23 instances of AK_v8_win_x64_ssse3x.exe running in my task manager but not using up any CPU cycles. Only 2 are using any cpu cycles.

Why are there so many instances of them? Can't you reuse them? or close them down when they are not running any WU's.

I ask this because I would think that so many would start to use resources, such as RAM or swap file space, etc. Maybe you should look at cleaning up some of your code to eliminate all these open ended instances of the exe file.

Just a thought, and just my opinion.
ID: 750479 · Report as offensive
Profile jason_gee
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 7489
Credit: 91,093,184
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 750482 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 16:29:17 UTC - in response to Message 750479.  
Last modified: 9 May 2008, 16:37:49 UTC

Hi There Bits of Guy, I note you're running Vista, could you tell us what directory Boinc is installed in please ? (This may be a Boinc issue)
"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.
ID: 750482 · Report as offensive
Bits_of_guy

Send message
Joined: 2 Apr 05
Posts: 43
Credit: 174,260
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 750500 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 17:21:33 UTC - in response to Message 750482.  

Hi There Bits of Guy, I note you're running Vista, could you tell us what directory Boinc is installed in please ? (This may be a Boinc issue)


BOINC is installed in the c:\\programs\\Boinc
I am running 64bit vista.

BOINC doesn't seem to have any problem normally. I have been uploading a pile of stuff since May 2.

I used to be a member a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away, but I moved and lost touch with my account, and then tried boinc on an AMD 3000, running xp under a new id, but BOINC or Seti wouldn't run on my ATI card with no idea when they would get a fix in for it, so I uninstalled.

I only recently restarted with SETI on May the 2. I have been plowing through wu's at about 50 a day for the last 4 days. I just happened to notice those WU's that were Ready but wouldn't go, everything else around them, stuff received before and after had no problem sending.



ID: 750500 · Report as offensive
Josef W. Segur
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4504
Credit: 1,414,761
RAC: 0
United States
Message 750507 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 17:32:54 UTC - in response to Message 750479.  

Bits_of_guy:
Additionally,

I had about 23 instances of AK_v8_win_x64_ssse3x.exe running in my task manager but not using up any CPU cycles. Only 2 are using any cpu cycles.

Why are there so many instances of them? Can't you reuse them? or close them down when they are not running any WU's.

I ask this because I would think that so many would start to use resources, such as RAM or swap file space, etc. Maybe you should look at cleaning up some of your code to eliminate all these open ended instances of the exe file.

Just a thought, and just my opinion.

I noted in one of your posts:
5/9/2008 7:21:16 AM||Preferences limit memory usage when active to 81.87MB

The science app uses about 30 MB for each running instance, so that preference setting accounts for only 2 using CPU cycles. It might also bear some relation to why BOINC has started so many instances and then suspended them, though I'm not sure exactly how that could happen.

It looks like you have a 2% setting, I suggest increasing it to 5% which would allow your quad to keep doing 4 instances while you're active. Most users find that since crunching is done at the lowest possible thread priority there's no noticeable impact of letting it get whatever spare cycles are available.
                                                                Joe
ID: 750507 · Report as offensive
Profile jason_gee
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 7489
Credit: 91,093,184
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 750510 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 17:36:46 UTC - in response to Message 750500.  
Last modified: 9 May 2008, 17:37:29 UTC

Okay, I'd keep an eye on it for a while if there's any reoccurrence, and be doing basic things like running memtest86+, checking drivers are up to date etc. One thing I've noticed that if there's any kind of glitch in the system, then the app being a tad faster means they error out faster too if there's a problem. At least compute errors are recognised as such, and reissued.

Looking at your WUs, one thing that doesn't make sense is while some report the stock 2.4GHz, others are reporting well in excess of 3GHz... That's a bit odd, and I'm not quite sure what that means just yet, perhaps you're running at stock speed but with reduced multiplier? that would OC the RAM/FSB wouldn't it?

Jason
"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.
ID: 750510 · Report as offensive
Bits_of_guy

Send message
Joined: 2 Apr 05
Posts: 43
Credit: 174,260
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 750525 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 17:58:22 UTC - in response to Message 750510.  

Okay, I'd keep an eye on it for a while if there's any reoccurrence, and be doing basic things like running memtest86+, checking drivers are up to date etc. One thing I've noticed that if there's any kind of glitch in the system, then the app being a tad faster means they error out faster too if there's a problem. At least compute errors are recognised as such, and reissued.

Looking at your WUs, one thing that doesn't make sense is while some report the stock 2.4GHz, others are reporting well in excess of 3GHz... That's a bit odd, and I'm not quite sure what that means just yet, perhaps you're running at stock speed but with reduced multiplier? that would OC the RAM/FSB wouldn't it?

Jason



I have no idea what that means.... reduced multiplier? ques que ce?

as for setting the app for more than 2% I guess I could, but I normally use this machine for gaming, and COD4 is pretty demanding on this system.... I haven't tried it yet with the app still running in the background. I am constantly fiddling with the preferences though. Maybe I screwed something up?

And yes I realize that COD4 only uses one cpu... however, when it does, it is maxing out the cpu according the the readout on the G15 keyboard lcd screen.

I have had some problems with this machine. Right out of the box it had to go back to the shop for a CPU replacement and hard drive replacement. The Video cards had been swapped in and out of their slots a couple of times, and finally I am able to run the games without freeze up.
Maybe all these problems are related the CPU again, The techy that fixed my machine was sure the CPU fragged my hard drive.
I have lots of warranty left on the CPU so I will keep an eye on it incase it is about to chowder again.

Thanks.

ID: 750525 · Report as offensive
Profile dnolan
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 01
Posts: 1228
Credit: 47,779,411
RAC: 32
United States
Message 750555 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 19:21:36 UTC - in response to Message 750510.  



Looking at your WUs, one thing that doesn't make sense is while some report the stock 2.4GHz, others are reporting well in excess of 3GHz... That's a bit odd, and I'm not quite sure what that means just yet, perhaps you're running at stock speed but with reduced multiplier? that would OC the RAM/FSB wouldn't it?

Jason


I've seen a few odd reporting incidents on my 9450, here's a cut-out example:
CPUID: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9450 @ 2.66GHz
Speed: 4 x 3446 MHz
Cache: L1=64K L2=6144K
Features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3

Here's the normal display:
CPUID: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9450 @ 2.66GHz
Speed: 4 x 3280 MHz
Cache: L1=64K L2=6144K
Features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3

I haven't been playing around with the speeds at all lately, aside from backing off a little while back, so the higher reported speed is interesting.

-Dave

ID: 750555 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 750557 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 19:27:38 UTC - in response to Message 750555.  



Looking at your WUs, one thing that doesn't make sense is while some report the stock 2.4GHz, others are reporting well in excess of 3GHz... That's a bit odd, and I'm not quite sure what that means just yet, perhaps you're running at stock speed but with reduced multiplier? that would OC the RAM/FSB wouldn't it?

Jason


I've seen a few odd reporting incidents on my 9450, here's a cut-out example:
CPUID: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9450 @ 2.66GHz
Speed: 4 x 3446 MHz
Cache: L1=64K L2=6144K
Features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3

Here's the normal display:
CPUID: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9450 @ 2.66GHz
Speed: 4 x 3280 MHz
Cache: L1=64K L2=6144K
Features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3

I haven't been playing around with the speeds at all lately, aside from backing off a little while back, so the higher reported speed is interesting.

-Dave

I have seen CPUZ mess up and misreport the cpu speed occasionally even when locally called.........
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 750557 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 19 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : AK V8 ported release ap. issues, install, questions etc.


 
©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.