Lunatics Windows Installer v0.40 release notes |
![]() |
| log in |
Message boards : Number crunching : Lunatics Windows Installer v0.40 release notes
Previous · 1 . . . 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
And the CPU usage is normal as well. | |
| ID: 1212553 · | |
|
I have noticed huge blanking in almost all AP wu | |
| ID: 1212621 · | |
Have you tried Nvidia system tools current ver is AFAIK 6.06 on Nvidia site Well then what do You suggest Cliff? Or somebody? As I just went thru a 4 way cpu backoff, the gpus were not even being used, It made My computer almost unusable, My browser had to wait until I killed BoincTasks and Boinc before I could use it... Or should I just quit while I'm ahead... ____________ BSG Anthem My Facebook page | |
| ID: 1212630 · | |
Have you tried Nvidia system tools current ver is AFAIK 6.06 on Nvidia site Nvidia System Tools does not support the 590 and they updated the tools to 6.08... I tried 285.79, It's as bad as 285.62, crap... http://www.nvidia.com/object/nvidia-system-tools-6.08-driver.html ____________ BSG Anthem My Facebook page | |
| ID: 1212637 · | |
|
Oh this You'll love the PCI-E bus was being throttled, I had to dig thru Nvidia Inspectors 2nd panel, but once I set that control to off, the gpu went from 553MHz to 630MHz! Instantly in fact, go figure. | |
| ID: 1212648 · | |
I have noticed huge blanking in almost all AP wu Military radar usually. It has been somewhat well-documented in the tech news posts over the past 2-3 years. The staff knew there was radar there and there wasn't anything that could be done about it for a while. Then a very smart/clever person figured out that it uses a very predictable pattern, so the data can be marked where the radar is interfering and thus.. we have our blanking. There may be other sources of interference, but I'm pretty sure radar is the major source. And yes, I have also had a lot of high-blanked APs. Crunched and returned 31 APs as of right now and according to my spreadsheet, I finally have the 10 needed for the good ETA estimates. Problem is that I just have to wait for wingmen to crunch their half and report. ____________ Linux laptop uptime: 1484d 22h 42m Ended due to UPS failure, found 14 hours after the fact | |
| ID: 1212658 · | |
I have noticed huge blanking in almost all AP wu Out here radar isn't a problem, bombs shaking the ground for miles is(an IE). ____________ BSG Anthem My Facebook page | |
| ID: 1212665 · | |
|
Uhh... | |
| ID: 1212666 · | |
I have noticed huge blanking in almost all AP wu... Radar is certainly the prime offender, and there are two separate ways of dealing with its effects. First, before the data is split it goes through an examination which combines channels and looks for known radar patterns. A signal is put on a 15th channel indicating where the patterns are seen, then as the data is being loaded for splitting those sections are replaced with pseudo random data shaped to fit the frequency profile of the good parts of the data. There's no indication in the WUs produced during the splitting what sections are real and what replaced, though. Second, if there's a <remove_radar>1</remove_radar> element in an AP WU header, the application does an analysis which senses RFI by its tendency to add a DC component. That analysis makes a list of where in the 32 Mebisamples there are 128 sample sections with DC above a threshold. (While an AP task is being crunched, that list is in the slot directory as indices.txt.) For each such section, the application considers the preceding and following 400000 samples bad. In cases where there are enough to effectively mark all the data as bad, the application exits with the "...Blanking too much RFI?" message. Otherwise, searching for pulses commences, but for any data chunk being analyzed which is considered bad, that chunk is replaced with the same kind of pseudo random shaped data as used server-side. The application keeps track of how much data it has replaced and writes the <fraction_blanked> in the result file, Lunatics apps also put it in stderr as percent blanked. Joe | |
| ID: 1212948 · | |
|
Radar is certainly the prime offender, and there are two separate ways of dealing with its effects. | |
| ID: 1213042 · | |
If you have a CPU with SSE2 and above but not AVX the r557 MAY be faster. I don't know if anybody needs this info but in case somebody wonders: ap_6.01r557_SSE2_331_AVX.exe seems to work OK and is faster on my AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3500+ http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=4832843 Till now 2 AstroPulse v6 tasks are finished using ap_6.01r557_SSE2_331_AVX.exe (but not yet validated): http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=2374705716 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=2377424264 (they took 33-34 hours CPU time while the older ap_5.05r409_SSE.exe was using 35-38 hours CPU time for AstroPulse v505 tasks) To test that on my CPU both r555 SSE and r557 SSE2 give the same results and which of them is faster (for me) I used these files: "AP bench 2.10" and "Shortened AP test WU for offline speed tests" from here: http://lunatics.kwsn.net/index.php?module=Downloads;catd=44 and 2 apps extracted by 7-Zip from Lunatics_Win32_v0.40_setup.exe I put the files this way (folder/files): ...\APbench\Science_apps\Reference\ AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r555.exe libfftw3f-3.dll ...\APbench\Science_apps\ ap_6.01r557_SSE2_331_AVX.exe ...\APbench\TestWUs\ ap_18se08aa_B6_P1_00046_1LC25.wu Then I started APbench210.cmd The results from ...\APbench\Testdatas\{computer-name}-20120401-0608-benchAP.txt (shows that the results match and r557 is about 7% faster than r555 on this CPU using this WU)
Quick timetable
WU : ap_18se08aa_B6_P1_00046_1LC25.wu
AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r555.exe -verbose :
Elapsed 1248.953 secs
CPU 1198.750 secs
ap_6.01r557_SSE2_331_AVX.exe -instances_per_device 1 -hp -unroll 16 -ffa_block 4096 -ffa_block_fetch 2048 :
Elapsed 1164.703 secs, speedup: 6.75% ratio: 1.07x
CPU 1120.031 secs, speedup: 6.57% ratio: 1.07x
------------
CPU:
Number of processors 1
Number of cores 1 (max 1)
Specification AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3500+
Codename Orleans
Core Stepping DH-F2
Technology 90 nm
Instructions sets MMX (+), 3DNow! (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, x86-64, AMD-V
L1 Data cache 64 KBytes, 2-way set associative, 64-byte line size
L1 Instruction cache 64 KBytes, 2-way set associative, 64-byte line size
L2 cache 512 KBytes, 16-way set associative, 64-byte line size
Core Speed 2325.1 MHz
Multiplier x FSB 11.0 x 211.4 MHz
HT Link speed 845.5 MHz
Stock frequency 2200 MHz
------------
Chipset:
Northbridge NVIDIA MCP61 rev. A2
Southbridge NVIDIA MCP61 rev. A2
------------
RAM:
Memory Type DDR2
Memory Size 1024 MBytes
Channels Dual
Memory Frequency 387.5 MHz (CPU/6)
Max bandwidth PC2-6400 (400 MHz)
CAS# latency (CL) 5.0
RAS# to CAS# delay (tRCD) 5
RAS# Precharge (tRP) 5
Cycle Time (tRAS) 18
Bank Cycle Time (tRC) 24
Command Rate (CR) 2T
------------
ref-AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r555.exe-ap_18se08aa_B6_P1_00046_1LC25.wu.res: <ap_signal>11,<pulses>1,<best_pulses>10
result-ap_6.01r557_SSE2_331_AVX.exe-ap_18se08aa_B6_P1_00046_1LC25.wu.res: <ap_signal>11,<pulses>1,<best_pulses>10
All Signals: Checked 11, 11 , Strongly Similar
Pulses: Checked 1, 1 , Strongly Similar
Best Pulses: Checked 10, 10 , Strongly Similar
-(.\testDatas\ref\ref-AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r555.exe-ap_18se08aa_B6_P1_00046_1LC25.wu.res)-
Reportable Single Pulses: 0 [OK], 0 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE
Reportable Repeating Pulses: 1 [OK]
Single Pulses (Best): 10 [OK], 0 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE
-(.\testDatas\result-ap_6.01r557_SSE2_331_AVX.exe-ap_18se08aa_B6_P1_00046_1LC25.wu.res)-
Reportable Single Pulses: 0 [OK], 0 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE
Reportable Repeating Pulses: 1 [OK]
Single Pulses (Best): 10 [OK], 0 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE
____________ - ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :) | |
| ID: 1213064 · | |
|
ummm The only reason that it is faster is the SSE2. I'm willing to be that since your CPU doesn't have AVX you are basically just running it off the SSE2 portion of the app | |
| ID: 1213078 · | |
Radar is certainly the prime offender, and there are two separate ways of dealing with its effects. Please actually quote someone if you intend to quote someone. Copy and pasting their posts gets a bit annoying when I have to pick out your post from anothers. You notice on my post you can clearly see that I quoted you. On your, not so much ____________ Proud member of TSWB. End terrorism by building a school | |
| ID: 1213080 · | |
ummm The only reason that it is faster is the SSE2. I'm willing to be that since your CPU doesn't have AVX you are basically just running it off the SSE2 portion of the app I mentioned this already. r557 is faster on AMDs without using AVX. ____________ | |
| ID: 1213112 · | |
ummm The only reason that it is faster is the SSE2. I'm willing to be that since your CPU doesn't have AVX you are basically just running it off the SSE2 portion of the app There's no "SSE2 portion of the app" as such. Jason needed SSE2 compiler settings to get the statically linked FFTW with AVX to build r557 as he wanted, IIRC. It's a different source branch than Raistmer's r555 build, too, so there are other minor differences. Our testing indicated Jason's build clearly better on systems which can use AVX, Raistmer's build obviously the only possibility for SSE systems, and mixed results for all the rest with SSE2 or above but not AVX. YMMV definitely applies. Joe | |
| ID: 1213132 · | |
|
The new ATI AP app doesn't work on my HD 4670. The program crashes after a few seconds. The previous AP app r516 didn't make any problems. | |
| ID: 1213306 · | |
|
You have a 512 MB card. | |
| ID: 1213326 · | |
The new ATI AP app doesn't work on my HD 4670. The program crashes after a few seconds. The previous AP app r516 didn't make any problems. If anyone uses r555 AP with any of HD4xxx please make report if it work for you. For now we have reports from WG128 cards where different problems can occur. I would like to see report from HD4870 card ... | |
| ID: 1213566 · | |
How many people have posted in this thread? Without counting, I'd guess at fewer than 20. What do the other 660 think? I'm coming into this fray fresh and probably somewhat naive. I've never used optimized apps before, but I started reading this thread because I'm ready (I think) to take the plunge. Also, I have not read all the way to the end of this thread, but I wanted to respond to something at this point. Many software installers start the user off with a screen where they can choose a standard or express install that sets them up with the most common options; or an advanced install where one or more additional screens walk them through all the available options and let them choose. Could this installer implement something like that? The advanced screens would include choices for setting aside a CPU core or not, whether to leave some GPU performance available for regular use, etc. (If this installer already does that, just tell me so and I'll shut up. Like I said, I'm just getting ready to do this for the first time.) ____________ David Sitting on my butt while others boldly go, Waiting for a message from a small furry creature from Alpha Centauri. | |
| ID: 1213628 · | |
|
First get GPUz and CPUz if you are unsure what gpu or CPU instruction set your CPU can run. | |
| ID: 1213640 · | |
Message boards : Number crunching : Lunatics Windows Installer v0.40 release notes
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |