-use_sleep -unroll 16 -oclfft_plan 256 16 256 -ffa_block 16384 -ffa_block_fetch 8192 -tune 1 64 4 1 -tune 2 64 4 1 -hp

Juan,
This is what I am using.... Aren't you supposed to be on a beach somewhere enjoying a cool cold one??? I'm going to report you for disobeying orders ;)

Edit.. I had to change a few things there. Juan note the second tune for the second kernal

Zalster

I suppose the -oclfft_plan is for the newer drivers/cards. It was a total disaster on my old NV 8800 GT with the old CPU friendly driver, Computer 6813106
It appears all four of those will be Invalid :-(
Worked fine until then.

On the other hand, it seems to work Great on my ATI cards. Just look at the difference it made on this host, Computer 7258715

You are using local radix 8 change to 16 on your 8800.

On this old card try only oclfft_plan 256 16 256 without any other switches.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Anything above uroll 18 has no effect using oclfft_plan speeds up by 15%.

using oclfft_plan??? Can anyone explain more please. I´m far away from my hosts so i can´t do any serious test.

An example of a command line for the 780 or 670 could help.

Thanks.

FFT kernels are processed in 8 point fft kernels by default.
Using different fft kernel planning can speed up processing significantly.
In most cases 16 point fft kernels are fastest for AstroPulse V7.

Example

-use_sleep -unroll 18 -oclFFT_plan 256 16 256 -ffa_block 16384 -ffa_block_fetch 8192 -tune 1 64 8 1 -tune 2 64 8 1

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

-use_sleep -unroll 16 -oclfft_plan 256 16 256 -ffa_block 16384 -ffa_block_fetch 8192 -tune 1 64 4 1 -tune 2 64 4 1 -hp

Juan,
This is what I am using.... Aren't you supposed to be on a beach somewhere enjoying a cool cold one??? I'm going to report you for disobeying orders ;)

Edit.. I had to change a few things there. Juan note the second tune for the second kernal

Zalster

I suppose the -oclfft_plan is for the newer drivers/cards. It was a total disaster on my old NV 8800 GT with the old CPU friendly driver, Computer 6813106
It appears all four of those will be Invalid :-(
Worked fine until then.

On the other hand, it seems to work Great on my ATI cards. Just look at the difference it made on this host, Computer 7258715

You are using local radix 8 change to 16 on your 8800.

On this old card try only oclfft_plan 256 16 256 without any other switches.

I tried that, I received;

WARNING: can't open binary kernel file for oclFFT plan: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC/projects/setiathome.berkeley.edu\AP_clFFTplan_GeForce8800GT_32768_gr256_lr16_wg256_tw0_r2721.bin_26658, continue with recompile...
WARNING: requested too much local memory (16kB), micro patching performing
ERROR: OpenCL kernel/call 'ReadBuf:gpu_results->CPU_result' call failed (-5) in file ..\..\ap_client_main.cpp near line 4078.
Waiting 30 sec before restart...

The only setting that will run is -oclfft_plan 256 8 256. It runs but doesn't 'work'.
I was using -unroll 6 -oclFFT_plan 256 16 256 -ffa_block 4096 -ffa_block_fetch 2048

-use_sleep -unroll 16 -oclfft_plan 256 16 256 -ffa_block 16384 -ffa_block_fetch 8192 -tune 1 64 4 1 -tune 2 64 4 1 -hp

Juan,
This is what I am using.... Aren't you supposed to be on a beach somewhere enjoying a cool cold one??? I'm going to report you for disobeying orders ;)

Edit.. I had to change a few things there. Juan note the second tune for the second kernal

Zalster

I suppose the -oclfft_plan is for the newer drivers/cards. It was a total disaster on my old NV 8800 GT with the old CPU friendly driver, Computer 6813106
It appears all four of those will be Invalid :-(
Worked fine until then.

On the other hand, it seems to work Great on my ATI cards. Just look at the difference it made on this host, Computer 7258715

You are using local radix 8 change to 16 on your 8800.

On this old card try only oclfft_plan 256 16 256 without any other switches.

I tried that, I received;

WARNING: can't open binary kernel file for oclFFT plan: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC/projects/setiathome.berkeley.edu\AP_clFFTplan_GeForce8800GT_32768_gr256_lr16_wg256_tw0_r2721.bin_26658, continue with recompile...
WARNING: requested too much local memory (16kB), micro patching performing
ERROR: OpenCL kernel/call 'ReadBuf:gpu_results->CPU_result' call failed (-5) in file ..\..\ap_client_main.cpp near line 4078.
Waiting 30 sec before restart...

The only setting that will run is -oclfft_plan 256 8 256. It runs but doesn't 'work'.
I was using -unroll 6 -oclFFT_plan 256 16 256 -ffa_block 4096 -ffa_block_fetch 2048

I think its the different memory managment.

I had no chance to test on such a card.

Can you run a offline bench on this card ?
I would give you some param to try.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

I think its the different memory managment.

I had no chance to test on such a card.

Can you run a offline bench on this card ?
I would give you some param to try.

I suppose I could. I really wasn't going to keep using this machine though. I thought I would just run it until the AP_v7 credits came up a bit. Just trying to add some slow results to CreditFew hoping it might help.

I think its the different memory managment.

I had no chance to test on such a card.

Can you run a offline bench on this card ?
I would give you some param to try.

I suppose I could. I really wasn't going to keep using this machine though. I thought I would just run it until the AP_v7 credits came up a bit. Just trying to add some slow results to CreditFew hoping it might help.

You can just download from APV7 thread.
I have one configured on my cloud.

Go to benchcfg.txt.

edit 4 entries on the bottom.

AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe
AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe -oclFFT_plan 128 8 64
AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe -oclFFT_plan 128 8 128
AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe -oclFFT_plan 128 8 256

On the rest of the lines just put a "#" in front.
This deactivates the other params.

Run ap_bench213.cmd

Result is stored at testdata folder.
Send me the result file via email.
Its called ap_hostname_date_time.txt.

Use the email addy on my website.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Up until recently, on my old xw9400 I had been running a mixed GPU configuration with a GTX660, GTX650 and two GTX640s. Purely by coincidence, in the 2 weeks leading up to the AP v7 rollout, I had gradually upgraded that host to two GTX660s and two GTX750Tis, still mixed, but a bit more closely matched.

Under the old configuration and running AP v6, I had made what I felt was conservative use of the ap_cmdline capabilities, with just a simple:

-unroll 6 -ffa_block 2048 -ffa_block_fetch 1024 -hp

This seemed to be accommodate the compute unit disparities between the 3 different GPU types I was running and I was content with it.

Since AP v7 rolled out the day after I made the last upgrade to that machine, I thought I might just let it go back to the defaults, inasmuch as AP v7 was supposed to adjust those parameters according to the specific GPU it was running on. However, I've noticed that on my T7400, which runs stock, AP v7 is assigning the equivalent of "-unroll 6 -ffa_block 1536 -ffa_block_fetch 768" to a GTX660 which is a matching unit to one of the ones in the xw9400, with 6 CUs. These appear to be even more conservative values than what I'm already running on the xw9400, so I left the ap_cmdline alone for the time being.

Anyway, now that the GPUs are more closely matched on that host (1 with 6 CUs and 3 with 5 CUs), and seeing that the AP v7 default values appear to be even more conservative than I am, what might a recommended ap_cmdline for that host look like? (For that matter, what values might work for the T7400, which currently has a mixed bag of GTX780, GTX670, and GTX660?)

Up until recently, on my old xw9400 I had been running a mixed GPU configuration with a GTX660, GTX650 and two GTX640s. Purely by coincidence, in the 2 weeks leading up to the AP v7 rollout, I had gradually upgraded that host to two GTX660s and two GTX750Tis, still mixed, but a bit more closely matched.

Under the old configuration and running AP v6, I had made what I felt was conservative use of the ap_cmdline capabilities, with just a simple:

-unroll 6 -ffa_block 2048 -ffa_block_fetch 1024 -hp

This seemed to be accommodate the compute unit disparities between the 3 different GPU types I was running and I was content with it.

Since AP v7 rolled out the day after I made the last upgrade to that machine, I thought I might just let it go back to the defaults, inasmuch as AP v7 was supposed to adjust those parameters according to the specific GPU it was running on. However, I've noticed that on my T7400, which runs stock, AP v7 is assigning the equivalent of "-unroll 6 -ffa_block 1536 -ffa_block_fetch 768" to a GTX660 which is a matching unit to one of the ones in the xw9400, with 6 CUs. These appear to be even more conservative values than what I'm already running on the xw9400, so I left the ap_cmdline alone for the time being.

Anyway, now that the GPUs are more closely matched on that host (1 with 6 CUs and 3 with 5 CUs), and seeing that the AP v7 default values appear to be even more conservative than I am, what might a recommended ap_cmdline for that host look like? (For that matter, what values might work for the T7400, which currently has a mixed bag of GTX780, GTX670, and GTX660?)

Since the slowest GPU in that host has 6 CU`s you can use.

-use_sleep -unroll 12 -oclfft_plan 256 16 256 -ffa_block 8192 -ffa_block_fetch 4096 -tune 1 64 4 1 -tune 2 64 4 1

Lets just run for a few days and maybe you can increas a little bit more.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Up until recently, on my old xw9400 I had been running a mixed GPU configuration with a GTX660, GTX650 and two GTX640s. Purely by coincidence, in the 2 weeks leading up to the AP v7 rollout, I had gradually upgraded that host to two GTX660s and two GTX750Tis, still mixed, but a bit more closely matched.

Under the old configuration and running AP v6, I had made what I felt was conservative use of the ap_cmdline capabilities, with just a simple:

-unroll 6 -ffa_block 2048 -ffa_block_fetch 1024 -hp

This seemed to be accommodate the compute unit disparities between the 3 different GPU types I was running and I was content with it.

Since AP v7 rolled out the day after I made the last upgrade to that machine, I thought I might just let it go back to the defaults, inasmuch as AP v7 was supposed to adjust those parameters according to the specific GPU it was running on. However, I've noticed that on my T7400, which runs stock, AP v7 is assigning the equivalent of "-unroll 6 -ffa_block 1536 -ffa_block_fetch 768" to a GTX660 which is a matching unit to one of the ones in the xw9400, with 6 CUs. These appear to be even more conservative values than what I'm already running on the xw9400, so I left the ap_cmdline alone for the time being.

Anyway, now that the GPUs are more closely matched on that host (1 with 6 CUs and 3 with 5 CUs), and seeing that the AP v7 default values appear to be even more conservative than I am, what might a recommended ap_cmdline for that host look like? (For that matter, what values might work for the T7400, which currently has a mixed bag of GTX780, GTX670, and GTX660?)

Since the slowest GPU in that host has 6 CU`s you can use.

-use_sleep -unroll 12 -oclfft_plan 256 16 256 -ffa_block 8192 -ffa_block_fetch 4096 -tune 1 64 4 1 -tune 2 64 4 1

Lets just run for a few days and maybe you can increas a little bit more.

I assume you mean that for the T7400. How about for the xw9400, with the two GTX660s (one with 6 CUs and one with 5 CUs) and two GTX750Tis (both with 5 CUs)?

Up until recently, on my old xw9400 I had been running a mixed GPU configuration with a GTX660, GTX650 and two GTX640s. Purely by coincidence, in the 2 weeks leading up to the AP v7 rollout, I had gradually upgraded that host to two GTX660s and two GTX750Tis, still mixed, but a bit more closely matched.

Under the old configuration and running AP v6, I had made what I felt was conservative use of the ap_cmdline capabilities, with just a simple:

-unroll 6 -ffa_block 2048 -ffa_block_fetch 1024 -hp

This seemed to be accommodate the compute unit disparities between the 3 different GPU types I was running and I was content with it.

Since AP v7 rolled out the day after I made the last upgrade to that machine, I thought I might just let it go back to the defaults, inasmuch as AP v7 was supposed to adjust those parameters according to the specific GPU it was running on. However, I've noticed that on my T7400, which runs stock, AP v7 is assigning the equivalent of "-unroll 6 -ffa_block 1536 -ffa_block_fetch 768" to a GTX660 which is a matching unit to one of the ones in the xw9400, with 6 CUs. These appear to be even more conservative values than what I'm already running on the xw9400, so I left the ap_cmdline alone for the time being.

Anyway, now that the GPUs are more closely matched on that host (1 with 6 CUs and 3 with 5 CUs), and seeing that the AP v7 default values appear to be even more conservative than I am, what might a recommended ap_cmdline for that host look like? (For that matter, what values might work for the T7400, which currently has a mixed bag of GTX780, GTX670, and GTX660?)

Since the slowest GPU in that host has 6 CU`s you can use.

-use_sleep -unroll 12 -oclfft_plan 256 16 256 -ffa_block 8192 -ffa_block_fetch 4096 -tune 1 64 4 1 -tune 2 64 4 1

Lets just run for a few days and maybe you can increas a little bit more.

I assume you mean that for the T7400. How about for the xw9400, with the two GTX660s (one with 6 CUs and one with 5 CUs) and two GTX750Tis (both with 5 CUs)?

This would be.

-use_sleep -unroll 10 -oclfft_plan 256 16 256 -ffa_block 8192 -ffa_block_fetch 4096 -tune 1 64 4 1 -tune 2 64 4 1

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

This would be.

-use_sleep -unroll 10 -oclfft_plan 256 16 256 -ffa_block 8192 -ffa_block_fetch 4096 -tune 1 64 4 1 -tune 2 64 4 1

Okay, thanks, Mike. I'll try those out. Since I run both APs and MBs, less than 3% of the tasks I receive tend to be APs, so I don't expect the overall boost to be that great, but it should be interesting to try!

Go to benchcfg.txt.

edit 4 entries on the bottom.

AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe
AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe -oclFFT_plan 128 8 64
AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe -oclFFT_plan 128 8 128
AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe -oclFFT_plan 128 8 256

On the rest of the lines just put a "#" in front.
This deactivates the other params.

Run ap_bench213.cmd

Result is stored at testdata folder.
Send me the result file via email.
Its called ap_hostname_date_time.txt.

Use the email addy on my website.

So, I started running it, and it appears to be stuck running r2262? It finished the GPU test then started the AP6 CPU test...about 20 minutes ago. All the files in testdata appear to be old files from some test with Vista...
Hmmmm....

So it says -oclFFT_plan 128 8 256 is the quickest but it appears a little too quick to me. The CPU test was 74 seconds with the GPU tests around 5 secs. Now it's just running this AP6 CPU file. How long is it supposed to run? 26 minutes so far...
------------
Running app : AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r2262.exe
with WU : #ap_genwis.dat
Started at : 19:47:40.453
Ended at : 19:48:54.562
74.000 secs Elapsed
70.750 secs CPU time
------------
Running app : AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe
with WU : #ap_genwis.dat
Started at : 19:48:57.718
Ended at : 19:49:56.843
59.047 secs Elapsed
54.938 secs CPU time
Speedup : 22.35%
Ratio : 1.29x
Skipping validation, genwis run.
------------
Running app : AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe -oclFFT_plan 128 8 64
with WU : #ap_genwis.dat
Started at : 19:50:00.453
Ended at : 19:50:05.687
5.188 secs Elapsed
1.281 secs CPU time
Speedup : 98.19%
Ratio : 55.23x
Skipping validation, genwis run.
------------
Running app : AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe -oclFFT_plan 128 8 128
with WU : #ap_genwis.dat
Started at : 19:50:08.968
Ended at : 19:50:14.109
5.063 secs Elapsed
1.313 secs CPU time
Speedup : 98.14%
Ratio : 53.88x
Skipping validation, genwis run.
------------
Running app : AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe -oclFFT_plan 128 8 256
with WU : #ap_genwis.dat
Started at : 19:50:17.390
Ended at : 19:50:22.406
4.953 secs Elapsed
1.313 secs CPU time
Speedup : 98.14%
Ratio : 53.88x
Skipping validation, genwis run.
------------
Running app : AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r2262.exe
with WU : ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu
Started at : 19:50:25.671
!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK, it finished the CPU and is now running the GPU...
------------
Running app : AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r2262.exe
with WU : ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu
Started at : 19:50:25.671
Ended at : 20:33:34.078
Result : stored as ref for validations.
2588.344 secs Elapsed
2574.156 secs CPU time
------------
Running app : AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe
with WU : ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu
Started at : 20:33:37.218
^^^^^^^^^^^
All the files are still old files...

It finally finished the first long test with the -oclFFT_plan. Apparently it doesn't work with a NV 8800 GT with Driver 266.58 in XP;
------------
Running app : AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe -oclFFT_plan 128 8 64
with WU : ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu
Started at : 20:57:22.187
Ended at : 21:25:08.625
1666.375 secs Elapsed
38.938 secs CPU time
Speedup : 98.49%
Ratio : 66.11x

ref-AP6_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATI_r2346.exe-ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu.res: <ap_signal>18,<pulses>8,<best_pulses>10
result-2-AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe-ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu.res: <ap_signal>10,<pulses>0,<best_pulses>10
All Signals: Weakly similar or Different.
Pulses: pulse at signal 0 has no match (direction -->)
Weakly similar or Different.
Best Pulses: Weakly similar or Different.

-(.\testDatas\ref\ref-AP6_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATI_r2346.exe-ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu.res)-
Reportable Single Pulses: 4 [Weak], 1 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE
Reportable Repeating Pulses: 4 [Weak]
Single Pulses (Best): 10 [Weak], 1 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE

-(.\testDatas\result-2-AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe-ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu.res)-
Reportable Single Pulses: 0 [Weak], 0 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE
Reportable Repeating Pulses: 0 [Weak]
Single Pulses (Best): 0 [Weak], 0 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE


ref-AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r2262.exe-ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu.res: <ap_signal>18,<pulses>8,<best_pulses>10
result-2-AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe-ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu.res: <ap_signal>10,<pulses>0,<best_pulses>10
All Signals: Weakly similar or Different.
Pulses: pulse at signal 0 has no match (direction -->)
Weakly similar or Different.
Best Pulses: Weakly similar or Different.

-(.\testDatas\ref\ref-AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r2262.exe-ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu.res)-
Reportable Single Pulses: 4 [Weak], 1 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE
Reportable Repeating Pulses: 4 [Weak]
Single Pulses (Best): 10 [Weak], 1 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE

-(.\testDatas\result-2-AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe-ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu.res)-
Reportable Single Pulses: 0 [Weak], 0 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE
Reportable Repeating Pulses: 0 [Weak]
Single Pulses (Best): 0 [Weak], 0 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE

------------
Running app : AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe -oclFFT_plan 128 8 128
with WU : ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu
Started at : 21:25:12.343...

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The other 2 finished, they are the same;
-(.\testDatas\result-3-AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe-ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu.res)-
Reportable Single Pulses: 0 [Weak], 0 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE
Reportable Repeating Pulses: 0 [Weak]
Single Pulses (Best): 0 [Weak], 0 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE

-(.\testDatas\result-4-AP7_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_NV_r2721.exe-ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu.res)-
Reportable Single Pulses: 0 [Weak], 0 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE
Reportable Repeating Pulses: 0 [Weak]
Single Pulses (Best): 0 [Weak], 0 above threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE

FUDGE!

The CPU test was 74 seconds with the GPU tests around 5 secs.

:) "with WU : #ap_genwis.dat" is Not CPU/GPU test - it is only to generate .bin/.wisdom files (to be used in next real runs)

---

 


- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)
 

 
Don't mind comparisons 'ref-AP6' vs 'result-2-AP7' - I think they will always be incompatible (will be just a coincidence if they match)

'FUDGE' is % of allowed "uncertainty" (I think it is 1% - THRESHOLD_FUDGE = 1.01)

From ap_validate_inc.h (in ...\APbench\Tools\rescmpAP\src.zip\)

/* don't consider mismatches between pulses of power below
 * threshold*THRESHOLD_FUDGE as errors.*/
static const float THRESHOLD_FUDGE = 1.01f;

At the end of the test there will be file in ...\APbench\Testdatas\ with a name like:
ComputerName-20140802-0548-benchAP.txt

Look for 'Quick timetable' at bottom of that file.
 

---

 


- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)
 

 
Don't mind comparisons 'ref-AP6' vs 'result-2-AP7' - I think they will always be incompatible (will be just a coincidence if they match)
...

The ap_Zblank_9LC67.wu has zero blanking and the results SHOULD match between AP v6 and AP v7 processing. The 8 signals which ought to be found cover both dispersion polarities of each kind of analysis, so a mismatch could possibly point to some specific kind of error in processing. But more commonly when things go wrong there will be many extra false signals found which didn't really come from the WU data.

                                                                   Joe

...At the end of the test there will be file in ...\APbench\Testdatas\ with a name like:
ComputerName-20140802-0548-benchAP.txt

Look for 'Quick timetable' at bottom of that file.
 

Well, the test was taking much longer than expected. It was getting late. The machine is in a bedroom. After it started what appeared to be a 3rd round of tests I shut it down.
It never finished.
The machine is working fine again since removing the settings, http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=6813106, are you suggesting it might work with one of those settings that produced No Found Pulses?

Asus GTX750TI-OC-2GD5, core 1188Mhz, memory 2048MB DDR5 @ 1350Mhz, factory defaults.

Running stock MB, one task at time. RAC about 11k.

Just switched to stock AP v7, one task@time, waiting MB cache to clear out.

Computer 6864212

Now running AP v7 (after outages during weekend) and RAC has risen to ~12.5k.

And still stock app, I just wan't to see what RAC is gonna be.

---

"Please keep Your signature under four lines so Internet traffic doesn't go up too much"

- In 1992 when I had my first e-mail address -

Asus GTX750TI-OC-2GD5, core 1188Mhz, memory 2048MB DDR5 @ 1350Mhz, factory defaults.

Running stock MB, one task at time. RAC about 11k.

Just switched to stock AP v7, one task@time, waiting MB cache to clear out.

Computer 6864212

Now running AP v7 (after outages during weekend) and RAC has risen to ~12.5k.

And still stock app, I just wan't to see what RAC is gonna be.

Still running stock AP v7 (with two v6 in queue), RAC is now about 13.5K.

And somebody is thinking right now why I don't run optimized applications with command line switches.

And the answer is that I wan't to know what stock apps can do in my host. And to give comparison to optimized hosts.

---

"Please keep Your signature under four lines so Internet traffic doesn't go up too much"

- In 1992 when I had my first e-mail address -

Still running stock AP v7 (with two v6 in queue), RAC is now about 13.5K.

RAC now about 16K, didn't get any task for while so RAC is lower as it should be.