optimized Enhanced 5.12 app.

Message boards : Number crunching : optimized Enhanced 5.12 app.
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Speedy67 & Friends
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 99
Posts: 335
Credit: 1,178,138
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 318041 - Posted: 26 May 2006, 23:05:21 UTC - in response to Message 318018.  

After a few days of running Crunch3r's 5.12 app on my Linux Ubuntu 5.10 box (Athlon64 3000+ Venice, SSE3), and crunching a few workunits with the same angle range with both the SSE3 and later the SSE2 app, I found that on average a 0.5459 AR workunit needs some 17200 seconds with the SSE3 app, and only 15900 with the SSE2 app.

I think it is worth experimenting with. :)


Hi Sander,

this is quite interesting Maybe i should make the Quick reference wu available for download, so that you or others who like to test the app. can get quickly a result for different optimized applications.

Just let me know ;)


I figure someone will be interested! I might try it myself. :)
People who use optimized clients are interested in every second that can be gained.. so in this example, 1300 seconds on a workunit is a huge gain!

It might even be possible to make some sort of reference list like this one.

Greetings,
Sander


ID: 318041 · Report as offensive
Profile Crunch3r
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Apr 99
Posts: 1546
Credit: 3,438,823
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 318045 - Posted: 26 May 2006, 23:08:34 UTC - in response to Message 318041.  
Last modified: 26 May 2006, 23:08:55 UTC

After a few days of running Crunch3r's 5.12 app on my Linux Ubuntu 5.10 box (Athlon64 3000+ Venice, SSE3), and crunching a few workunits with the same angle range with both the SSE3 and later the SSE2 app, I found that on average a 0.5459 AR workunit needs some 17200 seconds with the SSE3 app, and only 15900 with the SSE2 app.

I think it is worth experimenting with. :)


Hi Sander,

this is quite interesting Maybe i should make the Quick reference wu available for download, so that you or others who like to test the app. can get quickly a result for different optimized applications.

Just let me know ;)


I figure someone will be interested! I might try it myself. :)
People who use optimized clients are interested in every second that can be gained.. so in this example, 1300 seconds on a workunit is a huge gain!

It might even be possible to make some sort of reference list like this one.

Greetings,
Sander


Hi sander,

I know of your reference wu list, but it'll be hard to do one like yours with seti enhanced.

You need to do testing on the most common AR's this is hard to do.

You can write me an email and i let you know what to do ;)




Join BOINC United now!
ID: 318045 · Report as offensive
archae86

Send message
Joined: 31 Aug 99
Posts: 909
Credit: 1,582,816
RAC: 0
United States
Message 318072 - Posted: 27 May 2006, 0:10:18 UTC - in response to Message 318041.  
Last modified: 27 May 2006, 0:12:58 UTC

double post error by me--please delete this one if you will.
ID: 318072 · Report as offensive
archae86

Send message
Joined: 31 Aug 99
Posts: 909
Credit: 1,582,816
RAC: 0
United States
Message 318075 - Posted: 27 May 2006, 0:11:53 UTC - in response to Message 318072.  
Last modified: 27 May 2006, 0:12:31 UTC

I figure someone will be interested! I might try it myself. :)
People who use optimized clients are interested in every second that can be gained.. so in this example, 1300 seconds on a workunit is a huge gain!

It might even be possible to make some sort of reference list like this one.

Greetings,
Sander
I've come to believe recently that my speedup using Crunch3r's 5.12 over the distributed 5.15 is strongly dependent on Angle Range, and sometimes much better than the 20% improvement I guessed very early on.

If you don't mind losing some machine time to non-credit computing, then a method posted by Stonelord over on Einstein works just fine to allow recomputation of the exact same Result by more than one program on the same host.

Stonelord's captive WU test method

Using this method, I just now did a 1.975 AR WU, getting 3710 seconds on crunch3r 5.12, and 5096 seconds for distributed 5.15, for an execution time ratio of .728.

The really impressive case is one for which my evidence is less perfect, but I find convincing.

I had six results from 07ja99aa.23932.16818.231240.3 to run. All had very, very small angle ranges-- 0.0338. Most of them ran with Crunch3r 5.12 with CPU times tightly clustered around 22500 seconds. The one which ran distributed 5.15 entirely took 51308 seconds. Unless that result was a rogue, the implied execution time ratio is .4385. One additional result of this group ran distributed for the first 5% of reported progress. Rate of advance monitoring for this one substantiated that for this case crunch3r was taking less than half the time.

It would be really good to get concrete data from good comparison cases for more angle range cases, especially near the tight central cluster.

My box is a Gallatin (some call it P4 Extreme Edition) 3.2 GHz CPU, running hyperthreaded, with an Einstein job on the other side from SETI. I force this with the priority project function in Trux's tx36 client.

My hat is off (again) to crunch3r, and I regret contributing earlier to what may have been a significant underestimate of the advantage your 5.12 offers in speed.

It also has been running clean.

ID: 318075 · Report as offensive
Profile Crunch3r
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Apr 99
Posts: 1546
Credit: 3,438,823
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 318081 - Posted: 27 May 2006, 0:28:59 UTC - in response to Message 318075.  
Last modified: 27 May 2006, 0:43:29 UTC

I figure someone will be interested! I might try it myself. :)
People who use optimized clients are interested in every second that can be gained.. so in this example, 1300 seconds on a workunit is a huge gain!

It might even be possible to make some sort of reference list like this one.

Greetings,
Sander
I've come to believe recently that my speedup using Crunch3r's 5.12 over the distributed 5.15 is strongly dependent on Angle Range, and sometimes much better than the 20% improvement I guessed very early on.

If you don't mind losing some machine time to non-credit computing, then a method posted by Stonelord over on Einstein works just fine to allow recomputation of the exact same Result by more than one program on the same host.

Stonelord's captive WU test method

Using this method, I just now did a 1.975 AR WU, getting 3710 seconds on crunch3r 5.12, and 5096 seconds for distributed 5.15, for an execution time ratio of .728.

The really impressive case is one for which my evidence is less perfect, but I find convincing.

I had six results from 07ja99aa.23932.16818.231240.3 to run. All had very, very small angle ranges-- 0.0338. Most of them ran with Crunch3r 5.12 with CPU times tightly clustered around 22500 seconds. The one which ran distributed 5.15 entirely took 51308 seconds. Unless that result was a rogue, the implied execution time ratio is .4385. One additional result of this group ran distributed for the first 5% of reported progress. Rate of advance monitoring for this one substantiated that for this case crunch3r was taking less than half the time.

It would be really good to get concrete data from good comparison cases for more angle range cases, especially near the tight central cluster.

My box is a Gallatin (some call it P4 Extreme Edition) 3.2 GHz CPU, running hyperthreaded, with an Einstein job on the other side from SETI. I force this with the priority project function in Trux's tx36 client.

My hat is off (again) to crunch3r, and I regret contributing earlier to what may have been a significant underestimate of the advantage your 5.12 offers in speed.

It also has been running clean.



Hi Archae86,

It really depends on the AR how fast the optimized app runs.( It's allways been that way but didn't matter that much on the normal s@h app. just a few minutes difference to complete the wus)

As you've stated yourself there's at least a speed gain of 20% up to 45% over the stock app. depending on the AR.

I've got an e-mail from Speedy67 (Sander) and we'll make a reference list on the optimized app compared to the stock app on the different ARs.

Hopefully it'll solve some quetestions on how fast the different versions of the optimized apps. are on different ARs.

P.S.

Damn can't type any more ... must have answered more than 50 mails today ...

EDIT
P.P.S

I've also relased a "stock application" today and notified Eric if he could test that one on the beta project to see if all the c++ exceptions are compiler related due that i know that i didn't seen those on my apps.

Hopefully he cosiders it and i wouldn't mind to compile a stock app without cpu specific optimizations to be released to public.

But that's not a choice i'll have to make ;)

/EDIT


Join BOINC United now!
ID: 318081 · Report as offensive
Saimek

Send message
Joined: 25 Jan 00
Posts: 121
Credit: 454,423
RAC: 0
Poland
Message 318401 - Posted: 27 May 2006, 8:30:19 UTC

I'm curious about this SSE2 over SSE3 optimalisation..... if it's true that SSE2 is faster evenave on SSE3 supporting boxes? :P someone who has the possibility to test it on a Venice core and send the results... i would appreciate ;) greets
ID: 318401 · Report as offensive
Profile Speedy67 & Friends
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 99
Posts: 335
Credit: 1,178,138
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 318422 - Posted: 27 May 2006, 9:32:02 UTC

I will run some benchmarks with the reference workunit that Chrunch3r sent me, on different angle ranges.
I will run them on a Prescott 3.0 (SSE3), Venice 3000+ (SSE3) and Celeron M 1,5GHz (SSE2) for now. Don't expect all the results within a few days though. :)

Greetings,
Sander


ID: 318422 · Report as offensive
cdr100560
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 May 06
Posts: 681
Credit: 65,502
RAC: 0
United States
Message 319348 - Posted: 28 May 2006, 14:15:12 UTC

I want to personally thank Crunch3r for providing his optimized app for use on my platform (x86). It's amazing how efficient code can improve existing hardware.

I also want to thank all of the posters who answered specific questions regarding the use of Crunch3rs application. I'm no programmer, but it only took two revisions of the app_info file to get things going. I have successfully crunched my first WU and noticed an immediate improvement along the lines of the 20% that have been stated. I can't provide detailed analysis, but I can see from the onset that it's working. It took a little patience to filter through the various threads to find what I was looking for (thanks Jim-R!) but everything is here.

I suspect that a lot of confusion is based on the average users lack of general knowledge (myself included!) in the application of supplied info, as there are many posts in different threads just on this subject alone.

Again, thank you for the patience required in getting this puppy to fly!

Regards,
Chris
ID: 319348 · Report as offensive
Profile Ralf02061973
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jul 00
Posts: 54
Credit: 9,983,656
RAC: 8
Germany
Message 319443 - Posted: 28 May 2006, 17:29:08 UTC
Last modified: 28 May 2006, 18:12:10 UTC

here on my pentium-d-820@3600mhz
the 5.12ss3 is 3 minutes faster than 5.12ss2

sse2 ~10100sec
sse3~ 9900sec

greetings
ralf

edit: wu´s are 5.15
Boinc runs here on:
Intel i7-3770K + IntelHD4000
Android-Stick-ARM-Cotex-A17
Sony-Z5C-ARM-Cortex-A53/A57
Nvidia GT-630 / Nvidia GTX-750Ti
ID: 319443 · Report as offensive
n7rfa
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 13 Apr 04
Posts: 370
Credit: 9,058,599
RAC: 0
United States
Message 319486 - Posted: 28 May 2006, 19:23:50 UTC - in response to Message 319443.  

here on my pentium-d-820@3600mhz
the 5.12ss3 is 3 minutes faster than 5.12ss2

sse2 ~10100sec
sse3~ 9900sec

greetings
ralf

edit: wu?s are 5.15


The WUs are Enhanced.

You're just reporting them as 5.15 instead of the REAL version of 5.12.

As of my last check, yesterday, Crunch3r's Optimized Apps are only up to 5.12.
ID: 319486 · Report as offensive
Profile Ralf02061973
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jul 00
Posts: 54
Credit: 9,983,656
RAC: 8
Germany
Message 320042 - Posted: 29 May 2006, 16:08:52 UTC

now an update

the last 15 setiathome_enhanced-5.19 wu's with optimiced app 5.12sse3

crunchtime 1600sec - 2550sec ar = 1.65xx

host = Pentium-D-820 @ 3600MHz

tomorrow i will try the optimiced 5.12sse2 with the 5.19 wu's to see if it is also slower than sse3
Boinc runs here on:
Intel i7-3770K + IntelHD4000
Android-Stick-ARM-Cotex-A17
Sony-Z5C-ARM-Cortex-A53/A57
Nvidia GT-630 / Nvidia GTX-750Ti
ID: 320042 · Report as offensive
Profile Geek@Play
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Jul 01
Posts: 2467
Credit: 86,146,931
RAC: 0
United States
Message 320116 - Posted: 29 May 2006, 18:04:22 UTC - in response to Message 320042.  

now an update

the last 15 setiathome_enhanced-5.19 wu's with optimiced app 5.12sse3

crunchtime 1600sec - 2550sec ar = 1.65xx

host = Pentium-D-820 @ 3600MHz

tomorrow i will try the optimiced 5.12sse2 with the 5.19 wu's to see if it is also slower than sse3


If you are using Crunch3r's optimized app's (version 5.12) then you should be reporting them as version 5.12 and NOT 5.19. Reporting them as being crunched by an incorrect version messes up the master data base.



Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....
ID: 320116 · Report as offensive
Profile Dances with Werewolves
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Nov 03
Posts: 489
Credit: 340,188
RAC: 0
United States
Message 320231 - Posted: 29 May 2006, 21:03:05 UTC

@crunch3r

stderr.txt:
SETI@Home Informational message -9 result_overflow
NOTE: The number of results detected exceeds the storage space allocated.

Is this a problem? I'm seeing it alot.
ID: 320231 · Report as offensive
Profile [HWU] GHz & CO. - BOINC.Italy
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Jul 02
Posts: 139
Credit: 1,466,611
RAC: 0
Italy
Message 320251 - Posted: 29 May 2006, 21:22:34 UTC - in response to Message 320116.  

now an update

the last 15 setiathome_enhanced-5.19 wu's with optimiced app 5.12sse3

crunchtime 1600sec - 2550sec ar = 1.65xx

host = Pentium-D-820 @ 3600MHz

tomorrow i will try the optimiced 5.12sse2 with the 5.19 wu's to see if it is also slower than sse3


If you are using Crunch3r's optimized app's (version 5.12) then you should be reporting them as version 5.12 and NOT 5.19. Reporting them as being crunched by an incorrect version messes up the master data base.




The problem is that the app_info.xml from Crunch3r's site permit to use the optimized client with work for 5.19 client, and BOINC mark and report all WU with version 5.19 of the seti client.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=333555069
application version 5.19

Why this? Maybe a BOINC bug?
GHz
BOINC.Italy
ID: 320251 · Report as offensive
Profile Geek@Play
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Jul 01
Posts: 2467
Credit: 86,146,931
RAC: 0
United States
Message 320277 - Posted: 29 May 2006, 21:51:59 UTC - in response to Message 320251.  

The problem is that the app_info.xml from Crunch3r's site permit to use the optimized client with work for 5.19 client, and BOINC mark and report all WU with version 5.19 of the seti client.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=333555069
application version 5.19

Why this? Maybe a BOINC bug?


The problem is with the app_info.xml that is supplied by Crunch3r. It allows for versions up to and including 5.19 but since the section that references version 5.19 is the highest version on his list that is the section that is used by Boinc.

To correct this......
1) Set Boinc/Seti to "no new work" and crunch down your cache. Failure to do this will result in the loss of your entire cache.
2) When the cache is depleted, stop Boinc. Replace the information in the app_info.xml file with the following.

<app_info>
<app>
<name>setiathome_enhanced</name>
</app>
<file_info>
<name>setiathome_5.12_windows_intelx86.exe</name>
<executable/>
</file_info>
<app_version>
<app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
<version_num>512</version_num>
<file_ref>
<file_name>setiathome_5.12_windows_intelx86.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
</app_info>

3) Restart Boinc and set to "allow new work"

New work should be downloaded, crunched and reported as version 5.12.



Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....
ID: 320277 · Report as offensive
Profile AlanSerl

Send message
Joined: 14 May 99
Posts: 1
Credit: 13,845,655
RAC: 0
United States
Message 321508 - Posted: 31 May 2006, 17:30:14 UTC - in response to Message 320277.  

The problem is that the app_info.xml from Crunch3r's site permit to use the optimized client with work for 5.19 client, and BOINC mark and report all WU with version 5.19 of the seti client.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=333555069
application version 5.19

Why this? Maybe a BOINC bug?


The problem is with the app_info.xml that is supplied by Crunch3r. It allows for versions up to and including 5.19 but since the section that references version 5.19 is the highest version on his list that is the section that is used by Boinc.

To correct this......
1) Set Boinc/Seti to "no new work" and crunch down your cache. Failure to do this will result in the loss of your entire cache.
2) When the cache is depleted, stop Boinc. Replace the information in the app_info.xml file with the following.

<app_info>
<app>
<name>setiathome_enhanced</name>
</app>
<file_info>
<name>setiathome_5.12_windows_intelx86.exe</name>
<executable/>
</file_info>
<app_version>
<app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
<version_num>512</version_num>
<file_ref>
<file_name>setiathome_5.12_windows_intelx86.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
</app_info>

3) Restart Boinc and set to "allow new work"

New work should be downloaded, crunched and reported as version 5.12.




The change in the app_info.xml worked exept one thing missing here is that you will need to

1) Stop the service
2) Unzip Crunch3r's setiathome_4.11_windows_intelx86.* files and rename them as setiathome_5.12_windows_intelx86.*
3) Drop the renamed files into C:\\Program Files\\BOINC\\projects\\setiathome.berkeley.edu
4) Restart the service

Without these files being renamed, I was finally getting new WU's only to get a application not found error.

Many Thanks
Alan
ID: 321508 · Report as offensive
n7rfa
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 13 Apr 04
Posts: 370
Credit: 9,058,599
RAC: 0
United States
Message 321517 - Posted: 31 May 2006, 17:40:39 UTC - in response to Message 321508.  

The problem is that the app_info.xml from Crunch3r's site permit to use the optimized client with work for 5.19 client, and BOINC mark and report all WU with version 5.19 of the seti client.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=333555069
application version 5.19

Why this? Maybe a BOINC bug?


The problem is with the app_info.xml that is supplied by Crunch3r. It allows for versions up to and including 5.19 but since the section that references version 5.19 is the highest version on his list that is the section that is used by Boinc.

To correct this......
1) Set Boinc/Seti to "no new work" and crunch down your cache. Failure to do this will result in the loss of your entire cache.
2) When the cache is depleted, stop Boinc. Replace the information in the app_info.xml file with the following.

<app_info>
<app>
<name>setiathome_enhanced</name>
</app>
<file_info>
<name>setiathome_5.12_windows_intelx86.exe</name>
<executable/>
</file_info>
<app_version>
<app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
<version_num>512</version_num>
<file_ref>
<file_name>setiathome_5.12_windows_intelx86.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
</app_info>

3) Restart Boinc and set to "allow new work"

New work should be downloaded, crunched and reported as version 5.12.




The change in the app_info.xml worked exept one thing missing here is that you will need to

1) Stop the service
2) Unzip Crunch3r's setiathome_4.11_windows_intelx86.* files and rename them as setiathome_5.12_windows_intelx86.*
3) Drop the renamed files into C:\\Program Files\\BOINC\\projects\\setiathome.berkeley.edu
4) Restart the service

Without these files being renamed, I was finally getting new WU's only to get a application not found error.

Many Thanks
Alan

Excuse me?

Rename the 4.11 executable and rename it to 5.12?

The 4.11 executable doesn't handle the Enhanced WUs.
ID: 321517 · Report as offensive
Profile Crunch3r
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Apr 99
Posts: 1546
Credit: 3,438,823
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 322928 - Posted: 2 Jun 2006, 2:21:52 UTC - in response to Message 321517.  

Hello,

It's not quite easy for me to write this, to honest to you all i'm writing this now with a tear running from my eye.

It's been a fantastic time here for quite a while, since things have changed for the bad.

That's why i'm taking the consequences and have to say god bye to you all.

Take care of yourself and keep on crunching.

Good by SETI.



Join BOINC United now!
ID: 322928 · Report as offensive
cdr100560
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 May 06
Posts: 681
Credit: 65,502
RAC: 0
United States
Message 322932 - Posted: 2 Jun 2006, 2:28:00 UTC - in response to Message 322928.  

Hello,

It's not quite easy for me to write this, to honest to you all i'm writing this now with a tear running from my eye.

It's been a fantastic time here for quite a while, since things have changed for the bad.

That's why i'm taking the consequences and have to say god bye to you all.

Take care of yourself and keep on crunching.

Good by SETI.



I don't know you personally, only professionally from your posts.
I am not happy to see you leave.
Theres all kinds of solutions to all kinds of problems in these threads.
There might be one here for you also.
ID: 322932 · Report as offensive
Profile Dances with Werewolves
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Nov 03
Posts: 489
Credit: 340,188
RAC: 0
United States
Message 322934 - Posted: 2 Jun 2006, 2:30:08 UTC - in response to Message 322928.  

Hello,

It's not quite easy for me to write this, to honest to you all i'm writing this now with a tear running from my eye.

It's been a fantastic time here for quite a while, since things have changed for the bad.

That's why i'm taking the consequences and have to say god bye to you all.

Take care of yourself and keep on crunching.

Good by SETI.



Truely, a sorry day for us all and you will be missed.

Scott
ID: 322934 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : optimized Enhanced 5.12 app.


 
©2023 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.