Barcelona appears on SETI

Message boards : Number crunching : Barcelona appears on SETI
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 10 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Andy Lee Robinson
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Dec 05
Posts: 630
Credit: 59,973,836
RAC: 0
Hungary
Message 637946 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 9:45:07 UTC

I thought this deserves a new thread...

The first Barcelona on SETI
The second Barcelona on SETI

Andy.
ID: 637946 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14261
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 637953 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 10:01:24 UTC - in response to Message 637946.  

In that case, I'd better put my reply in here too!
The first Barcelona on SETI

Ran 2 WUs (rather slowly), tried and failed to optimise, retired hurt for the weekend? Not very impressive for an 8-core.
The second Barcelona on SETI

At least it's crunched everything it's been given. Slightly faster than my E5320s on stock, but hardly significant. I'll keep an eye on it, and if it runs steadily I might do a comparative plot.
ID: 637953 · Report as offensive
Astro
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 02
Posts: 8026
Credit: 600,015
RAC: 0
Message 637959 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 10:18:46 UTC
Last modified: 10 Sep 2007, 10:38:40 UTC

I've looked at the "claimed credit" and tried to find them on my puters. I found no matching ones on the AMD64 X2 6000, or 5200, but did find these on the AMD64 X2 4800 running stock app:

0.006445 5.10.20 604694483 154038229 2 Sep 2007 16:35:00 UTC 3 Sep 2007 10:44:25 UTC Over Success Done 13,396.97 63.98 63.98

It's claimed credit "63.98" matches this ONE of his/hers:

606821891 155019947 6 Sep 2007 12:41:15 UTC 6 Sep 2007 20:20:06 UTC Over Success Done 14,631.83 63.98 63.98

it's AR was 0.00666

I've also found these of mine (AMD64 X2 4800):
1.490466 5.10.20 604351720 153883107 2 Sep 2007 20:20:18 UTC 3 Sep 2007 16:11:54 UTC Over Success Done 3,920.83 19.31 19.31
1.492136 5.10.20 604351838 153883150 2 Sep 2007 20:20:18 UTC 4 Sep 2007 0:21:38 UTC Over Success Done 4,242.48 19.31 19.31
1.492136 5.10.20 604351938 153883212 2 Sep 2007 20:20:18 UTC 3 Sep 2007 18:40:10 UTC Over Success Done 4,244.48 19.31 19.31
1.492136 5.10.20 604351944 153883197 2 Sep 2007 20:20:18 UTC 4 Sep 2007 0:21:38 UTC Over Success Done 4,214.72 19.31 19.31
1.490466 5.10.20 604351946 153883203 2 Sep 2007 20:20:18 UTC 4 Sep 2007 0:21:38 UTC Over Success Done 4,222.41 19.31 19.3
1.492136 5.10.20 604352128 153883295 2 Sep 2007 20:20:18 UTC 3 Sep 2007 16:11:54 UTC Over Success Done 3,918.84 19.31 19.31
1.492136 5.10.20 604352166 153883316 2 Sep 2007 20:20:18 UTC 3 Sep 2007 12:02:29 UTC Over Success Done 4,311.67 19.31 19.31
1.490466 5.10.20 604352194 153883320 2 Sep 2007 20:20:18 UTC 3 Sep 2007 14:36:29 UTC Over Success Done 4,126.61 19.31 19.31
1.492136 5.10.20 604352196 153883327 2 Sep 2007 20:20:18 UTC 3 Sep 2007 18:40:10 UTC Over Success Done 4,259.48 19.31 19.31
1.490466 5.10.20 604352294 153883362 2 Sep 2007 20:20:18 UTC 4 Sep 2007 0:21:38 UTC Over Success Done 4,268.80 19.31 19.31
1.492136 5.10.20 604352296 153883369 2 Sep 2007 20:20:18 UTC 4 Sep 2007 0:21:38 UTC Over Success Done 4,258.63 19.31 19.31
1.490466 5.10.20 604352298 153883368 2 Sep 2007 20:20:18 UTC 4 Sep 2007 0:21:38 UTC Over Success Done 4,163.84 19.31 19.31
1.490466 5.10.20 604352368 153883411 2 Sep 2007 20:20:18 UTC 3 Sep 2007 18:40:10 UTC Over Success Done 4,429.14 19.31 19.31
1.490466 5.10.20 604352370 153883396 2 Sep 2007 20:20:18 UTC 3 Sep 2007 18:40:10 UTC Over Success Done 4,199.81 19.31 19.31
1.492136 5.10.20 604352412 153883431 2 Sep 2007 20:20:18 UTC 4 Sep 2007 0:21:38 UTC Over Success Done 4,197.69 19.31 19.31
which claimed the same, but the AR on his/hers was 1.488811 for these two:

607409480 3773162 8 Sep 2007 22:32:11 UTC 9 Sep 2007 0:58:41 UTC Over Success Done 4,398.34 19.31 19.31
607409478 3773162 8 Sep 2007 22:32:11 UTC 9 Sep 2007 0:58:41 UTC Over Success Done 4,882.91 19.31 19.31

NOTE: I've so far found no exact matches, and all shown wus are from stock 5.27
ID: 637959 · Report as offensive
Profile Andy Lee Robinson
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Dec 05
Posts: 630
Credit: 59,973,836
RAC: 0
Hungary
Message 637961 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 10:26:21 UTC - in response to Message 637953.  

Yes, looks like some tweaking going on, and both using stock apps too, so still some room for improvement, but doesn't look to have dropped a bombshell yet.

I just did a shout over in Boincstats, having found them there too...

Boincstats uses the same computer ids per project, but the id for the combined results are internal, though fortunately the page also accepted the host cpid to be able to find them:

http://www.boincstats.com/stats/boinc_host_graph.php?pr=bo&id=2791692
and
http://www.boincstats.com/stats/boinc_host_graph.php?pr=bo&id=2796867

Shall follow with interest...
ID: 637961 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14261
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 637962 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 10:34:12 UTC

OK, I've set up a chart to plot the second one against the stock data I've got saved for my E5320s. So far, all the results are within the scatter range for the Xeons, but with 9 WUs that doesn't prove much.

Setting up the sheet for reference, I noticed that he/she is running Enterprise Server in 512MB of RAM - not a terribly well-balanced combination, even for a test machine?
ID: 637962 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 22426
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 637969 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 10:57:10 UTC - in response to Message 637962.  

One thing I can't understand...

System 1 = 4gb ram, 1691.28 mfps, 3617.42 mis

System 2 = 512mb ram, 1929.78 mis, 4248.44 mfps

Could this be down to the o/s?
ID: 637969 · Report as offensive
Profile Andy Lee Robinson
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Dec 05
Posts: 630
Credit: 59,973,836
RAC: 0
Hungary
Message 637971 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 10:59:18 UTC - in response to Message 637962.  

Yes, need more results yet... doesn't help that the project is 'scrooging' right now!

512Mb should be enough if all the machine is doing is crunching. Anyone running this with such a new processor will only be evaluating and testing it, particularly as it is only officially released today, so will still be a while before more people get their mitts on it.
ID: 637971 · Report as offensive
Astro
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 02
Posts: 8026
Credit: 600,015
RAC: 0
Message 637972 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 11:01:25 UTC

Sirius B, the benchmark in boinc doesn't really test RAM.
ID: 637972 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 22426
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 637973 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 11:04:34 UTC - in response to Message 637972.  

Sirius B, the benchmark in boinc doesn't really test RAM.


Sorry Astro, I only put the ram in to highlight the difference.

I thought the mis & mfps is down to the cpu?
ID: 637973 · Report as offensive
Profile mr.kjellen
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Jan 01
Posts: 195
Credit: 71,324,196
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 637983 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 11:38:40 UTC


There is also This system to draw statistics from.

/Anton
ID: 637983 · Report as offensive
Profile Andy Lee Robinson
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Dec 05
Posts: 630
Credit: 59,973,836
RAC: 0
Hungary
Message 637995 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 12:15:29 UTC - in response to Message 637983.  


There is also This system to draw statistics from.

/Anton


Ah yes, missed it because of the different product code. It is actually the first one to be registered!

After searching for "Quad-Core AMD" instead of "Processor 8347", Barcelona hosts on SETI currently stand at 3:

<host>
<id>3768873</id>
<userid>8239893</userid>
<total_credit>1949.346608</total_credit>
<expavg_credit>148.047934</expavg_credit>
<expavg_time>1189366764.582640</expavg_time>
<p_vendor>AuthenticAMD</p_vendor>
<p_model>Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 8350</p_model>
<os_name>Microsoft Windows XP</os_name>
<os_version>Professional Edition, Service Pack 2, (05.01.2600.00)</os_version>
<create_time>1188986661</create_time>
<rpc_time>1189367718</rpc_time>
<timezone>28800</timezone>
<ncpus>8</ncpus>
<p_fpops>1887284643.824740</p_fpops>
<p_iops>3229719926.678640</p_iops>
<p_membw>1000000000.000000</p_membw>
<m_nbytes>1609011200.000000</m_nbytes>
<m_cache>1000000.000000</m_cache>
<m_swap>3597721600.000000</m_swap>
<d_total>10733223936.000000</d_total>
<d_free>4747952128.000000</d_free>
<n_bwup>609.364000</n_bwup>
<n_bwdown>0.000000</n_bwdown>
<avg_turnaround>13809.052334</avg_turnaround>
<credit_per_cpu_sec>0.004051</credit_per_cpu_sec>
<host_cpid>7c98db8e1d250deb1668b6008b53eabe</host_cpid>
</host>
<host>
<id>3769109</id>
<total_credit>730.097176</total_credit>
<expavg_credit>63.532120</expavg_credit>
<expavg_time>1189172640.702620</expavg_time>
<p_vendor>AuthenticAMD</p_vendor>
<p_model>Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 8347 [AMD64 Family 16 Model 2 Stepping 1]</p_model>
<os_name>Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition</os_name>
<os_version>, Service Pack 2, (05.02.3790.00)</os_version>
<create_time>1188992103</create_time>
<rpc_time>1189071715</rpc_time>
<timezone>-28800</timezone>
<ncpus>8</ncpus>
<p_fpops>1691278491.205370</p_fpops>
<p_iops>3617420121.779050</p_iops>
<p_membw>250000000.000000</p_membw>
<m_nbytes>4292640768.000000</m_nbytes>
<m_cache>250000.000000</m_cache>
<m_swap>4822474752.000000</m_swap>
<d_total>80014737408.000000</d_total>
<d_free>77291585536.000000</d_free>
<n_bwup>6074.430000</n_bwup>
<n_bwdown>0.000000</n_bwdown>
<avg_turnaround>26160.933424</avg_turnaround>
<credit_per_cpu_sec>0.003726</credit_per_cpu_sec>
<host_cpid>a4e0f7368478f121e59f9e5994f5f7fe</host_cpid>
</host>
<host>
<id>3773162</id>
<total_credit>1258.159284</total_credit>
<expavg_credit>104.570346</expavg_credit>
<expavg_time>1189341403.440610</expavg_time>
<p_vendor>AuthenticAMD</p_vendor>
<p_model>Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 8347 [x86 Family 16 Model 2 Stepping 1]</p_model>
<os_name>Microsoft Windows Server 2003</os_name>
<os_version>Enterprise Server Edition, Service Pack 1, (05.02.3790.00)</os_version>
<create_time>1189082449</create_time>
<rpc_time>1189367483</rpc_time>
<timezone>28800</timezone>
<ncpus>8</ncpus>
<p_fpops>1929784960.924450</p_fpops>
<p_iops>4248438434.327790</p_iops>
<p_membw>125000000.000000</p_membw>
<m_nbytes>4292640768.000000</m_nbytes>
<m_cache>125000.000000</m_cache>
<m_swap>6266802176.000000</m_swap>
<d_total>20973617152.000000</d_total>
<d_free>17219715072.000000</d_free>
<n_bwup>4425.880000</n_bwup>
<n_bwdown>0.000000</n_bwdown>
<avg_turnaround>6620.774901</avg_turnaround>
<credit_per_cpu_sec>0.003847</credit_per_cpu_sec>
<host_cpid>8a788a2ff5c503861bf10505f0ae1d8d</host_cpid>
</host>
ID: 637995 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14261
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 637996 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 12:15:46 UTC - in response to Message 637983.  

There is also This system to draw statistics from.

Chart running. Now, if the people with nine-day caches would kindly stop extending them to ten days, at least until the server status page shows a healthy buffer again, we might get some meaningful data.
ID: 637996 · Report as offensive
Profile Philadelphia
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Feb 07
Posts: 1590
Credit: 399,688
RAC: 0
United States
Message 638145 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 16:09:42 UTC
Last modified: 10 Sep 2007, 16:11:58 UTC

I must be missing something with the Barcelona, for the hype I think my boat anchor crunch's faster or almost anyway.

[edit]I guess that would make Barcelona as a quad, four boat anchors.[/eoe]
ID: 638145 · Report as offensive
Profile Pilot
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 534
Credit: 5,475,482
RAC: 0
Message 638147 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 16:11:46 UTC - in response to Message 637996.  

There is also This system to draw statistics from.

Chart running. Now, if the people with nine-day caches would kindly stop extending them to ten days, at least until the server status page shows a healthy buffer again, we might get some meaningful data.


Just human nature, anytime you come to the party so late, all of the best treats are already gone.
From what I see of Barcelona so far, their appitite is not going to have a great impact on available crunchable treats.


When we finally figure it all out, all the rules will change and we can start all over again.
ID: 638147 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde C. Phillips, III

Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 00
Posts: 1851
Credit: 5,955,047
RAC: 0
United States
Message 638203 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 18:02:55 UTC
Last modified: 10 Sep 2007, 18:36:58 UTC

I see that those times are crummy, considerably slower than those of my PD950s. And I wonder, even with Chicken's cruncher, whether those cores will even be as fast as mine.
ID: 638203 · Report as offensive
lee clissett

Send message
Joined: 12 Jun 00
Posts: 46
Credit: 2,647,496
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 638268 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 19:25:01 UTC

been waiting for barcelona so i could go get some serious crunching done,think i might get me com 64 out instead
ID: 638268 · Report as offensive
Profile Sir Ulli
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 99
Posts: 2246
Credit: 6,136,250
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 638382 - Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 21:43:26 UTC - in response to Message 638376.  



yes and than on Linux64 bit...., with an optimized Client

i think there is going somethink

@who?

we know that you are working for Imhell, so be ....

Greetings from Germany NRW
Ulli


Well, I run 64bit Linux and optimized app on this one giving me about 15-20% advantage over win/stock-app.

Now do the calculation yourself...

Sorry, Ulli das sieht nicht gut aus.

I use both, Intel and AMD - and from my experience - Intel works better for Seti. On the other hand RieselSieve seems to favour AMD cpus...




thanks for the Info

hope that the Phenom comnes with 3 Ghz....

Greetings from Germany NRW
Ulli


ID: 638382 · Report as offensive
Profile popandbob
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Mar 05
Posts: 551
Credit: 4,673,015
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 638514 - Posted: 11 Sep 2007, 0:00:47 UTC - in response to Message 638145.  

I must be missing something with the Barcelona, for the hype I think my boat anchor crunch's faster or almost anyway.

[edit]I guess that would make Barcelona as a quad, four boat anchors.[/eoe]


or if its in a quad fx configuration 8 cores ;) (2 quads in 1 box :) )


Do you Good Search for Seti@Home? http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=888957
Or Good Shop? http://www.goodshop.com/?charityid=888957
ID: 638514 · Report as offensive
Profile RottenMutt
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 01
Posts: 1011
Credit: 230,314,058
RAC: 0
United States
Message 638608 - Posted: 11 Sep 2007, 3:05:44 UTC

I would like to see a app specifically compiled for the Barcelona's
ID: 638608 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 10 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Barcelona appears on SETI


 
©2020 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.