Message boards :
Number crunching :
v7 issues on very old cruncher
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
j mercer Send message Joined: 3 Jun 99 Posts: 2422 Credit: 12,323,733 RAC: 1 |
I'm having some issues with my original cruncher a 1995 200MHz Pentium MMx P55 128MB UW2SCSI. It error eight v7 wu before it grabbed a v6. It has crunched everything up to this point. It is bare bones rig. I shut everything down even Explorer on it when crunching to get those few extra chunks of memory. Not a major issue for now for it takes this machine three to fourteen days a wu. It's pulling 120 watts for that one wu so I only run it now when there is something new to test. I double checked everything I believe and have read the forums with no luck yet. I would like to keep this machine crunching just for the nostalgic. ... |
Wedge009 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 451 Credit: 431,396,357 RAC: 553 |
I don't know the details of the default CPU application, but I'm guessing they're assuming a minimum of SSE2 capability for CPUs nowadays. That's a possible reason for the tasks failing. Soli Deo Gloria |
spitfire_mk_2 Send message Joined: 14 Apr 00 Posts: 563 Credit: 27,306,885 RAC: 0 |
I would not run Xp on that, try Windows 2000. |
Urs Echternacht Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 692 Credit: 135,197,781 RAC: 211 |
Looking at the error message the problem seems to be related with the use of this new library : libfftw3f-3-3_upx.dll which is deployed with setiathome_7.00 on windows. Checking the fftw release notes : FFTW 3.1.1i can only guess that Eric's fix for 3.1.1 is no longer active. Maybe it works if you rename the old libfftw3f-1-1_upx.dll to the new name mentioned before ? ps: maybe a more efficient psu could reduce the powerneed on that old museum piece host. _\|/_ U r s |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11361 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
Where J Mercer lives electricity is relatively inexpensive, lots of hydro, so the cost to run an antique once in a while is small. |
Josef W. Segur Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 4504 Credit: 1,414,761 RAC: 0 |
I don't know the details of the default CPU application, but I'm guessing they're assuming a minimum of SSE2 capability for CPUs nowadays. That's a possible reason for the tasks failing. That is definitely not the issue. All functions have base versions which should run on any x86 CPU, checking capabilities and testing is done before any SIMD variants are used. SETI@home v7 has been under test at SETI Beta for over a year, but of course there's a larger variety of hosts attached to this main project, so Murphy's Law almost guarantees there will be some that have problems. Joe |
rob smith Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22204 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 |
A thought - Is JMercer reporting the estimated run time, or the actual run time for a task. I suggest this because the estimated run times on some v7 tasks on both my crunchers are wildly pessimistic, with estimates of an hour when the run time was about 15 minutes. Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
j mercer Send message Joined: 3 Jun 99 Posts: 2422 Credit: 12,323,733 RAC: 1 |
Great replies everyone. Thank you. Wedge009, I was thinking same, possibly a minimum of SSE2 capability requirement. spitfire_mk_2, I’ve tried most everything from Win95, NT4 and up with XP giving the best results on wu. Yes inter face is painfully slow but it crunches better than the others did. Urs, when this wu finishes I’ll give that a try. My file’s name is ‘libfftw3f-1-1a_upx.dll’ with timestamp of 5/302013 3:27PM. betreger, in 2010 it was $90US a year running at 100% for 24/7 with a RAC of 5. $.084786US per KWH in 2010. Josef, is right, there will be glitches. LOL I’m not worried if it will still get v6 wu but would really like it to do v7. If it is found to be important enough it will get a fix. I’m surprised it is still crunching. I’ve only had to change the CMOS battery it's all original. rob, it was showing about eight days a wu for each of the v7 and they error out in around 30 seconds. The last v6 wu were taking around 7-9 days and the estimated complete times were within minutes. ... |
Wedge009 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 451 Credit: 431,396,357 RAC: 553 |
That is definitely not the issue. All functions have base versions which should run on any x86 CPU, checking capabilities and testing is done before any SIMD variants are used. Good to know. (: Soli Deo Gloria |
Ianab Send message Joined: 11 Jun 08 Posts: 732 Credit: 20,635,586 RAC: 5 |
Could it be running out of RAM? I notice that it's only 128mb of RAM.. not very much by todays standards. Ian |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13736 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
Could it be running out of RAM? That would be a problem, even with an addon video card. It's an eternity ago, but from what i can remember- Win98 was happy with 128MB, 256MB was about the most that would have any effect on performance. For WinXP/2k 512MB was about the sweet spot, 256MB was generally considered the minimum for reasonable performance. Grant Darwin NT |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13736 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
I would not run Xp on that, try Windows 2000. WinXP was Win2k prettied up. Grant Darwin NT |
j mercer Send message Joined: 3 Jun 99 Posts: 2422 Credit: 12,323,733 RAC: 1 |
Ianab, I believe the processor/ram is the issue too. It has been in the past and is why I run it bare boned. With anything extra running and Boinc will bog. Grant, you are spot on for the sweet spot. XP loves 256 MB or more. "The minimum hardware requirements for Windows XP HE/Pro include: •Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended) •At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended) •At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk" Two and half more days and I can try it again. Wheee! ... |
Link Send message Joined: 18 Sep 03 Posts: 834 Credit: 1,807,369 RAC: 0 |
For WinXP/2k 512MB was about the sweet spot, 256MB was generally considered the minimum for reasonable performance. That was called sweet spot when almost nobody could afford more than that, the actuall sweet spot for 32bit WinXP is somewhere between 2-3GB. Sure, it was less before, but 512MB wasn't enough for XP long time before Vista came out. I have 2GB in my Laptop, can't say that's more than I need, I'm often over 1.5GB and almost never below 1GB under normal operation. Of course, for a dedicated single core cruncher 512MB should be enough. |
HAL9000 Send message Joined: 11 Sep 99 Posts: 6534 Credit: 196,805,888 RAC: 57 |
For WinXP/2k 512MB was about the sweet spot, 256MB was generally considered the minimum for reasonable performance. An old PIII I use at work has 512MB, but just sitting there crunching it is at 112MB used. So 128MB seems to be just fine for a box to sit in a corner and chew on some work. I do have an old Pentium 200 MMX machine I keep wanting to get going, but is a mini desktop with a nonstandard size AT PSU. :/ SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[ |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19064 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
To me that 120W seems like a big power consumption for so small and RAC. My q6600 with nvidia670 only uses 165W for an RAC that was ~17,000 used ~16hr/day. |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13736 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
That was called sweet spot when almost nobody could afford more than that, the actuall sweet spot for 32bit WinXP is somewhere between 2-3GB. Try 512MB. You can give it 1GB, but it doesn't have much effect. Adding more than 1GB has no effect unless you're runing something like Photoshop. XP was written to minimise it's RAM usage, no matter how much RAM it had- because back then RAM was still very expensive. It's wasn't until Visa that Windows could make good use of more than 1GB of RAM (unless you were running an enterprise edition). Grant Darwin NT |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13736 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
To me that 120W seems like a big power consumption for so small and RAC. And the current series of CPUs use even less power, for more work. Grant Darwin NT |
Ianab Send message Joined: 11 Jun 08 Posts: 732 Credit: 20,635,586 RAC: 5 |
What XP itself can run in, and what you want to actually use the machine are 2 different things. My XP box is using about a gig of ram with S@H, virus scanner, a few Chrome Windows open etc. When I only had a one gig of RAM you really noticed the performance drop as the system used the page file. Printing a full colour A4 photo to an HP deskjet would bring it to it's knees. 2 gig of seem to be adequate for my needs. Yes we used to sell XP machines with 256mb of ram back in the day, and they "worked", but over time the applications and background tasks have become bloatware. Yes you can stick a stripped down XP box in the corner with 256mb, and it will crunch just fine. But to actually use it for normal use is painful. Give the same box 1 or 2gb and it suddenly becomes a usable machine again. Ian |
Ianab Send message Joined: 11 Jun 08 Posts: 732 Credit: 20,635,586 RAC: 5 |
To me that 120W seems like a big power consumption for so small and RAC. I'd hazard a guess that a Raspberry Pi would keep up with it, using about 2 watts? The power saved in 6 months would pay for the Pi !!! Now I run some older and less efficient machines, but only in the cold weather. 100w is 100w, whether you put it though a heater or an old P4 server. Put a couple of them under your desk and you keep your feet warm on a frosty winter night, and crunch a few work units :-) Ian |
©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.