My Ryzen 7 3700X crunches 150 tasks in about 12 hours, so it was just barely able to coast over the last downtime without idling. It has 16 threads but I run only 8 parallel cpu tasks on it. That's the number of true cores it has and going over that number would give very little benefit as the two tasks running in the threads of same core would be fighting for the same fpu.

---

I had dual CPU computer on here at one time and I'm pretty sure the cache was per CPU, that's why I'm surprised the cache is not per core or thread.

The allocation of 150 (or whatever) WUs per GPU was a glitch in the system. It was meant to be the same as for CPUs- xxx number of WUs allocated to that computing resource (CPU or GPU; whether there was only one, or 500).
An Octal Socket CPU system will still only get 150WUs.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I had dual CPU computer on here at one time and I'm pretty sure the cache was per CPU, that's why I'm surprised the cache is not per core or thread.
That computer isn't listed here these days, but it is still in the list at Beta https://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=6318

In 2006 CPUs were orders of magnitude slower than these days, so few people ever hit the task number limit before hitting their configured time limit. If there even was task number limiting back then.

---

I had dual CPU computer on here at one time and I'm pretty sure the cache was per CPU, that's why I'm surprised the cache is not per core or thread.

If so, I haven't seen a way to configure it, and don't think there is one.
This machine has dual hexa-core Xeons with hyper-threading, so 12 physical cores in two chips, total of 24 logical threads. I have it set for 14 CPUs in cc_config.xml, as that makes the most sense for my config. Regardless of that setting, I'm limited to 150 (was 100 until recently) tasks at a time. Changing the CPU count effects work unit assignment, including number of tasks in progress at once, but not maximum tasks in queue.
Wish it wasn't so ...

---

I had dual CPU computer on here at one time and I'm pretty sure the cache was per CPU, that's why I'm surprised the cache is not per core or thread.
That computer isn't listed here these days, but it is still in the list at Beta https://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=6318

In 2006 CPUs were orders of magnitude slower than these days, so few people ever hit the task number limit before hitting their configured time limit. If there even was task number limiting back then.

That has to be so, but since then the sensitivity of the MB app has been doubled twice, and it follows the inverse sq law so each doubling, quadruples the processing. And the tasks have been doubled in length.
So the time to crunch has gone down as much as you might think. A modern day i5 is only about twice as fast as my mid range PentiumM, with similar clock speeds, which I got back in 2008.
The real increase in computing power has been in the use of GPU's.

It has 16 threads but I run only 8 parallel cpu tasks on it. That's the number of true cores it has and going over that number would give very little benefit as the two tasks running in the threads of same core would be fighting for the same fpu.

That's a misconception about Ryzen 3000 carried over from the FX cpu days. There is no penalty for having two threads performing two FP operations. It can even do a FP operation at the same time as an integer operation.
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/microarchitectures/zen_2#Floating_Point_Unit

Much more sensible dispatching of operations. Plus the FP register is 256bits wide now.
Four ALUs, two AGUs/load–store units, and two floating-point units per core.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

Edit: Ok, I'll stop with the comedy.

Actually I wonder about the non-profit and similar issues with the idea? I am presuming the technical mechanics of the idea are possible. And heck, even non-profits are allowed to charge fees as long as they don't make money at the end of the year.

Tom

---

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association).

I can only conclude the system is illogical.

I get all tingly inside when I see deductive humor.

LMAO.

Next step in the conclusion.
The special sauce needs more ingredients, so that each core or thread is translated into a CPU when asking for work.

. . The special sauce is only on Nvidia GPUs, it does not apply to CPUs.

Stephen

:(

I had dual CPU computer on here at one time and I'm pretty sure the cache was per CPU, that's why I'm surprised the cache is not per core or thread.
That computer isn't listed here these days, but it is still in the list at Beta https://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=6318

In 2006 CPUs were orders of magnitude slower than these days, so few people ever hit the task number limit before hitting their configured time limit. If there even was task number limiting back then.

That has to be so, but since then the sensitivity of the MB app has been doubled twice, and it follows the inverse sq law so each doubling, quadruples the processing. And the tasks have been doubled in length.
So the time to crunch has gone down as much as you might think. A modern day i5 is only about twice as fast as my mid range PentiumM, with similar clock speeds, which I got back in 2008.
The real increase in computing power has been in the use of GPU's.

. . The doubling is sample size was the change from 2 bit to 4 bit per sample in the data. It improves the resolution but testing showed it made very little difference to run times. Barely even noticeable.

. . My i5-6600 will crunch a task in about 1/8 the time it took on my old Pentium4, but much of that improvement was the advent of AVX, and that is per core, of which the Pentium4 had only one not 4 like the i5. So the output of the i5 is many magnitudes greater than a Pentium4 which could only do a few tasks per day (3 to 5) compared to over 100.

Stephen

:)

When I said it didn't take long, all I meant was it didn't affect my main machine nearly as much as the last couple of outages, so I'll take it, and be happy with it.
https://imgur.com/aWojoXt

[quoteActually I wonder about the non-profit and similar issues with the idea? I am presuming the technical mechanics of the idea are possible. And heck, even non-profits are allowed to charge fees as long as they don't make money at the end of the year.[/quote]

Actually TomM,
The mechanics would be nearly impossible without a very large group of dedicated volunteer programmers. Something like that would require a top to bottom overhaul of the BOINC client to support, as well as the changes at SETI itself. Now, I'm not suggesting that BOINC doesn't need a massive overhaul, because there are several places it could be made much better, to include prioritization of tasks, possible communications between hosts for coordination of tasks, getting rid of the RPC component, adding SSH as communication between client and manager, multiple setup options such that LAN and DATACENTER operations can customize the apps for things like central storage, local task handling by a network manager as opposed to a host manager, and the backend at the projects to be able to help set priorities like Science Priority, Science Necessity, Time Necessity, Storage Necessity, and have the manager be able to set local priorities, which would only be additive to the backend priorities. I mean there are a lot of things which could be done to improve the overall projects both BOINC and SETI. Question really is, does the manpower exist. I've seen this community fund things in record times, such as that recent hard drive purchase. I don't think money is as big of an issue as it appears to be on paper.

Guy

Edit: One thing I would definitely love to see added is a heartbeat message from clients to servers which could be a signal to preemptively reassign work units to active machines and cut tasks from machines which have gone dark. That helps both the number crunching community and the storage at the backend.

Way. way long before that. https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=18850&postid=154163#154163
I didn't even consider that event in my resume of changes.

Thread is getting offtopic... I suggest for proposed improvements another thread is used such as this one. Don't want to have to go moving dozens of posts. Thanks!

---

It's getting late, and the Splitters have dropped off to the point there is No RTS. This doesn't look good;
Results ready to send = 3
Current result creation rate ** = 4.0569/sec
Results received in last hour ** = 150,781

Way. way long before that. https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=18850&postid=154163#154163
I didn't even consider that event in my resume of changes.

. . And Astropulses became much in demand but are not part of the overall SETI MB throughput of the project. They are not even for SETI in any way, they are a sub-contract for another project in another Uni. (As I understand it).

Stephen

? ?

It's getting late, and the Splitters have dropped off to the point there is No RTS. This doesn't look good;
Results ready to send = 3
Current result creation rate ** = 4.0569/sec
Results received in last hour ** = 150,781

Recovering a little, seeing AP being cut and delivered.

Results ready to send 35,768
Current result creation rate ** 35.9130/sec
Results received in last hour ** 149,577

Still nowhere near optimal.

Way. way long before that. https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=18850&postid=154163#154163
I didn't even consider that event in my resume of changes.

. . And Astropulses became much in demand but are not part of the overall SETI MB throughput of the project. They are not even for SETI in any way, they are a sub-contract for another project in another Uni. (As I understand it).

Stephen

? ?

What?? AP not even for SETI in any way??? Where did you get that idea from??

Astropulse FAQ

And why all of a sudden a more than 14 year old message from a totally different thread here???

. . I was under the impression that Seti@home back end does not look at AP results at all, they are shipped off to another project somewhere. Perhaps I have that wrong. Maybe I was just being too parochial and not recognising that the other project is also part of SETI.

. . As for why it is here, look at the quotes and you will see you need to be asking Nick about that.

Stephen

? ?

Looks like there've been a few server issues in the last 24hrs or so.
Return rate has died for a while, then Ready-to-send gets pounded when the Scheduler comes back to life, but the splitters don't pick up on the increased load.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

For some reason, the server status is unavailable. Just a blank black page. Very odd. I wonder how long this will last

---

back on now but loads of red! problem ready for the weekend?

---