LHC@home

How this is possible?

a PII is faster than a P4 3.4 or P4 3.0??

See and examine WU ID:82841

(-no offense against you: Ken Putnam!)

any explaination are wellcommed
littleBouncer
[EDIT}Maybe that's why it is invalid...[/EDIT]

---

DAMN! Your pc has a sucky integer speed. Are you sure it's a Pentium?
Maybe it's a cheap knockoff and is a 'Rentium' instead of a Pentium.

Behold my celeron! 2.2 ghz.
Measured floating point speed 1095.72 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 3394.65 million ops/sec

compared to your lame 'Pentium' 3.4 ghz
Measured floating point speed 1432.76 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 1818.02 million ops/sec


Edit:
I'm guessing Mr. P's pc had an error and exited the calculation, but exited with result code 0.

---

I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here.

> DAMN! Your pc has a sucky integer speed. Are you sure it's a Pentium?
> Maybe it's a cheap knockoff and is a 'Rentium' instead of a
> Pentium.
>
> Behold my celeron! 2.2 ghz.
> Measured floating point speed 1095.72 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 3394.65 million ops/sec
>
> compared to your lame 'Pentium' 3.4 ghz
> Measured floating point speed 1432.76 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 1818.02 million ops/sec
>
>
> Edit:
> I'm guessing Mr. P's pc had an error and exited the calculation, but exited
> with result code 0.
I think too.
>
>
@ Alex

That is the effect of the CC 4.25
with CC 4.19 the 'integer speed' is 2700 to 2800 (for cheating!)
('floating point speed' is equal.)
(even my Notebook is faster per WU, but the 3.4 is an HT and crunches two at the time.)

greetz littleBouncer

[QUOTE from you]
>> your lame 'Pentium' 3.4 ghz
[/QUOTE]

That's why this Host is 14.th in RAC Ranking!

1,254 14 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.40GHz 2 Windows XP 2,738.76 92.51
Or see here

greetz littleBouncer

---

Heh.

:)

---

I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here.

> How this is possible?
>
> a PII is faster than a P4 3.4 or P4 3.0??
>
> See and examine WU
> ID:82841
>
> (-no offense against you: Ken Putnam!)
>
> any explaination are wellcommed
> littleBouncer
> [EDIT}Maybe that's why it is invalid...[/EDIT]
>
>

Don't know why the completion time is so low, but the machine is actually a PIII/450, not a PII I'll have to take a look at it when I get home.

(If you look at the other results, they are all closer to what would be expected)

---

> Don't know why the completion time is so low, but the machine is actually a
> PIII/450, not a PII I'll have to take a look at it when I get home.
>
> (If you look at the other results, they are all closer to what would be
> expected)
>
>
>

@ Ken Putnam

when I opened this thread there was only your result and from another, so I wasn't granted (I was the 3th incoming-result).

Later I saw my results and others are granted, only yours not. So I thought:"Maybe your 'sim'WU didn't make the full turn (some particles have left the colider or are colided), that's why it was 'invalid'; and once again I was too fast with my questions..."

Sorry no offense against you

respectfull littleBouncer

---

A Question:

Why does it(LHC-appl. 4.64) run only on one instance on a 'two-instances-host'?

With the new 'stock' from 4.4.05 I noticed; that I have to update manually for getting to run the second instance after the Client has finished a WU(before it was working as it should).

BTW:The prefs' are set to use 2 CPU's.

greetz littleBouncer

---

this behaviour is not new.

it can be observed on a various number of boinc projects and many users
reported this of several forum.

Me too having this from time to time, but not in way that I should worry about.

first was thingking, with the 4.25 clients this is fixed, it looks like it's not.

From the obsevation, it looks like, when the client, is running especially on HT (mp?) hosts, AND having a lot of pausing/restarting switching, there is a higher risk to get a non swiching back and only one instance is seen in the memory. But I don't have an evidence for that

take a look into the taskmanager, if there are one or two visible instances of the project (LHC :sixtrax...) AND if both uses cpu/memory.

In my case, the restart of the boinc client solved the problem and with fresh memory allocations

I played with the remove from memory preference yes/no, could not see a difference.

(it also happens as mentioned, very irregulary and not all day)

visite other forum, you will see, this is stil an unanswered Q..