Message boards :
Theory Application :
New version 263.90
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 18 Dec 15 Posts: 1688 Credit: 103,125,889 RAC: 122,463 |
No Comments?the allocation of credit points has always been a big conondrum. I have brought up this topic several times, but never ever got a logical explanation. It seems to me that no one can really explain it. |
Send message Joined: 28 Sep 04 Posts: 675 Credit: 43,549,245 RAC: 15,517 |
No Comments?the allocation of credit points has always been a big conondrum. I have brought up this topic several times, but never ever got a logical explanation. It seems to me that no one can really explain it. The credits are somehow tied to the web preference of number of CPUs to use for a multi threaded task. If you increase your number of CPUs on the web site but use app_config to limit the number of CPUs actually used during calculations, you will get higher credits for the task. At least this is my experience for Theory tasks. |
Send message Joined: 14 Jan 10 Posts: 1274 Credit: 8,480,870 RAC: 2,011 |
the allocation of credit points has always been a big conondrum. I have brought up this topic several times, but never ever got a logical explanation. It seems to me that no one can really explain it. That's correct. Example task: https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/result.php?resultid=244420894 A 12 core machine. In preferences the Max # CPUs is set to no limit, so the Device peak FLOPS = 12 * Measured floating point speed (benchmark) of 3.89 GFLOPS makes 46.66 GFLOPS for credit calculation, but in app_config.xml it is setup to create single core VM's. So the credit is 12 times too high. App_config.xml is and has always been a local instrument for the user of BOINC, where the server is not aware of. |
Send message Joined: 7 Feb 14 Posts: 99 Credit: 5,180,005 RAC: 0 |
|
Send message Joined: 14 Jan 10 Posts: 1274 Credit: 8,480,870 RAC: 2,011 |
1 CPU server-side.I suppose, you are not satisfied with the credit ?? The measured floating point speed of 0.87 billion ops/sec is that correct? Run CPU benchmarks from BOINC Manager's Tools menu and system not used for the rest. |
Send message Joined: 18 Dec 15 Posts: 1688 Credit: 103,125,889 RAC: 122,463 |
[quote]I suppose, you are not satisfied with the credit ??hihi, with the value 97,40 I wouldn't be satiesfied either :-) even my old old old AMD Turion Dual-Core ZM-80 (contained in a notebook) produces more than 200 points within about same processing time. |
Send message Joined: 7 Feb 14 Posts: 99 Credit: 5,180,005 RAC: 0 |
The measured floating point speed of 0.87 billion ops/sec is that correct?It's the correct value at 1.4-1.6GHz and, yes, my notebook is actually set at 1.2GHz, sometimes at 1.8GHz to speed up other tasks. Here is my benchmark results at various frequencies (on November 2018). freq ( flo/ int) 800MHz ( 452/ 3048) 1000MHz ( 565/ 3831) 1200MHz ( 679/ 4649) 1400MHz ( 792/ 5413) 1600MH ( 905/ 6188) 1800MHz (1017/ 6942) 2000MHz (1131/ 7727) 2200MHz (1243/ 8484) Previously mesaured floating point speed was 18.97 GFLOPS that has always been impossible. https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/workunit.php?wuid=122897843 So why credits should depend on that value now? |
Send message Joined: 7 Feb 14 Posts: 99 Credit: 5,180,005 RAC: 0 |
[quote]I suppose, you are not satisfied with the credit ??hihi, with the value 97,40 I wouldn't be satiesfied either :-) The free ride is over for me. :( I was using my notebook only because credits were good. Daily credits were 3700/thread independently of CPU frequency. |
Send message Joined: 15 Jun 08 Posts: 2401 Credit: 225,541,770 RAC: 120,747 |
The benchmark results seem to be valid for that CPU. Recent linux kernels usually activate a couple of mitigation settings against various malware at the expense of (much) lower benchmark results. As the benchmark results are used for credit calculation it will result in lower credits. OTOH BOINC's credit calculation includes some components to identify outliers or cheats. As a result the credit reward for a single task should not be treated as stable. It will need at least a week without any setup changes to get stable values. CP already explained another major factor that influences multicore apps. |
Send message Joined: 15 Nov 14 Posts: 602 Credit: 24,371,321 RAC: 0 |
Recent linux kernels usually activate a couple of mitigation settings against various malware at the expense of (much) lower benchmark results. I suppose that is the speculative execution problem (Spectre/Meltdown) affecting the Intel CPUs. So do the benchmarks change for the AMD CPUs? |
Send message Joined: 15 Jun 08 Posts: 2401 Credit: 225,541,770 RAC: 120,747 |
Recent linux kernels usually activate a couple of mitigation settings against various malware at the expense of (much) lower benchmark results. AMD CPUs are also affected. See: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/hw-vuln/index.html |
Send message Joined: 15 Nov 14 Posts: 602 Credit: 24,371,321 RAC: 0 |
It appears that it could affect different projects differently. I look mainly at the execution times, and see no obvious difference thus far for LHC on my i7-9700. But I could go to my Ryzens if necessary. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/291649-intel-performance-amd-spectre-meltdown-mds-patches It is another juggling act we have to do. |
Send message Joined: 18 Dec 15 Posts: 1688 Credit: 103,125,889 RAC: 122,463 |
On September 2nd, Maeax wrote: There are Tasks from some Computer with more than 5k Points:this is a task from one of my machines. Out of thousands of tasks one can find here from thousands of volunteers, why did you pick exactly this one? Do you have a problem with my tasks, or with me personally? The latter one could assume, reading some of your replies to my postings in other threads here. |
Send message Joined: 7 Feb 14 Posts: 99 Credit: 5,180,005 RAC: 0 |
The benchmark results seem to be valid for that CPU.Credit drop does not look benchmark-related. Now my notebook gets 477cr/day per thread, almost exactly 1/n_threads of previous amount. I can't accept this when there are still hosts that daily get more than ~10k per thread, so I turned it off. |
Send message Joined: 2 May 07 Posts: 2090 Credit: 158,922,687 RAC: 124,848 |
this is a task from one of my machines. Out of thousands of tasks one can find here from thousands of volunteers, why did you pick exactly this one? Do you have a problem with my tasks, or with me personally? The latter one could assume, reading some of your replies to my postings in other threads here. Fairplay is only for the other Volunteers, Erich56? |
Send message Joined: 14 Jan 10 Posts: 1274 Credit: 8,480,870 RAC: 2,011 |
this is a task from one of my machines. Out of thousands of tasks one can find here from thousands of volunteers, why did you pick exactly this one? Do you have a problem with my tasks, or with me personally? The latter one could assume, reading some of your replies to my postings in other threads here. thousands of volunteers ?? - Active with Theory-vbox the last 24 hours: 112 Fairplay ?? - It are the project settings Max # of CPU's - 8 or No limit causing high credits when using an app_config with lower ncpus-values. See my post with the wish/advice to get rid of the multi-core Theory application. Make it single core and volunteers could use app_config.xml to make it e.g. dual-core whilst on low RAM. Pse be kind to each other ;) |
Send message Joined: 18 Dec 15 Posts: 1688 Credit: 103,125,889 RAC: 122,463 |
Fairplay is only for the other Volunteers, Erich56?could you please further explain this weird accusation? |
Send message Joined: 27 Sep 08 Posts: 805 Credit: 650,487,649 RAC: 263,150 |
Can you adjust the memory calculations? the working set is calculated at 19GB for an unlimited/8 core task this seems a little excessive? |
Send message Joined: 14 Jan 10 Posts: 1274 Credit: 8,480,870 RAC: 2,011 |
Can you adjust the memory calculations? the working set is calculated at 19GB for an unlimited/8 core task this seems a little excessive? It could be more! Have you seen your Xeon E5-2696 (32 cores): Setting Memory Size for VM. (24750MB) |
Send message Joined: 27 Sep 08 Posts: 805 Credit: 650,487,649 RAC: 263,150 |
I didn't check them all, I assume it's just doing cores on machine x nGB. I would use the web config but it doesn't work great either for my machines, I just unlimited and mange it myself but the working set size is calculated from server side so I can't fix that myself. I guess I could create a script to edit all the workunits and re-start BOINC every time a new WU is started.... |
©2024 CERN