1) Message boards : Number crunching : Faulty Computers or Modified BOINC ?? Huge Credits (Message 23806)
Posted 6 Jan 2012 by Profile trigggl
Post:
It seems to me he could be running a 32-bit machine and if he sets the clock back to before the task started it will essentially be the unix time clock problem. If you go back 1 second you're logically going forward 2^32 seconds. Think Y2K only for unix time. If they were running 64-bit? Perhaps their machine is 64-bit but it's running the 32-bit app.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Tasks v530.09 crashing (Message 23459)
Posted 11 Oct 2011 by Profile trigggl
Post:
Well, either way, if I'm validating against a Windows computer with 530.10, I'm at a great disadvantage.

How'd you know? You have aborted all 530.10 work on all your computers without even testing one...

Because I've run plenty of 530.08. I do have one 530.10 which is almost finished after a CPU time of 81,000 sec.

http://lhcathomeclassic.cern.ch/sixtrack/workunit.php?wuid=323191

My wing man is done at 36,000. Guess which OS. My CPU is at 2.6 GHz. Theirs shows 2.67.

Looks like a great disadvantage to me.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Tasks v530.09 crashing (Message 23455)
Posted 11 Oct 2011 by Profile trigggl
Post:
Two of my last 530.09s:
CPU time 23271.08 seconds.
CPU time 27747.53 seconds.

This versus two 530.10s that have finished:
CPU time 11122.58 seconds.
CPU time 10511.39 seconds.


So, perhaps 530.09 slowed Windows down rather than speeding Linux up? Well, either way, if I'm validating against a Windows computer with 530.10, I'm at a great disadvantage.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : SixTrack and LHC@home status (Message 23448)
Posted 11 Oct 2011 by Profile trigggl
Post:
Thank you Eric for your news !
We really appreciate your communication !

Keep up the good work !


+1

You get an 'A' for communication.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Tasks v530.09 crashing (Message 23446)
Posted 10 Oct 2011 by Profile trigggl
Post:
After consultation with Eric McIntosh, we desided to retrack completely the
530.9 version. I have reinstalled the 530.8 version, now called 530.10.

We will come back to it after a better investigation. Have to admit a mistake.

So, we're back to horrible run times and credits for Linux? I'll wait for the return of an improved .09.

How about using .09 (.11) for x86_64 and .10 for i686?
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Tasks v530.09 crashing (Message 23402)
Posted 7 Oct 2011 by Profile trigggl
Post:
Thanks Ageless, I'm sure you're on the right lines, but this host reports sse not sse2 and is running 530.09 as I write. Igor wrote here that 530.09 uses sse3. Now I'm really confused.


Different Arch's have different apps, same version. 64-bit processors support sse3. I requested sse3 support for Linux 64-bit. I don't know if the 32-bit apps were compiled that way.

Applications:
Microsoft Windows (98 or later) running on an Intel x86-compatible CPU 	530.09 	4 Oct 2011 15:31:31 UTC
Microsoft Windows running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 	530.09 	4 Oct 2011 15:31:31 UTC
Linux running on an Intel x86-compatible CPU 	530.09 	4 Oct 2011 15:31:31 UTC
Linux running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 	530.09 	4 Oct 2011 15:31:31 UTC
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Tasks v530.09 crashing (Message 23401)
Posted 7 Oct 2011 by Profile trigggl
Post:
I recycled (took it to the recycling center) my last Pentium 3 earlier this year. It's just wasn't worth the electricity.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Linux vs. Windows app (Message 23368)
Posted 5 Oct 2011 by Profile trigggl
Post:
Here's a some-what close comparison between my Gentoo machine and a windows machine with similar processors.

http://lhcathomeclassic.cern.ch/sixtrack/workunit.php?wuid=248188

I don't know if this quad is overclocked, but it's probably a good comparison either way. My processor is at 3GHz; the Windows 7 quad is 2.4GHz stock. Mine is about 20% slower based on CPU time.

The difference between my run time and CPU time may be because of the 9800 cuda crunching pps sieve using some of the run time.

EDIT: I guess, looking at the claimed floating point speeds, my task looks like it took around the amount of time it should have. So, it does look like the new app version is much improved.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Linux vs. Windows app (Message 23364)
Posted 5 Oct 2011 by Profile trigggl
Post:
I have triet out different projects with Linux (Kubuntu) and Windows (7 x64). The only project I found running tasks quicker on Linux was DNA@Home ( Linux is here more than twice as fast ). Maybe its a basic problem with the compilers? Or more likely with the libraries?


64-bit kubuntu? I haven't really seen (or noticed) that with 64-bit Gentoo. Of course, I build everything with every feature each of my CPU's support. That probably won't affect the speed of a static app, though.

Waiting on my Windows wing men to get a quasi-comparison.
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Linux vs. Windows app (Message 23349)
Posted 4 Oct 2011 by Profile trigggl
Post:
Well, I'm trying a few with the new app on my E2160. The one it's currently crunching is about half way through at roughly 3 hours, not that that's any indication until compared to the wing man.

http://lhcathomeclassic.cern.ch/sixtrack/show_host_detail.php?hostid=9931096

For reference, it's running at 3 GHz.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Linux vs. Windows app (Message 23343)
Posted 4 Oct 2011 by Profile trigggl
Post:
Is it just me, or does it seem like the Linux app is way less efficient than the Windows app? There are slower windows computers finishing way faster than my Gentoo Linux systems. It's possible that there's overclocking involved, but I don't think that's the reason. Was the Linux 64-bit app compiled with sse2(or sse3) support?
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Correct project URL? (Message 22958)
Posted 8 Sep 2011 by Profile trigggl
Post:
You should always use the one listed on the front page of the project, this or any other project. This is the one the the project will support. Other urls may forward, but at some time they will dissapear.

I've seen it both ways. Sometimes you just have to ask.
13) Message boards : Number crunching : A lot of mismatching results! (Message 22949)
Posted 8 Sep 2011 by Profile trigggl
Post:
Being the Linux minority is definitely not conducive here. If there were a way to pair Linux only to Linux...
14) Message boards : Number crunching : Waiting on Linux App (Message 22178)
Posted 1 Apr 2010 by Profile trigggl
Post:
work for Linux?

\"Message from server: SixTrack is not available for your type of computer.\"
15) Message boards : Number crunching : Computation error (Message 21939)
Posted 4 Mar 2010 by Profile trigggl
Post:
In fact, whats the point of a graphic other than complicating the code? Feel free to leave it out. It takes away from the crunching anyways.
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Waiting on Linux App (Message 21937)
Posted 4 Mar 2010 by Profile trigggl
Post:
Just a reminder.
17) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Black hole question (Message 21795)
Posted 16 Jan 2010 by Profile trigggl
Post:
What really happened.

This is impossible. It cant happen until 2012.
18) Message boards : Number crunching : Source code? porting, run as annonnymous? (Message 21710)
Posted 3 Dec 2009 by Profile trigggl
Post:
If you are into it ... you could also look at Milky Way in that the source code is available. Though I have to wonder how many hosts are going to be added if you make the effort ...

So far, I\'m able to crunch SETI, Milkyway, Einstein, Pirates, Enigma, Genlife and Primegrid. Those projects that \"support\" linux ppc only support powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu and not powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. I have a 64-bit kernel with a 64-bit userspace.
19) Message boards : Number crunching : Source code? porting, run as annonnymous? (Message 21192)
Posted 18 Feb 2009 by Profile trigggl
Post:
-Brian...who has had a Windows XP (32-bit) system running overclocked from 2200MHz to 2750MHz and rock solid for, oh, about 3 years now...and from 2000MHz to 2500MHz before that... (AMD 3700+ now, 3200+ then)

So you agree that there are a lot of people overclocking Windows PC\'s. There are pro\'s at this (you apparently) and amateurs (me). I\'m thinking there\'s a little of both. Maybe more pro\'s than amateurs, but how many amateurs does it take to mess up a project? Don\'t mind me, I just hate Windows. I hated it before I knew anything about Linux. Of course that was before XP. XP is alright. It works well enough for me at work (with Hummingbird as an X-server to connect to our AIX network and to connect to our oracle based engineering program). I just find Linux (*nix in general) much simpler to administrate. How\'s that for irony?

Anyways, yes I did stereotype. Considering your setup, I don\'t think you need to be insecure about it. I wish I could afford that hardware, but if I could you could bet I\'d be running Linux on it.

On a side not, I\'m giving my old (extremely old) P3 to my daughter and she wanted Windows on it. I have a dual boot of Ubuntu and Windows XP on it. Judging by the benchmarks, Windows has a better floating point speed, Linux has a better integer speed. I have an adapter on it to run a 1.0G processor I just overclocked to 1.1G. I tried for 1.2G, but SETI caused it to be unstable and it crashed. I am the king of unique ancient hardware. I have an RS6000 made in 1999 and a maxed out 1GHz P3 with Rambus, also made in 1999. I wish somebody would have told me what Rambus was before I bought the motherboard on ebay.

Recently I learned that Unix time passed 1234567890 on Feb. Friday the 13th US Central timezone. That\'s seconds elapsed since Jan. 1 1970. I also discovered that 32-bit kernels have a y2038 bug. I tested this out on my pc and my 64-bit ppc. The pc stopped at 2038, the ppc64 naturally counted millions of years past that. So, I\'m just thinking there are some calculations that a 64-bit machine can do that maybe a 32-bit machine couldn\'t. I\'ll probably not find that in a boinc project though and I really shouldn\'t by whining about it.

I don\'t know how much longer this RS6000 will last, but I suspect it could run as a diskless machine for a very long time. The hard drive will probably be the first thing to go. It will probably last until 2038. I\'ll probably still be determined to find a use for it.

Thanks for visiting my porting thread. I\'ll go hide under a rock now.
20) Message boards : Number crunching : Source code? porting, run as annonnymous? (Message 21187)
Posted 17 Feb 2009 by Profile trigggl
Post:
Due to how sensitive the results are to very minor calculation differences / errors, LHC@home do not release their code for 3rd party compiling.

And yet, they rely on computers that are most likely overclocked and running Windows. I\'d trust PPC over i686 any day. Oh well. I didn\'t really expect it to be available anyways. My RS6000 will just have to stick with SETI@HOME.


Next 20


©2021 CERN