| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Support
Forum: BOINC Agent Support
Thread: Setting permanent affinity options? |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 11
|
|
| Author |
|
|
teletran
Senior Cruncher Joined: Jul 27, 2005 Post Count: 378 Status: Offline |
I'm running a dual core system and have elected to only use one core dedicated to WCG and the other free for other tasks. Initially I was allowing both cores to run WCG and it would work on one unit per core at 100% CPU for each one. I went into BOINC settings and limited the agent to only use one core. Now it runs one work unit but splits the processor usage between the two cores. I can manually set the affinity to one core and that work unit will be processed by the core I select and use 100% of it. That's what I want. The problem is, as soon as the work unit is finished and a new one starts it splits the load between the two cores again and I have to manually select only one each time. Is there a way to keep the affinity permanent and have each work unit only use one core at 100%? Thanks.
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I'm running a dual core system and have elected to only use one core dedicated to WCG and the other free for other tasks. Initially I was allowing both cores to run WCG and it would work on one unit per core at 100% CPU for each one. I went into BOINC settings and limited the agent to only use one core. Now it runs one work unit but splits the processor usage between the two cores. I can manually set the affinity to one core and that work unit will be processed by the core I select and use 100% of it. That's what I want. The problem is, as soon as the work unit is finished and a new one starts it splits the load between the two cores again and I have to manually select only one each time. Is there a way to keep the affinity permanent and have each work unit only use one core at 100%? Thanks. Maybe this may help... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/252867 and maybe not. Good luck. |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
If on a C2D Centrino using the power management setting the Energy Saving off, Taskmanager indicates the process on 1 core. If Energy Savings is switched on the TM shows as if the process is spread over 2 cores, but can't believe any WCG science process is able to physically run with parts spread over 2 cores for 1 job. Somehow I think it could even lead to problems in matching jobs in the quorum due processing deviations. Seem to recollect that only F@H is experimenting with simultaneous multi processor execution.
----------------------------------------
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
teletran
Senior Cruncher Joined: Jul 27, 2005 Post Count: 378 Status: Offline |
I thought the same, sekerob. But several apps (task manager, speedfan, pc wizard, etc..) show the two cores sharing the task. Only when I manually unselect one of the cores in Affinity option, does the second core usage drop, and the core I select take on 100%. Are things being misreported?
----------------------------------------For reference, I'm using an AMD X2 s939 processor. ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by teletran at Apr 25, 2007 10:09:58 PM] |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
I'll ask the pros to confirm what's with this core load spreading.
----------------------------------------Added: Try firing up UD agent (if you have it already) and see if you get the same behaviour.
WCG
----------------------------------------Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sekerob at Apr 25, 2007 11:31:34 PM] |
||
|
|
teletran
Senior Cruncher Joined: Jul 27, 2005 Post Count: 378 Status: Offline |
Thanks
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hello teletran,
The science application program is a new job for each work unit (some projects might run a setup program before the main run). Unless you want to reset the affinity before each new job, I don't see how this could work. And why bother? Let the computer decide which core to use. The Cache is probably going to be trashed when the OS decides to run a highec-priority thread so there will only be a few microseconds saved by always using the same core. Usually the cache will have to be refilled anyway. The affinity setting is too weak for the type of job control you are contemplating. Specifying one thread only for BOINC is a good way to keep your computer responsive and lower the heat, but there is nothing gained by trying to specify the core. Lawrence |
||
|
|
teletran
Senior Cruncher Joined: Jul 27, 2005 Post Count: 378 Status: Offline |
lawrence,
----------------------------------------Believe it or not, the CPU temp goes down a couple of degrees if I use a specific core. Once both are engaged, it goes up. |
||
|
|
teletran
Senior Cruncher Joined: Jul 27, 2005 Post Count: 378 Status: Offline |
Just to update, I realized I didn't have both Boinc.exe and Boincmgr.exe set up to use one CPU under Affinity options. When they are both set, new work units also only use the one core that they are set at. No more having to select the specific workunit and set it's affinity whenever a new one starts - except after rebooting, all 3 processes must be manually set the one time.
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
It should be enough just to set boinc.exe before it starts any work. BOINC Manager is totally separate.
It's an odd result, though - the only reason for splitting across cores that I can think of is so that the processor can do its speedstep thing and reduce the clock speed - which ought to run cooler than one core on maximum. That's just a guess, though. |
||
|
|
|