| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: FightAIDS@Home
Thread: Windows 7 / 64 bit / Lower Credit? |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 60
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Highwire
Cruncher Joined: Aug 18, 2006 Post Count: 39 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Hi,
I've a quad core (very slight overclock) running @ 3Ghz that fairly flies that's my main crunching machine. A week and a bit ago I upgraded the old Windows 32 bit to shiney new Windows 7 64 bit, on same machine and left current work etc, and ran Boinc, everything seems fine. The benchmarks seem similar to before. Except, *maybe* it's my imagination, but I seem to get less credit than before? Around maybe just 2/3? Is that possible? I dunno, if I leave it running overnight and look at the credit, seems significantly less. It's mostly been running FAAH home last days so that's why I'm posting this forum, unless there's a better one. The credit claimed / credit given is acutally around a ratio of 2:1 (some of them more!) for the FAAH work units, and they seem to be taking a longer than I remember them taking! Maybe that's latest FAAH work but .. are there a known issues with either W7 in general or 64 bit and FAAH or WCG? It was the host 'average' still going down when I was crunching MORE that attracted my attention. Normally if I leave it on all the time you see it start climbing again, I'm not seeing that happening. I only have one pending and one inconclusive (?) in all my results and the last few days of hours v points versus similar hours v points earlier in Jan are noticably lower. The credit claimed / given ratios do seem well off and I wonder if that's a clue. Any ideas? |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
You might have stumbled into a W7 energy saving quirk that took me quite some time to get fixed, hacking drivers from Vista into W7 that the laptop manufacturer would not provide and using RMclock to get the cycles back to maximum.
----------------------------------------As for credit claim, they are inherently inflated due their 64 bit benchmark execution whilst the science apps are still running in 32 bit. On average though after having worked around the CPU throttling, I get about 11 minutes CPU time per core day more out of W7 64 bit than under Vista 32 bit... speak 45 minutes per day on the quad, due greater system efficiencies. edit: inserted benchmark
WCG
----------------------------------------Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sekerob at Feb 1, 2010 1:15:13 PM] |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
PS, yes there is a known credit claim versus award issue in the Zero Redundancy sciences (FAAH+HFCC). When your system is busy you get more than when your system is idle would you believe. So I'm playing Pokémon 24/7 ;>)
----------------------------------------There's a new credit plan under development for BOINC wide, so the techs expect to fix the credit issue if/when that rolls out.
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
Highwire
Cruncher Joined: Aug 18, 2006 Post Count: 39 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Hmm.. Well I understand yes that code COMPILED for 64 bit can be faster, but this isn't, and, as I'd expect, my benchmarks are quite similar to what 32 bit windows was giving. I mean it's exact same boinc version etc. I'm not overly concerned with benchmarks somehow not mapping so clearly to credit. Even if they ARE the same!
What DOES concern me is that the credit, on identical hardware, is lower. The machine isn't a laptop, but as to wierd power saving .. who knows. I'm not over impressed with windows 7 as rather than just giving you settings and letting you set them, it's full of hiding settings and trying to second your intent and decide what you really want! The credit cut seems noticable though. I'll give it another couple days to settle but getting 1,000 points for work that on another os on identical hardware would give you 1500 is a bit .. hmm. No chance there's some naff '64 bit credit fudge' that is cripplng 64 bit results even though it's a 32 bit work unit?? |
||
|
|
Highwire
Cruncher Joined: Aug 18, 2006 Post Count: 39 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
PS .. all four cores are at full (i.e. 25% each) and the CPU temp is what i'd expect if it was flat out. I'm .. ok I'l wait a couple days but I'm getting real feeling something is odd here.
I can't see anything else in power settings that looks relevant. |
||
|
|
Highwire
Cruncher Joined: Aug 18, 2006 Post Count: 39 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
oh and PPS : the HCC work done on computer last few day has taken 3.5-4.5 hours a unit, and claim / given is pretty much spot on. The FAAH units are taking 13-16 even 20 hours, and the claims are from 250/150 to 350ish/150 (and 380/200) etc?
|
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Think you're the second one who comes with this extraneously long run time... except, it was someone running HCC who had that. There's nothing specially long with FAAH and that may explain the cut in half of the credit as the FPOPS executed inside the task as reported by the application is what is used plus the mini benchmark... if that runs fast and the task executes slow, you get inflated claims.
----------------------------------------Are you running a 32 bit [yes i think so given your comment of exact same client] or 64 bit client? Go to Berkeley to fetch 6.10.18 if you so desire. WCG does not provide one.
WCG
----------------------------------------Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sekerob at Feb 1, 2010 1:21:48 PM] |
||
|
|
Highwire
Cruncher Joined: Aug 18, 2006 Post Count: 39 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Client : I just left boinc direct alone and kicked off exe again.
5.10.45. I'm not bothered about upgrading, if the work itself is still 32 bit I don't really see point? In fact if I upgrade to 64 bit client and then get incorrect for 32 bit benchmarks, thats not helping! Work : well yes. Here's an FAAH on a p4 2.8ghz: (unit, hours, claimed) faah10492_ ZINC19786841_ xMut_ md07200_ 00_ 0-- 11.54 98.5 And right beside it, a much faster recent quad ~ 3ghz, a typical result: faah10491_ ZINC19785833_ xMut_ md07200_ 01_ 0-- 14.92 255.1 ?? Unfortunately results history doesn't go back so long so I can't see FAAH results PRE W7. But my host graph is noticably cut and struggling. |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Okay, well the suggestion stands to go to a 64 bit client to discover if the FAAH jobs will then process faster... an inflated benchmark quite secondary.
----------------------------------------
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
Highwire
Cruncher Joined: Aug 18, 2006 Post Count: 39 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Hmm I'm a bit loathe to do that as if I boot back into old windows it won't work - and it changes another variable - and I can't see any logical reason why changing the client would help, it just kicks exes off doesn't it? And at the same time makes my benchmarks inaccurate!
Surely if a special 64 bit client is required you (wcg) are giving the 'wrong' client out to w7 (or 64 bit) users?! |
||
|
|
|