| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: Computing for Sustainable Water Forum
Thread: Computing for Sustainable Water Problems Thread |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 254
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I wonder how fast Linux will run them comparatively to XP & 7 ?
Once they get Linux sorted out that is...  I have the choice of XP x64 or Linux x64 so I hope one of them will do well... |
||
|
|
BSD
Senior Cruncher Joined: Apr 27, 2011 Post Count: 224 Status: Offline |
On this Win7 X64 laptop that's running TThrottle with CPU set to 50%, normally the WU completed CPU time is half that of the Elapsed time. But, these WU for this project the CPU time is about 25% that of Elapsed. Very strange indeed. Going to change TTrottle to 100% to see what happens. This of course will make the CPU run hotter. CPU: 04:13:36 Hrs Elapsed: 19:11:52 Not understanding the combination of CPU set at 50% (what? CPU time or Cores?) and TThrottle. That could be working against each other, so would recommend 100% CPU time [if that's what you're restricting] and let TThrottle limit the CPU time through the chosen temp ceiling for maximum throughput at any part of the day [hot noons, cool nights] --//-- For laptops or desktops that I want reduced heat and fan noise. BOINC Manager preferences: Use at most 100% CPU time TThrottle Run percentage: 50 Max CPU % I use the Max CPU % vice Set core temp setting. This has worked well for me on other projects. Might be the temp setting is set to a lower threshold and is slowing down the CPU lower than 50% on this laptop, I check that out. |
||
|
|
Mathilde2006
Senior Cruncher Germany Joined: Sep 30, 2006 Post Count: 269 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I wonder how fast Linux will run them comparatively to XP & 7 ? Once they get Linux sorted out that is... I have the choice of XP x64 or Linux x64 so I hope one of them will do well... With my I7 -920: XP-64 ~ 7 hours (6.9- 7.1) Ubuntu 11.10 x64 5.25 hours - only one WU tested. Just installed Vista X64 (currently running update installation = no SP) 25 % reached after 1:22 h  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
We are looking into the runtime differences for CFSW. It is not a 32/64 bit issue but XP is running much slower than Win7. Between 20Apr12 06:37:40 UTC and 22Apr12 04:57:39, the claimed points for CFSW units on my Athlon 64 3500+ running XP Pro SP3 dropped from about 18 per hour to about 7.7 (and are still dropping, now about 7.0), despite all the units still taking very close to 10.0 hours. By comparison, SN2S units on the same machine are still claiming about 14.4 per hour. What might be the explanation for that drop?Examples: --------------- cfsw_ 0020_ 00020074_ 1-- 605 Valid 18/04/12 03:16:04 21/04/12 19:48:15 5.07 111.5 / 145.9 cfsw_ 0020_ 00020074_ 0-- 605 Valid 18/04/12 01:47:03 20/04/12 06:37:40 9.97 180.4 / 145.9 << me claimed 18.09, granted 14.63 per hour --------------- cfsw_ 0058_ 00058031_ 1-- 605 Valid 18/04/12 19:37:45 23/04/12 23:40:04 12.67 181.8 / 129.4 cfsw_ 0058_ 00058031_ 0-- 605 Valid 18/04/12 19:37:15 22/04/12 04:57:39 9.96 77.1 / 129.4 << me claimed 7.74, granted 12.99 per hour --------------- SN2S_ AH003972_ 0000032_ 0450_ 0-- 613 Valid 21/04/12 07:32:32 22/04/12 01:06:39 5.53 112.2 / 117.6 SN2S_ AH003972_ 0000032_ 0450_ 1-- 613 Valid 21/04/12 07:32:06 23/04/12 06:18:17 8.59 123.1 / 117.6 << me claimed 14.33, granted 13.69 per hour |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
We are looking into the runtime differences for CFSW. It is not a 32/64 bit issue but XP is running much slower than Win7. At this point the cause is unknown but we are investigating. I look forward to reading your results! Thanks, Jon. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
On this Win7 X64 laptop that's running TThrottle with CPU set to 50%, normally the WU completed CPU time is half that of the Elapsed time. But, these WU for this project the CPU time is about 25% that of Elapsed. Very strange indeed. Going to change TTrottle to 100% to see what happens. This of course will make the CPU run hotter. CPU: 04:13:36 Hrs Elapsed: 19:11:52 Not understanding the combination of CPU set at 50% (what? CPU time or Cores?) and TThrottle. That could be working against each other, so would recommend 100% CPU time [if that's what you're restricting] and let TThrottle limit the CPU time through the chosen temp ceiling for maximum throughput at any part of the day [hot noons, cool nights] --//-- For laptops or desktops that I want reduced heat and fan noise. BOINC Manager preferences: Use at most 100% CPU time TThrottle Run percentage: 50 Max CPU % I use the Max CPU % vice Set core temp setting. This has worked well for me on other projects. Might be the temp setting is set to a lower threshold and is slowing down the CPU lower than 50% on this laptop, I check that out. Never noticed that TThrottle had a CPU % setting feature, so loaded it up and indeed you can enter a percent there. I'd never use that, just the temp ceiling, and tweak that if it's requirement to have a percent of CPU juice for ad hoc user disposal [the lackless response you're wanting]. Had CPU % at 100% [default I suppose]. The more tools used, the more risk of conflicts. I've noticed that TThrottle was not working to satisfaction on my new 8 core toy, so unloaded it after seeing a big drop in throughput. It seemed to have been working against the system's own CoolSense, that now works automatic to run in performance optimized mode when stationary [on desk] and in coolest mode when on lap (with a notepal 3 fan cooler pad below it to keep certain 'hardware' at 34C). Since, running 100% and never an issue with CFSW. --//-- |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
On credit, visit the charts on offer http://bit.ly/WCGCPH. CFSW is now the lowest per-hour credit rewarding science at WCG. HPF2 used to be the incumbent for that spot. Soon as a badge level aspired has been reached it's back to med science [yes I'm cherry picking too at WCG].
------------------------------------------//-- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Apr 24, 2012 5:13:12 PM] |
||
|
|
BSD
Senior Cruncher Joined: Apr 27, 2011 Post Count: 224 Status: Offline |
On this Win7 X64 laptop that's running TThrottle with CPU set to 50%, normally the WU completed CPU time is half that of the Elapsed time. But, these WU for this project the CPU time is about 25% that of Elapsed. Very strange indeed. Going to change TTrottle to 100% to see what happens. This of course will make the CPU run hotter. CPU: 04:13:36 Hrs Elapsed: 19:11:52 Not understanding the combination of CPU set at 50% (what? CPU time or Cores?) and TThrottle. That could be working against each other, so would recommend 100% CPU time [if that's what you're restricting] and let TThrottle limit the CPU time through the chosen temp ceiling for maximum throughput at any part of the day [hot noons, cool nights] --//-- For laptops or desktops that I want reduced heat and fan noise. BOINC Manager preferences: Use at most 100% CPU time TThrottle Run percentage: 50 Max CPU % I use the Max CPU % vice Set core temp setting. This has worked well for me on other projects. Might be the temp setting is set to a lower threshold and is slowing down the CPU lower than 50% on this laptop, I check that out. Never noticed that TThrottle had a CPU % setting feature, so loaded it up and indeed you can enter a percent there. I'd never use that, just the temp ceiling, and tweak that if it's requirement to have a percent of CPU juice for ad hoc user disposal [the lackless response you're wanting]. Had CPU % at 100% [default I suppose]. The more tools used, the more risk of conflicts. I've noticed that TThrottle was not working to satisfaction on my new 8 core toy, so unloaded it after seeing a big drop in throughput. It seemed to have been working against the system's own CoolSense, that now works automatic to run in performance optimized mode when stationary [on desk] and in coolest mode when on lap (with a notepal 3 fan cooler pad below it to keep certain 'hardware' at 34C). Since, running 100% and never an issue with CFSW. --//-- Intresting, One of those "D'oh" moments.   This laptop has an Intel i7-2720QM CPU with maximum CPU operating temp 100C. TThrottle had Temp Set Core set to 60C which I had never changed that setting before. I've always changed the Max CPU. Tweaking the settings... Set Max CPU 100%, Temp Set Core 60C = Task Mgr shows 50% CPU usage Set Max CPU 100%, Temp Set Core 80C = Task Mgr shows 100% CPU usage Set Max CPU 50%, Temp Set Core 60C = Task Mgr shows 20% CPU usage Set Max CPU 50%, Temp Set Core 80C = Task Mgr shows 50% CPU usage So, for this laptop I was causing my own extra slowness by setting the Temp Set Core too low. Thanks Sek  |
||
|
|
Dataman
Ace Cruncher Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 4865 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
We can identify all workunits that were impacted and we will need to re-run those workunits to be certain that only valid results are being returned to the researchers. This will require us re-running about ~15,000 workunits. We apologize for the inconvenience. Are these resends going out as _1 & _2 wu's?  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
We can identify all workunits that were impacted and we will need to re-run those workunits to be certain that only valid results are being returned to the researchers. This will require us re-running about ~15,000 workunits. We apologize for the inconvenience. Are these resends going out as _1 & _2 wu's?------------------------ cfsw_ 0006_ 00006403_ 0-- - In Progress 24/04/12 03:50:27 04/05/12 03:50:27 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 cfsw_ 0041_ 00041037_ 0-- - In Progress 24/04/12 04:53:30 04/05/12 04:53:30 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 cfsw_ 0084_ 00084782_ 0-- - In Progress 24/04/12 06:06:07 04/05/12 06:06:07 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 cfsw_ 0098_ 00098209_ 0-- - In Progress 24/04/12 06:43:41 04/05/12 06:43:41 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 |
||
|
|
|