Posts by old_user202664

21) Message boards : Number crunching : Naughty Intel patch - has anybody tried it? (Message 25404) Posted 1 Dec 2006 by old_user202664 Post: Defrag... God, I\'m beginning to hate Windoze, especially with my little laptop running so nicely under Debian. Well, thanks anyway for your advice :-) it is very much appreciated; I\'ll certainly try it out.
22) Message boards : Number crunching : Naughty Intel patch - has anybody tried it? (Message 25402) Posted 1 Dec 2006 by old_user202664 Post: Somehow, after changing my preferences, my trickles seem to have become slower, not faster! Can anyone help? Do WUs tend to become \"slower\" when you advance further, or ist it normal that some timesteps simply need more computing time than others, or is anything seriously wrong here?
23) Message boards : Number crunching : Problem with Workunit? (Message 25362) Posted 30 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: I\'m not 100% sure but I think I\'ve read about a crash or bug that makes BOINC set the deadline to 1901. But apart from annoying messages I don\'t think it hurts...
24) Message boards : Number crunching : Naughty Intel patch - has anybody tried it? (Message 25361) Posted 30 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: Yep, my graphs look odd, too, and I didn\'t change anything about my client. In BOINCStats it is shown that I got no credits for three days and then a whole bunch at once- which is of course what one would expect after that server outage. So, Alphax, are you sure that doesn\'t influence your results?
25) Message boards : Number crunching : Linux performance (Message 25360) Posted 30 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: As for cooling-no problem there, except maybe in a really hot summer. My lappi has been crunching (SETI, Einstein and HashClash) overnight more than just a few times and never showed the slightest hint at problems (not when I was gaming, doing Inet-Radio streaming, making MP3s or whatever CPU-intensive tasks came to my mind). It does get quite warm, but from my and other peoples\' experience (and the type sheet... is that word right? the CPU\'s description from the manufacturer) this kind of Banias CPUs can take the heat. I do take care of decent air circulation, of course. Disk speed might be an issue. Sucky IDE HDD, unfortunately. @astro: Maybe the Windoze version does crunch more efficiently but I couldn\'t get that to run decently on my lappi. So that\'s not really an option. Besides, I need the Linux functionality for other reasons, just as much as the opportunity to collect experience with it. I should have mentioned that BOINC is not the single or even most important purpose of that laptop. Can\'t afford anything like that; I mainly need it for university and for server administration. For that reason, I also installed GNOME. Normally, I\'m a command-line kind of person, but some of the things I need for uni need a graphical interface. It doesn\'t run all the time, though. @Dargorath: My first WU definitely didn\'t crash (repeatedly) just because I had bad luck and ran it a long time. Firstly, my Windoze installation at that time was about as stable as that OS can get. So it wasn\'t software failure. Nothing else crashed apart from the climate model. Of course, power outages are not that much concern on a laptop. Besides, furthest I ever got into the model was around 8 hours. So, while your explanation is of course completely correct and helpful if people want to increase stability on their systems, my problems were quite certainly due to memory/CPU problems- or maybe the HDD, good point astro, didn\'t think of that...
26) Message boards : Number crunching : Linux performance (Message 25337) Posted 29 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: Hi guys, just wondering... I recently installed Debian Linux on my Laptop and now I\'d like to know if someone has experience with how slower machines do under Linux. I tried to run BBC CPDN on that machine when I was running XP and that was not really nice (had a few odd crashes then gave it up; probably just too little performance) but Linux should be a bit less demanding on the poor little thing ;-) so maybe there is a chance I\'ll get CPDN to work on it after all? With 1,3 GHz and 496 MB of memory I\'m only slightly below the suggestions on the CPDN homepage... As I said, just wondering, so don\'t beat me up if there is no way this will work. It just occured to me that it might. XP almost halved my memory, so if part of that would be left for BOINC... I\'d appreciate comments from more experienced users here.
27) Message boards : Number crunching : no trickles? (Message 25321) Posted 28 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: Okay then :-) maybe I looked in the wrong place or a bit too early. Thanks a lot.
28) Message boards : Number crunching : no trickles? (Message 25318) Posted 27 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: Mine haven\'t, do I have to worry?
29) Message boards : Number crunching : Naughty Intel patch - has anybody tried it? (Message 25301) Posted 26 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: Thanks :-) I\'ll wait for the trickle server to come back up and then I\'ll see if my newer results are already a bit faster.
30) Message boards : Number crunching : Naughty Intel patch - has anybody tried it? (Message 25291) Posted 25 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: Well, I always allow BOINC to run when the PC is in use. When it\'s just office, server administration or surfing, BOINC gets more than 90% CPU power most of the time, except for \"peaks\" when I load a program or download a file or so- and even most games don\'t take more than about 70% CPU power on this machine (well, Guild Wars does, but I\'ve got some older games here which don\'t), so that would be a big waste imho. I know some people wouldn\'t suggest that because of the danger of crashing WUs, but I can remember only one occasion when gaming resulted in 2 crashed WUs (and that was because a driver conflict forced a freeze and reboot, thereby damaging the BOINC data on my HDD). If I compare that to all the hours of CPU time I gain when I\'m for example working for Uni, at my server or playing a game, I can\'t help but think it\'s worth the risk. I lost maybe 3 or 4 hours of CPU time in that crash- I get that back letting BOINC run during writing one piece of homework or so. Of course, with CPDN where the WUs are considerably larger, I cut down the risk by backing up after every trickle. As for the \"writing WUs to virtual memory\"... I\'ll just trust my hard disk to do that quickly- guess it does, because I don\'t notice a lag (it better does, was expensive enough ;-) ) so I think I\'ll stick with the recommended hourly switch. As for BOINC waiting for the WUs to reach a checkpoint- are you sure about that? It seems unlikely to me, because the switches occur exactly after one hour. I\'ve never seen them be more than 2 seconds earlier or later, which can\'t possibly be enough for any project to reach a checkpoint...
31) Message boards : Number crunching : Naughty Intel patch - has anybody tried it? (Message 25288) Posted 25 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: Haven\'t checked that out (and anyway, as CPDN has a higher percentage, it also happens that it crunches for 2 or 3 hours in a row, which would change that value again, apart from my impression that the speed varies quite a bit)... but 10% sounds quite a lot to me, that would be about what geophi thinks my computer lacks in speed.
32) Message boards : Number crunching : Naughty Intel patch - has anybody tried it? (Message 25281) Posted 25 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: Well, I\'m crunching two projects on this box atm, so I often get hourly switches between projects. I\'ll try changing my settings and see if it hurts my PC\'s performance a lot and how much of an advantage it is with CPDN...
33) Message boards : Number crunching : Naughty Intel patch - has anybody tried it? (Message 25279) Posted 25 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: Thanks, I\'ll check this out when I\'m a bit more awake (it\'s 1:30 AM here). What about the project settings, do you think \"leave in memory\" is worth trying aswell? I recently read from a few people that it\'s important to have this turned on, but is that due to stability concerns (absolutely no problems there in about a year of BOINC, all with this option turned off) or is it about performance?
34) Message boards : Number crunching : Naughty Intel patch - has anybody tried it? (Message 25273) Posted 24 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: No experience with overclocking and stuff here, but I\'ll have a look and see if it is worth trying in my case. Thanks for your advice; I\'m surprised that you think my system could be that much faster. Anything else that could be responsible for the slowdown? I don\'t use graphics a lot, just for a quick look, maybe ten minutes a day or less... so that can\'t be it... won\'t be \"write to disk\" either that slows it down because I\'ve got a fast SATA-disk and benchmarked very high in the PC Mark \"HDD score\"... But I switched \"leave task in memory\" to \"off\"... couldn\'t help it really ;-) after 2 years with only a slow \"Office\" Laptop with tons of RAM issues (meaning I always had too little) I didn\'t want to risk stuffing my memory too full, but I\'ve found out CPDN (when it\'s running) doesn\'t seem to hurt my performance at all even when I\'m gaming or heavily multitasking, so if you think it makes a huge performance difference I would try switching that option.
35) Message boards : Number crunching : Naughty Intel patch - has anybody tried it? (Message 25268) Posted 24 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: So, geophi, out of interest: Those \"tricks\" for AMD boxes only help with slab and sulphur models? Or is there anything that helps with coupled models as well? Got an AMD here myself, and although I\'m really content with its CPDN performance I guess a little extra boost couldn\'t hurt ;-)
36) Message boards : Number crunching : If you need models that quickly.... (Message 25231) Posted 22 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: I also increased my resource share from half to two thirds... figured you needed the crunching time most atm. Unfortunately, I\'m only 11 years into the model, so, even with a higher resource share it will take a while longer.
37) Message boards : Number crunching : Optimizing? (Message 25194) Posted 19 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: Donavan: I guess this phenomenon depends very much on the project. It is true that SETI favours Intels, especially the models with a large cache. But in Einstein, for example, any halfway decent AMD wipes the floor with its Intel equivalent (the Intel mobile architectures do okay, though, or better than ordinary Pentiums in any case) and Macs are worst off. It depends on the science app; certain code does better with certain CPU architectures. Therefore some of the optimized apps, but with those, you really have to know what you\'re doing or you\'re risking stability issues aswell. FYI: I\'ve got a 3500+ and I\'m more than content with its CPDN performance, so, don\'t worry about that ;-)
38) Message boards : Number crunching : flat spot on my graph (Message 25123) Posted 15 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: It sounds normal, a trickle can take a couple of days depending on the speed of your PC and how long CPDN is running on it and you only get credit after each trickle. So don\'t worry about it. Welcome to CPDN :-)
39) Message boards : Number crunching : Frozen WU ??? (Message 25113) Posted 14 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: Hey, I wasn\'t complaining ;-) rather the opposite... it was meant like \"you need it, I\'ve got it now\"... I know you have good reasons for making the app so \"hightech\". What I wanted to say that at other projects, it\'s easier for other people to contribute, so it\'s not so bad if I do a bit less there for a while. Whereas here, it\'s really limited to those with good computers. And yes, trying to run climate projects with slower PCs SUCKS. I tried it once on my old laptop... 496 MB of memory (at best -.- shared RAM graphics card) and a Celeron M processor at 1.3 GHz of clock speed... an okay machine for most of the other projects (I\'ve been doing SETI, Einstein and HashClash on it... okay, WUs take longer, but apart from that they all ran fine) so I thought I\'d try BBC climate change ^^ yes, I can be a bit extreme if I find something really interesting, and besides I don\'t have a very high opinion of people saying \"it won\'t run\" because often it will. But this time, it didn\'t. After the third major crash I gave it up... No idea if it was too little memory, if the memory was just too slow (133 MHz, I know it\'s pathetic) or if my CPU played a role as well... only good thing is it didn\'t overheat ^^ no problems there, but after this experiment I really can\'t advise people under the minimum requirements to run these projects. I\'m glad I\'m back now with something faster, though :-D
40) Message boards : Number crunching : Frozen WU ??? (Message 25110) Posted 13 Nov 2006 by old_user202664 Post: Sounds fair enough, Les. I\'ll see what I can do, although I\'m not one of the people with \"one thousand projects\" or so (actually, this PC is shared 50/50 between Einstein and CPDN, with SETI only on my Notebook and HashClash inactive for the time being) but I try to help where it is really needed. And whereas in projects like SETI, Einstein or Rosetta even old P3s or so can be used and show fair performance in the long run, CPDN seems to have high CPU/RAM requirements which probably prevent some interested users from joining. They did for me before I got this box, so now I have the power, why not use it here?

Previous 20 · Next 20