Posts by old

1) Questions and Answers : Unix/Linux : version 4.12 . (Message 11516) Posted 30 Mar 2005 by old_user147 Post: Many thanks, cpdn is running again!
2) Questions and Answers : Unix/Linux : version 4.12 . (Message 11510) Posted 30 Mar 2005 by old_user147 Post: Thanks for the update. But the client now says: 2005-03-30 16:29:03 [climateprediction.net] Message from server: No work available So some WU should be created?! EDIT: The clock of this forum is 40 minutes behind.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : When will a 64-bit version Bionic be released? (Message 11410) Posted 25 Mar 2005 by old_user147 Post: > More interesting part are speculations that Intel with it's Netburst > architecture wasn't quite ready for 64-bit extension so that AMD64 may gain > more from 64-bit (e.g. doing better on 64-bit). In some cases - Intel > Presshots with EM64T running in 64-bit may provide even worse performance than > in 32-bit. > In other words, i was interested in technology part or real sw performance > rathen than in marketing talks, sw compatability and user's comfort. > Hello Honza, the German <a href="http://www.heise.de/ct">c't magazine</a> did some tests about 64bit vs. 32-bit performance. The result might be interesting for you. They ran the <a href="http://www.spec.org">SPEC2000</a> benchmark suite under Windows XP 64-bit (Beta). For compiling they used the Intel Compiler V8.1. One result of their tests was, that under 64bit WXP 32bit binaries are as fast as under 32bit WXP (though they have to use a compatibility layer). Here some results for SPECfp_base2000 (floating point, most interesting for cpdn I think): Pentium 560j, with compiler option QxW (optimized for Willamette): 32bit 1550 vs. 64bit 1792 - gain 15.6 % Pentium 560j, with option QxP (optimized for Presshot): 32bit 1704 vs. 64bit 1849 - gain 8.2 % Athlon FX55, with option QxW (QxP doesn't run on this cpu): 32bit 1443 vs. 64bit 1632 - gain 13.1 % The doubled number of registers will mainly be responsible for this gain. Some results for SPECint_base2000 (integer): The Pentium was approx. 4% slower when the binary was 64bit compared to a 32bit binary. The Athlon showed the same performance both under 64bit and 32bit.
4) Questions and Answers : Unix/Linux : Is version 4.11 of the model stable? (Message 11286) Posted 22 Mar 2005 by old_user147 Post: Hello! one of my machines - http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/results.php?hostid=60787 - used to be very stable. It made 14 consecutive successful runs (6 classic + 8 boinc). But now since version 4.11 of the model is running, there where two short runs. I can imagine two possible reasons: a) The model (itself) is unstable. b) My computer is dying. So I'd be interested if other linux users can verify a). In the other case this pc must be retired :-( Some parts of the output: ... 0z1z_000065909 - PH 1 TS 112826 - 11/06/1817 13:00 - H:M:S=0078:24:06 AVG= 2.50 DLT=10.33 Model crashed...retrying...restart level 2 Preparing for restart... Rewinding a model-year... Copying restart files for model retry... Starting model ID 0z1z_000065909 Phase 1 Stack size=48.00 MB Waiting for model startup, this may take a minute... 0z1z_000065909 - PH 1 TS 103681 - 01/12/1816 00:30 - H:M:S=0078:24:07 AVG= 2.72 DLT= 0.00 ... ... 0z1z_000065909 - PH 1 TS 113196 - 19/06/1817 06:00 - H:M:S=0085:07:18 AVG= 2.71 DLT= 1.00 Model crashed...retrying...restart level 3 Preparing for restart... Error: Restart files for not found Giving up, this result exceeded crash count for available restart files. adding: ncatts.cpdc (deflated 72%) ...
5) Message boards : Number crunching : What's your lowest s/TS? (Message 9211) Posted 12 Feb 2005 by old_user147 Post: Hello, I have some (rough) numbers from a Pentium M (with 1 MB Cache) under linux. The DDR memory is only running at 266MHz CL 2.5, that slows things a bit down. 1600 MHz - 2.83 sec/ts 1400 MHz - 3.00 sec/ts 1200 MHz - 3.25 sec/ts 1000 MHz - 3.55 sec/ts 800 MHz - 4.00 sec/ts 600 MHz - 4.95 sec/ts josti
6) Questions and Answers : Unix/Linux : There was work but you don\'t have enough disk space allocated (Message 7746) Posted 27 Jan 2005 by old_user147 Post: I had the same problem some days ago, while over a GB was free. I was running version 4.09. Upgrading to 4.13 solved the issue.
7) Message boards : climateprediction.net Science : CPDN makes BBC Website top news story. (Message 7741) Posted 27 Jan 2005 by old_user147 Post: > well although the 11 degree increase is a very low probability -- it could > happen! ;-) (or perhaps :-( is better). I think what is "groundbreaking" (at > least for "headline news") is that CPDN actually reports the high temps > whereas it seems that most studies & projects shy away from reporting the > extremes (I'm just speaking as an "amateur" mind you). But of course we > CPDNers aren't afraid of reporting things that may not be popular! ;-) > > Ok, you are right. I have to read the nature article first. Thanks for making it available for public.:-) But I was a bit suprised when I heard the news on the radio yesterday (in Germany). I took a look at http://www.climateprediction.net/science/secondresults.php which made me think that over 10K are impossible. EDIT: Reading the methods in the article, makes things clearer (e.g. where the 11 K come from)
8) Message boards : climateprediction.net Science : CPDN makes BBC Website top news story. (Message 7670) Posted 26 Jan 2005 by old_user147 Post: A bit exaggerating that article, I think. quote Global temperatures could rise by as much as eleven degrees Celsius, according to one of the largest climate prediction projects ever run. end of quote It may be true, that one of the 27000 models got 11 K warmer, but the variability and the mean values are not that much different to previous studies. The simulations are run more often than before so there are more extreme findings. Looking <a href="http://www.climateprediction.net/science/secondresults.php">here</a> suggests that it's extremly unlikly that the temperature will rise more than 8 K. BTW: We are in <a href="http://www.climateprediction.net/science/strategy.php">stage 1</a> with the goal to "Identify suitable ranges of parameters"
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Same parameters different results (Message 7561) Posted 24 Jan 2005 by old_user147 Post: I know from my fortran programing, that results can be different, when different compiler options are used. This difference comes from different internal precision of the calculations in the cpu, if I remember right. Usually only the last decimal place is different. But in a weather model this would lead to different weather after a few weeks. [speculation] I think the cpdn model for linux is more optimized than the one for windows, which could explain the difference when the same model is run on different OS. [/speculation] But where do the differences within the same OS come from? From machine errors??? Don't really know. EDIT: I found two models with the same parameters which got exactly the same result (one on a athlon64, the other on a athlon, both under windows): <a href="http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/result.php?field=Temperature&resultid=421090&phase=AT#graph">Link1</a> <a href="http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/result.php?field=Temperature&resultid=421092&phase=AT#graph">Link2</a> EDIT 2: Sorry, I've posted the wrong resultids
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Same parameters different results (Message 7560) Posted 24 Jan 2005 by old_user147 Post: > Did you do a file compare and was there any indication of how much and what > was different. Just a possibility that something like the date & time > completed is stored in there. Oh, you are right. There must be something stored like cputime or date or something. I've run a model twice for 40 modeldays (on the same system) with the result that the temperature fields were identical. So I conclude that there are no random numbers involved. Otherwise the weather in a model would be significantly different after some weeks, due to the nonlinearity of the equations. I hope this conclusion is more correct than my previous one :-)
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Same parameters different results (Message 7525) Posted 24 Jan 2005 by old_user147 Post: > Has someone tried to crunch exactly the same model on the same computer (same > hardware and same Windows version). I've tried to crunch a model the same timesteps several times. (To be exactly: I stopped cpdn, made a backup, started cpdn, after 144 steps the model was stopped again, saved the restart.day file, backup restored, cpdn run again for 144 steps then stopped, compare restart.day with the saved restart.day file) The restart.day file was always different! I don't exactly know what is saved in this file, I thought it would be the field variables of the model. If this was right, this would mean, that there must be some random numbers thrown into the calculations.
12) Questions and Answers : Unix/Linux : Last trickle and results/graphs of phase 3 don't appear on server (Message 7462) Posted 22 Jan 2005 by old_user147 Post: OK, thanks.
13) Questions and Answers : Unix/Linux : Last trickle and results/graphs of phase 3 don't appear on server (Message 7453) Posted 21 Jan 2005 by old_user147 Post: Hello, today a cpdn run ended successfully and uploaded the result, but no graphs appeared on the results site. <a href="http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/result.php?resultid=454119">Result-Page</a> Two days ago my pc crashed with the consequence that after the restart boinc wanted started a new wu. So I restored my backup, which went without a problem. But when this run ended boinc didn't want to download a new wu, because of insufficent disc space though over 1 GB was free. Strange. I installed boinc version 4.13 which now runs without a problem. Can somebody (e.g. adminstrator) give me a hint what went wrong with the graphs and how to fix it. Thanks, josti Here is the most interesing output near the end of the run: 2005-01-21 13:51:22 [---] May run out of work in 1.00 days; requesting more 2005-01-21 13:51:22 [climateprediction.net] Requesting 167265 seconds of work 2005-01-21 13:51:22 [climateprediction.net] Sending request to scheduler: http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc_cgi/cgi 2005-01-21 13:51:22 [climateprediction.net] Scheduler RPC to http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc_cgi/cgi succeeded 2005-01-21 13:51:22 [climateprediction.net] Message from server: No work available (there was work but you don't have enough disk space allocated) 2005-01-21 13:51:22 [climateprediction.net] No work from project 2005-01-21 13:51:22 [climateprediction.net] Deferring communication with project for 1 hours, 0 minutes, and 0 seconds ... 2sm2_100151711 - PH 3 TS 259248 - 02/12/2065 00:00 - H:M:S=0460:48:27 AVG= 2.13 DLT= 1.78 Phase over, going into post_processing() In pre_initialise_phase (part 1 of 3) In initialise_phase (part 2 of 3) Calculating global means for files .pa\|.x3\|.nc Calculating regional means for .pa\|.x3\|.nc Calculating global means for files .pd\|.x3\|.nc Calculating regional means for .pd\|.x3\|.nc Calculating global means for files .pe\|.x3\|.nc Calculating regional means for .pe\|.x3\|.nc Calculating global means for files .pf\|.x3\|.nc Calculating regional means for .pf\|.x3\|.nc Calculating global means for files .pg\|.x3\|.nc Calculating regional means for .pg\|.x3\|.nc Post-processing successful! Finished a complete run, now you can upload! adding: 2sm2aa.pa.gmts.x1.nc (deflated 34%) ... adding: restart.day (deflated 47%) 2005-01-21 14:03:04 [climateprediction.net] Computation for result 2sm2_100151711 finished 2005-01-21 14:03:05 [climateprediction.net] Started upload of 2sm2_100151711_4_1.zip 2005-01-21 14:03:05 [climateprediction.net] Started upload of 2sm2_100151711_4_2.zip 2005-01-21 14:08:09 [climateprediction.net] Finished upload of 2sm2_100151711_4_1.zip 2005-01-21 14:08:09 [climateprediction.net] Throughput 5002 bytes/sec 2005-01-21 14:08:09 [climateprediction.net] Started upload of 2sm2_100151711_4_3.zip 2005-01-21 14:10:28 [climateprediction.net] Finished upload of 2sm2_100151711_4_2.zip 2005-01-21 14:10:28 [climateprediction.net] Throughput 4259 bytes/sec 2005-01-21 14:10:28 [climateprediction.net] Started upload of 2sm2_100151711_4_4.zip 2005-01-21 14:16:47 [climateprediction.net] Finished upload of 2sm2_100151711_4_3.zip 2005-01-21 14:16:47 [climateprediction.net] Throughput 4566 bytes/sec 2005-01-21 14:16:47 [climateprediction.net] Started upload of 2sm2_100151711_4_5.zip 2005-01-21 14:17:50 [climateprediction.net] Finished upload of 2sm2_100151711_4_4.zip 2005-01-21 14:17:50 [climateprediction.net] Throughput 3606 bytes/sec 2005-01-21 14:18:15 [climateprediction.net] Finished upload of 2sm2_100151711_4_5.zip 2005-01-21 14:18:15 [climateprediction.net] Throughput 3594 bytes/sec
14) Questions and Answers : Unix/Linux : Can't start boinc in background (Message 7341) Posted 17 Jan 2005 by old_user147 Post: Hello! have you tried this: musik@debian:~/boinc > ./boinc_4.13_i686-pc-linux-gnu & The & sends the process to the background. If you want to write the output to a file you can write: musik@debian:~/boinc > ./boinc_4.13_i686-pc-linux-gnu >> boinc-output.txt & cu, josti
15) Questions and Answers : Windows : AMD Athlon XP 2000+ faster as AMD Athlon 64 (Winchester) 3000+ ??? (Message 7318) Posted 16 Jan 2005 by old_user147 Post: My Winchester 3000+ running at 2061 MHz gets 2.13 sec/ts under linux. Perhaps cool'n'quiet is enabled so that your cpu runs at 1000 MHz?
16) Questions and Answers : Unix/Linux : Client Error result (Message 7159) Posted 4 Jan 2005 by old_user147 Post: Hi Panda Mala, when looking at your stats, I would say it's a hardware failure (cpu or memory), though I'm not 100% sure. You can test the cpu with mprime and some other progs. To test the memory you can use memtest86 (some linux cds have memtest as boot option, or download iso from www.memtest86.com --> burn on cd --> boot from it). You can try to clock the FSB 1-2% down, if BIOS makes that possible. Perhaps that helps. Josti
17) Message boards : Number crunching : Succesful completion & upload... :-) (Message 1561) Posted 24 Aug 2004 by old_user147 Post: After phase 1 I could see the graphs of temperature und rain on the website, so I think the client uploads data at the end of each phase.
18) Questions and Answers : Unix/Linux : Possibly Optimized Linux model to download for Beta Testers (Message 1508) Posted 22 Aug 2004 by old_user147 Post: > well I hope to have an AMD64-specific one (for 64-bit Linux & 64-bit Win), > but it seems that settings are too precarious for these Fortran compilers > & the huge unified model. The problem is you need to run multiple machine > types with the "new & improved" settings for at least one and preferable > two or more runs, and of course that's months. So I think it's best to go > back to stable settings that everyone can run, at worst it's maybe 10% extra > time for certain processors but I think overall it will be more reliable. We > just don't have the personnel, machines, money, and time to really test & > optimize various combinations & different compilers, having to buy various > compilers, etc. > > That's true for now as the boinc launch is set for this week. But it would be great, if you could go on trying later when everything is settled down and you have time for something like this. Thanks for your work, anyway.
19) Questions and Answers : Unix/Linux : Possibly Optimized Linux model to download for Beta Testers (Message 1485) Posted 22 Aug 2004 by old_user147 Post: Carl: Which option should make the build not run on P2s? If you mean -tpp7, it only optimizes for P4,P-M,... but you can run it on older machines, too. The same with -axW. My next "phase change" will happen next weekend. http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/result.php?resultid=277
20) Questions and Answers : Unix/Linux : Possibly Optimized Linux model to download for Beta Testers (Message 1469) Posted 22 Aug 2004 by old_user147 Post: > The new model runs on my SuSE 9.1 with no problem. I am a little discouraged > since I have only a Pentium II CPU. My average s/TS is 17.18 s. How many years > will it have to run before completion? > > After 155 cpu-days, little more than 5 months, it should be complete.

Next 20

Posts by old_user147