Posts by Grandpa

1) Message boards : Questions and problems : Multi-Threaded Apps (Message 56295)
Posted 27 Sep 2014 by Grandpa
Post:
You can limit the number of threads in the cc_config by adding this <ncpus>48</ncpus>

The &lt;ncpus/&gt; configuration option tells BOINC that you want to test use that many CPU cores, even when you don't have them. Doing this on e.g. a quad core CPU will start 48 instances of science applications, massively slowing down everything in the computer. Not really a good idea or advice in this.


<ncpus>48</ncpus> was just an example I use that to limit a 64 core machine to 48 cores when running multil threaded WU's. You can put however many cores you want to use there <ncpus>3</ncpus> when you are running muti threaded work.
2) Message boards : Questions and problems : Multi-Threaded Apps (Message 56279)
Posted 27 Sep 2014 by Grandpa
Post:
You can limit the number of threads in the cc_config by adding this <ncpus>48</ncpus> it has worked for me, but I have never tried limiting the number of thread through app_config.

<cc_config>
<options>
<ncpus>48</ncpus>
</options>
</cc_config>
3) Message boards : Projects : New build, will these specs work..? (Message 55941)
Posted 10 Sep 2014 by Grandpa
Post:
I have not seen one show up yet with 4640 v2 chips but I see no reason why they would not work there are plenty of v2 chips running in a 2P configuration. personally I have 5 - 4P 4650 rigs running with no problems so we know the 4P configuration works. Although I do run Linux on mine.
4) Message boards : Projects : Bitcoin Utopia not science project (Message 55830)
Posted 6 Sep 2014 by Grandpa
Post:
That is irrelevant as far as credit goes what is relevant is whether the projects under the Boinc projects need cpu's or not. Clearly the answer to that question is yes they do, because many of the projects are CPU only at this time. The problem lies in the Boinc projects lack of control or caring to control the awarding or granting of the credit within the Boinc Stats.

I see no problem with GPU's getting more credit than CPU's because they are doing more science what I do see a problem with is the ASCI miners getting so much credit, the ridiculous amount of credit makes anything else appear useless when compared to it and the only thing it is really doing is making a experimental form of currency, well I really do not know what it is doing nor does anybody else from what I can tell. The one thing I do know about Bitcoin mining is there has been plenty of scandal and corruption associated with it. But that is irrelevant also.

The question I have is does it belong in the Boinc Stats with it ridicules amount of credit granted. or should it be outside the Boinc Stats. I say it should be outside or lowered to reflect it's importance when compared to other projects and their needs.

I know my choices of where and what I run are guided by the credit system and my preferences, as I imagine some others do the same. I do not choose to run ASIC nor will I in my opinion the work they do is worthless to me. So from my prospective Boinc has become another ASIC Mining endeavour, at least it appears that way from the credit system.
5) Message boards : Projects : Bitcoin Utopia not science project (Message 55818)
Posted 6 Sep 2014 by Grandpa
Post:
Nothing to do with science, just money.


I do no know think they are breaking any rule or anything along those lines but I do believe that with the credit granted they do appear to have quite a great value. and perhaps there should be a different set of stats for them.

600 users making 90% of ALL BOINC CREDITS????
How can this be right?


This is a bit ridiculous it is a good way to alienate allot of donors from boinc

BOINC credits don't really mean anything. It's just a statistic. Different projects give out different amounts of credit for tasks completed. You don't really get anything from it; if anything it's just a way of saying how much work you've done.


They may not have a value to you but to many they do, I am not ashamed to look at the stats an see how I am doing compared to every body else out there, and I do take pride in seeing the assigned credit value of my contribution to the Boinc projects. All of my contribution is out of pocket there are no company funds or anything like that. According to the amount of credit I receive for my contribution my contribution of 400 cores and 4 GPU's to the Boinc project has become pretty minuscule compared to 1 ASIC miner.

I personally feel that my equipment is no longer wanted or needed in the Boinc projects and has been belittled by the amount of credit Bitcoin Utopia receives and to add to the rejection the ASIC miners are doing nothing as far as far as science goes, which is irrelevant but will affect my decision in the long run. I will not choose to run it, it is not my cup of tea, so I will have a choice to make somewhere down the line.

#1 either shut the rigs down
#2 move on to another project besides Boinc
#3 accept the credit disparity within the Boinc organization.

I will tell you now that the 3rd choice does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling so that leaves #1 and #2

Anyway the statement that Boinc credits do not really mean anything may apply to you to to many of us out there in Bionc Land they do mean something and right at the moment by looking at the stats they mean the Boinc projects do not need any CPU's but they really need some ASIC miners.

In my opinion either the credit should be removed from Boinc stats and put in its own separate category outside of Boinc stats.
6) Message boards : Projects : News on Project Outages (Message 55750)
Posted 30 Aug 2014 by Grandpa
Post:
It appears that Constellation is down and has been for a couple of days, All of there web sites are down.
7) Message boards : Questions and problems : Boinc Points / Credit AMD vs Intel (Message 55702)
Posted 29 Aug 2014 by Grandpa
Post:
No, since the calculation of credits is done based on the amount of floating point operations (flops) that a task takes. Speed doesn't matter in this.

For instance, a Seti Astropulse task that gets sent out by the project to take 42,293,901,863.366425 flops, will do so equally on a 3.5GHz and 1.0GHz computer. The 1.0GHz CPU may take longer than the 3.5GHz CPU on doing the calculations, but in the end it doesn't matter, as both the computers will run the task for 42,293,901,863.366425 flops and then finish the task. The credits are based on the flops value, not on the time it took both CPUs to finish the task.

Note: we're talking FLOPS, not FLOPs. The latter abbreviation is a measure for floating point operations per second.


AMD Opteron(TM) Processor 6276 [Family 21 Model 1 Stepping 2]
(64 processors)
Total runtime 100 WU's 1810010.65 Total points 100 WU's 26128.8 Grandma 6276 AMD
Avg runtime per WU sec. 18100.1065 avg points per WU 261.288 3042Mhz
Avg runtime per WU min. 301.6684416667
Avg runtime per WU hr. 5.0278073611 avg points per hr runtime 51.9685781959

Genuine Intel(R) CPU @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 5]
(64 processors)
Total runtime 100 WU's 1839477.54 Total points 100 WU's 38003.75 Musky 4650 Intel
Avg runtime per WU sec. 18394.7754 avg points per WU 380.0375 3134Mhz
Avg runtime per WU min. 306.57959
Avg runtime per WU hr. 5.1096598333 avg points per hr runtime 74.3762818653


OK but it still does not change the fact that this type of credit system has a pretty big flaw in it. According to the developer at Numberfields each of the machines above are doing the same amount of work and lets say that each WU is worth 1 FLOPS since the numbers were averaged over 100 WU's each and all things being equal those 2 machines should have received roughly the same amount of credit with a slight advantage going to the AMD, but in actuality AMD is receiving 30% less.

I do not really see this as being a fair credit system to the AMD users when it come to certain types of work.

AMD 100 WU's = 100 FLOPS = 502.78 hrs of runtime = 26706.79 points of credit for 100 theoretical FLOPS

Intel 100 WU's = 100 FLOPS = 510.96 hrs of runtime = 38003.74 points of credit for 100 theoretical FLOPS

So in plain simple terms AMD gets less credit for doing the same amount of work as Intel does. I am just pointing out a pretty big flaw in the current credit system, from everything I have read and been told this system was set up to promote equality between all work done and to try and discourage cheating, It appears to me that it may have missed it's mark when in the equality field and they may need to go back to the drawing board and try and fix the problem or at least let people know that the credit system has a problem with some projects.
8) Message boards : Questions and problems : Boinc Points / Credit AMD vs Intel (Message 55567)
Posted 24 Aug 2014 by Grandpa
Post:
Credits aren't calculated based on benchmarks times unit of time anymore, but are based on how many floating point operations tasks take. What I understand is that AMD CPUs are not as good at doing FLOPs as Intel CPUs are, which counts for a lot of the discrepancies.


Which we all know is true, but in the case of NumberFields my AMD CPU's are faster than the Intel's core fore core clock for clock, so they should be getting more credit per hr. of runtime per core. The credit system has a bug or error in it when it comes to some types of work preformed by the boinc project. I do believe that the developers of the credit system should try to fix this discrepancy. It is not really fair to use a credit system that favours one over the other, work done is work done. Why should one computer receive 30% more credit for less work done than the another computer doing more work.

I am not a AMD or Intel fanboy I own both and tend to use whatever does best at the time. But I would like to receive = credit for = work. If one CPU is better than another at a given project it should be reflected in the credit received for doing the given work.

This does seem to be an area that nobody seems to want to address for some reason, I posted ample information to show the discrepancy yet the developers of the credit system have not even acknowledged there there is a problem with the system, I do not pretend to know how much work it would take to fix it, but at least it should be acknowledged and looked at. If they can not fix it then make it public knowledge that brand X may be faster at a given project but brand Y is going to receive more credit for doing less work because ..........
9) Message boards : Questions and problems : Boinc Points / Credit AMD vs Intel (Message 55524)
Posted 22 Aug 2014 by Grandpa
Post:
Just an update I did a calculation of the last 100 Numberfields WU's ran per machine and it shows a 30% discrepancy between AMD and Intel for an approximatively equal amount of work done by the computers in an equal time period.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x1vz7ohl5za0vrh/AMD%20vs%20Intel.ods


AMD Opteron(TM) Processor 6276 [Family 21 Model 1 Stepping 2]				
(64 processors) 				
Total runtime 100 WU's	1810010.65	Total points 100 WU's	26128.8	Grandma 6276 AMD
Avg runtime per WU sec.	18100.1065	avg points per WU	261.288	3042Mhz
Avg runtime per WU min.	301.6684416667			
Avg runtime per WU hr.	[color=red]5.0278073611[/color]	avg points per hr runtime	[color=red]51.9685781959[/color]	
				
AMD Eng Sample, ZS288145TCG54_34/28/20_2/16 [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]				
(48 processors) 				
Total runtime 100 WU's	1203388.68	Total points 100 WU's	21917.72	Grandpa AMD 63xx
Avg runtime per WU sec.	12033.8868	avg points per WU	219.1772	3813Mhz
Avg runtime per WU min.	200.56478			
Avg runtime per WU hr.	[color=red]3.3427463333[/color]	avg points per hr runtime	[color=red]65.5680025177[/color]	
				
Genuine Intel(R) CPU @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 5]				
(64 processors) 				
Total runtime 100 WU's	1839477.54	Total points 100 WU's	38003.75	Musky 4650 Intel
Avg runtime per WU sec.	18394.7754	avg points per WU	380.0375	3134Mhz
Avg runtime per WU min.	306.57959			
Avg runtime per WU hr.	[color=red]5.1096598333[/color]	avg points per hr runtime	[color=red]74.3762818653[/color]	
				
Genuine Intel(R) CPU @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 5]				
(64 processors) 				
Total runtime 100 WU's	1839477.54	Total points 100 WU's	38003.75	Patriot 4650 Intel
Avg runtime per WU sec.	18394.7754	avg points per WU	380.0375	3134Mhz
Avg runtime per WU min.	306.57959			
Avg runtime per WU hr.	[color=red]5.1096598333[/color]	avg points per hr runtime	[color=red]74.3762818653[/color]	
				
Genuine Intel(R) CPU @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 5]				
(64 processors) 				
Total runtime 100 WU's	1725430.97	Total points 100 WU's	36059.14	Scotty 4650 Intel
Avg runtime per WU sec.	17254.3097	avg points per WU	360.5914	3175Mhz
Avg runtime per WU min.	287.5718283333			
Avg runtime per WU hr.	[color=red]4.7928638056[/color]	avg points per hr runtime	[color=red]75.2350608382[/color]	
				
Genuine Intel(R) CPU @ 2.60GHz [Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 5]				
(64 processors) 				
Total runtime 100 WU's	1766059.59	Total points 100 WU's	34952.56	Core32 4650L Intel
Avg runtime per WU sec.	17660.5959	avg points per WU	349.5256	3100Mhz
Avg runtime per WU min.	294.343265			
Avg runtime per WU hr.	[color=red]4.9057210833[/color]	avg points per hr runtime	[color=red]71.2485675526[/color]	
				
Genuine Intel(R) CPU @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 5]				
(64 processors) 				
Total runtime 100 WU's	1696143.06	Total points 100 WU's	35126.23	Tear 4650 Intel
Avg runtime per WU sec.	16961.4306	avg points per WU	351.2623	3134Mhz
Avg runtime per WU min.	282.69051			
Avg runtime per WU hr.	[color=red]4.7115085[/color]	avg points per hr runtime	[color=red]74.5541051237[/color]	
10) Message boards : Questions and problems : Boinc Points / Credit AMD vs Intel (Message 55514)
Posted 22 Aug 2014 by Grandpa
Post:
It appears that the boinc benchmark / credit system has a bit of a problem when it comes to NumberFields I have seen this problem before on other projects also but really did not pay much attention to it since I figured I was just imagining things. That is until I started all of the rigs at relatively the same time using Bam on Numberfields, I noticed that the AMD 63xx rig was completing more WU's than the Intel was and was receiving less credit for WU's preformed in the same amount of time as the Intel’s were completing them in.

I then posted in the NumberFields forum asking if there was a difference in assignments for Intel and AMD and the scientist reply was there were no differences. He then checked my stats and did confirm that the AMD rigs were completing the WU's faster than the Intel’s and should be receiving the same credit for CPU time as the Intel’s but were not they actually recieve 30% less than the Intel’s which are slower at NuberFields Clock for Clock.

He then asked me to re bencmark my system to see if that would help and it actually lowered my benchmark scores whic I assume is going to make an even greater difference in the credit spread. I do believe the Boinc benchmark and credit system has a problem that might need to be looked at in really is not a fair system when it comes to some projects when it come to AMD vs Intel.

As you can see looking at the data below the AMD 63xx rig is much faster than the Intel’s and the 6276 rig is faster clock for clock than the Intel’s but both received much less credit for more completed WU's in the same time period.

http://numberfields.asu.edu/NumberFields/forum_thread.php?id=209

Grandma AMD 6276 @ 3042Mhz / 64 core	All tasks for computer 19134	Linux	3.2.0-47-generic	BOINC version	7.0.65	AMD Opteron(TM) Processor 6276 [Family 21 Model 1 Stepping 2]
State: All (1431) · In progress (64) · Validation pending (0) · Validation inconclusive (0) · Valid (1367) · Invalid (0) · Error (0)						(64 processors) 
Application: All (1431) · Get Decic Fields (1411) · Get Decics with Bounded Discriminant (20) 						
ID 	Today 	Yesterday 	2 Days Ago 			
19134	81030	79662	79588			
						
Grandpa AMD 63xx @ 3813Mhz / 48 core	All tasks for computer 19787	Linux	3.2.0-47-generic	BOINC version	7.0.65	AMD Eng Sample, ZS288145TCG54_34/28/20_2/16 [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]
State: All (1696) · In progress (84) · Validation pending (0) · Validation inconclusive (0) · Valid (1612) · Invalid (0) · Error (0)						(48 processors) 
Application: All (1696) · Get Decic Fields (1676) · Get Decics with Bounded Discriminant (20) 						
ID 	Today 	Yesterday 	2 Days Ago 			
19787	75189	75350	73633			
						
Musky Intel 4650 @ 3134Mhz /64 core	All tasks for computer 19181	Linux	3.2.0-55-generic	BOINC version	7.0.65	Genuine Intel(R) CPU @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 5]
State: All (1429) · In progress (64) · Validation pending (0) · Validation inconclusive (0) · Valid (1363) · Invalid (0) · Error (2)						(64 processors) 
Application: All (1429) · Get Decic Fields (1407) · Get Decics with Bounded Discriminant (22) 						
ID 	Today 	Yesterday 	2 Days Ago 			
19181	115422	112214	105445			
						
Patriot Intel 4650 @ 3134Mhz / 64 core	All tasks for computer 19133	Linux	3.8.0-39-generic	BOINC version	7.0.65	Genuine Intel(R) CPU @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 5]
State: All (1407) · In progress (64) · Validation pending (0) · Validation inconclusive (0) · Valid (1343) · Invalid (0) · Error (0)						(64 processors) 
Application: All (1407) · Get Decic Fields (1387) · Get Decics with Bounded Discriminant (20) 						
ID 	Today 	Yesterday 	2 Days Ago 			
19133	110536	109153	110064			
						
Scotty Intel 4650 @ 3175Mhz / 64 core	All tasks for computer 19127	Linux	3.2.0-47-generic	BOINC version	7.0.27	Genuine Intel(R) CPU @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 5]
State: All (1583) · In progress (88) · Validation pending (0) · Validation inconclusive (0) · Valid (1431) · Invalid (0) · Error (64)						(64 processors) 
Application: All (1583) · Get Decic Fields (1564) · Get Decics with Bounded Discriminant (19) 						
ID 	Today 	Yesterday 	2 Days Ago 			
19127	113613	128981	124152			
						
Core32 Intel 4650L @ 3100Mhz / 64 core	All tasks for computer 19220	Linux	3.2.0-47-generic	BOINC version	7.0.65	Genuine Intel(R) CPU @ 2.60GHz [Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 5]
State: All (1436) · In progress (87) · Validation pending (0) · Validation inconclusive (0) · Valid (1349) · Invalid (0) · Error (0)						(64 processors) 
Application: All (1436) · Get Decic Fields (1411) · Get Decics with Bounded Discriminant (25) 						
ID 	Today 	Yesterday 	2 Days Ago 			
19220	107368	108940	109216			
						
Tear Intel 4650 @ 3134Mhz / 64 core	All tasks for computer 19121	Linux	3.2.0-47-generic	7.0.65	7.0.65	Genuine Intel(R) CPU @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 5]
State: All (1491) · In progress (143) · Validation pending (0) · Validation inconclusive (0) · Valid (1348) · Invalid (0) · Error (0)						(64 processors) 
Application: All (1491) · Get Decic Fields (1476) · Get Decics with Bounded Discriminant (15)						
ID 	Today 	Yesterday 	2 Days Ago 			
19121	117970	111557	106929			
11) Message boards : Questions and problems : Bad things happen on loss of network connectivity (Message 54841)
Posted 11 Jul 2014 by Grandpa
Post:
I am guessing this is the same problem I am seeing and have reported here http://aerospaceresearch.net/constellation/forum_thread.php?id=301 It appears that this only affects certain projects, so far I have found that it affects Constellation and Primebotica. I also have Rioja Science, MindMolding, SZTAKI Desktop Grid and EDGeS@Home runing at the same time on these machines, the others do not appear to be affected by network loss at this time, but that could also just be luck, they may not have been trying to send during the periods of lost internet connectivity.




Copyright © 2024 University of California.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.