A new application has been uploaded:
1) this application has drastically reduced CPU-usage
2) it reports the time per step in output, as now the cputime is not anymore a good estimate of elapsed time.

We are still requiring one CPU per WU until the new boinc client 6.3.11 is out.
Windows equivalent coming up.
gdf

A new application has been uploaded:
1) this application has drastically reduced CPU-usage
2) it reports the time per step in output, as now the cputime is not anymore a good estimate of elapsed time.

... wow ... great work ... now only the the new Boinc manager (4 Windows) and we are satisfied so we can use the GPU on PS3Grid an the CPU on other Boinc Projects :)

---

unless I am mistaken, we need the new client for BOTH Linux and Windows to not need the CPU to run a WU....

unless I am mistaken, we need the new client for BOTH Linux and Windows to not need the CPU to run a WU....

allright, when comes the new Client ? have you an plan then this is available ?

---

The responsible guy is on holiday. I'd say Expect something between 1 and 3 weeks.

@Linux users: does the new run time correspond with the time reported previously?

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

What do yo mean? The time that is shown in BOINC manager?

It is not. Right now the process is consuming only 7-8% CPU load on my C2D E7200@3,4GHz and the process took almost 5 minutes of CPU time up to now. But the progress is already at 8.x% That would give a calculation time of roughly one hour. While my CPU time was around 12hours for one unit before, this fits together.

Nice job GDF! Now we are only lacking BOINC 6.3.11, which lets us use the spare 90% of the CPU time. Woohoo, I'm so much looking forward to it =)

What do yo mean?

Let's say before you needed 12h per WU. I just wanted to know if the new time agrees with the old one, i.e. also 12h.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

On the clock at my wall it will still take 12 hours, but when the process ends it has collected only ~1hour of CPU time. I think the same time will be displayed in each WUs listing on the web page.

This should be the reason for the new feature 2 which GDF describes...

This should be the reason for the new feature 2 which GDF describes...

Sure. I asked because I wanted to get a feeling for how inaccurate the previous method was. So far it seems like it was OK.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

2) it reports the time per step in output, as now the cputime is not anymore a good estimate of elapsed time.

stderr out now tells me:
Time per step: 53.181 ms
Is there any way I can calculate the wall time from this, lets say for credit calculation or stuff like that?

Linux box results:

Boinc 6.3.8
177.13 driver
Ubuntu 64
8800GS no OC

http://www.ps3grid.net/result.php?resultid=56032

---

Consciousness: That annoying time between naps......

Experience is a wonderful thing: it enables you to recognize a mistake every time you repeat it.

Like other users reported it for the Windows app, I see pretty different CPU times on my two Linux 64 boxes.

The one with CentOS 5.2, and the 9800GTX uses about 2550 CPU seconds per WU. That's pretty the same CPU usage on every WU.

The other one with Ubuntu 7.10 and a 8800GT is using between 99 and 55 CPU seconds per WU which is a really big difference compared to the CentOS host...

It doesn't really fit in the Linux thread, but on the Vista computer I noticed that the application is also using approximately 2500 CPU seconds per WU on a GTX 260.

So why is the Ubuntu box using much less of the CPU than the CentOS and Vista box?
Both Linux computers are full time crunchers without keyboard, mouse and monitor attached and are not used for anything else than crunching, and both use the same drivers (177.67 for Linux64). Both Linux boxes have a Q6600 CPU, both sligtly ocerclocked to 2.6 Ghz, both have DDR2 800 RAM, the only difference is that the CentOS box (the one which uses more CPU time) has 4 GB RAM and the other one only 2 GB.

---

pixelicious.at - my little photoblog

I don't know why the CPU time is different in different system, but it is not so important. More important is if the new application is as fast as the old one on these boxes.

I think that this is difficult to see by looking at the cpu time of past workunits. Only the time per step is a reliable estimate of the elapsed time. Unfortunately, we did not have this on previous application.

gdf

I don't know why the CPU time is different in different system, but it is not so important. More important is if the new application is as fast as the old one on these boxes.

I think that this is difficult to see by looking at the cpu time of past workunits. Only the time per step is a reliable estimate of the elapsed time. Unfortunately, we did not have this on previous application.

gdf

On my Linux box
# Device 0: "GeForce 8800 GT"
# Clock rate: 1512000 kilohertz
MDIO ERROR: cannot open file "restart.coor"
# Time per step: 70.266 ms

So, the new application takes exactly as before, as I knew the performance before. We will test on Windows vista in the next few days.

CPU time is 3404.313, but this has little meaning.

gdf

gdf

My Linux box with 8800GT reports more or less the same time per step that yours do.

I have a server 2008 x64 box if you need some help testing.

On my Linux box
# Device 0: "GeForce 8800 GT"
# Clock rate: 1512000 kilohertz
MDIO ERROR: cannot open file "restart.coor"
# Time per step: 70.266 ms

So, the new application takes exactly as before, as I knew the performance before. We will test on Windows vista in the next few days.

Oh btw I forgot to say that, even if you report that it takes exactly the same as before, since the new application my GPU has run a lot cooler, let's say 4-5 degrees less (from 57° to 52°)

since the new application my GPU has run a lot cooler, let's say 4-5 degrees less (from 57° to 52°)

That's what we observe under windows as well.

I took a look at your 4 results with 6.44: they took on average 61500s whereas previously you needed about 55700s. EDIT: that's a 10% performance hit. Under win we're dealing with ~23%.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

since the new application my GPU has run a lot cooler, let's say 4-5 degrees less (from 57° to 52°)

That's what we observe under windows as well.

I took a look at your 4 results with 6.44: they took on average 61500s whereas previously you needed about 55700s. EDIT: that's a 10% performance hit. Under win we're dealing with ~23%.

MrS

You must be comparing previous cpu time with current elapsed time. As the cpu was really doing nothing even before, it is likely that 1 h cpu time corresponds to 1.1 hours elapsed time.

GDF

You must be comparing previous cpu time with current elapsed time.

Yes, that's what I'm doing.

As the cpu was really doing nothing even before, it is likely that 1 h cpu time corresponds to 1.1 hours elapsed time.

That's what I tried to find out in the beginning of the thread by asking. Didn't work very well, though.

I just took the time to chase one of my typical WUs through my log file. The 6.43-WU took 44085s of wall clock time and reported a CPU usage of 43703s. So the difference is not that big. My conclusion: comparing previous CPU-time with current elapsed time is not accurate, but if the machine was undisturbed the error can be <1%.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002