SETI@home v7 6.95 release for windows_intelx86

Message boards : News : SETI@home v7 6.95 release for windows_intelx86
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile Eric J Korpela
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 05
Posts: 1547
Credit: 26,991,474
RAC: 1,371
United States
Message 40915 - Posted: 14 Jun 2011, 23:18:18 UTC

There are no real changes except the version number, the FFTW dll is included, and the executables are stripped and compressed the way they would be in the main project. No need to abort results or reset the project unless you are having problems with 6.94.

ID: 40915 · Report as offensive
Rene
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 06
Posts: 104
Credit: 68,358
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 40920 - Posted: 15 Jun 2011, 17:28:34 UTC

Besides from a high estimation (~94h) of the time needed to finish the workunit, all looks OK until now.
ID: 40920 · Report as offensive
S@NL - John van Gorsel
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 10
Posts: 22
Credit: 588,748
RAC: 238
Netherlands
Message 40921 - Posted: 15 Jun 2011, 18:39:41 UTC

Noticed that too, but I guess that the application is new to Boinc and therefore Boinc resets the DCF. Strange thing is that the DCF is at 4.5 now while I would expect 1.0.
ID: 40921 · Report as offensive
Profile Eric J Korpela
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 05
Posts: 1547
Credit: 26,991,474
RAC: 1,371
United States
Message 40922 - Posted: 15 Jun 2011, 18:48:50 UTC - in response to Message 40921.  

I'm not sure how initial DCF for an app is calculated. Probably an average of all the apps for a project.
ID: 40922 · Report as offensive
Falcon
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 09
Posts: 2
Credit: 17,502
RAC: 0
United States
Message 40929 - Posted: 16 Jun 2011, 19:47:34 UTC

I am seeing what appears to be a case of poor performance that is angle range sensitive on my Sandy Bridge (i7-2820QM) laptop which is running Windows 7 Ultimate x64. (Computer 51584)

I have tested with releases 6.91, 6.91 r246, 6.94 and 6.95, but I only see the issue with releases 6.94 and 6.95. Eric mentioned that 6.94 included explicit support for the Sandy Bridge AVX 256bit SSE extensions in
message 40881.

In general, the 6.94 & 6.95 releases appear to perform as well as or better than the previous releases, except at angle ranges of .4148, .4145, and .4144. These are the only mid-ARs I've seen in my testing so far and they all run much longer than those with 6.91 r246. I did not get any mid-AR WUs when testing with 6.91. I have seen more VHAR & VLAR WUs than I have mid-AR WUs, and all the VHAR & VLAR WUs run faster than these mid-AR WUs.

Mid-AR results for 6.91 r246:

  AR      CPU time (seconds)
.3940     6385
.4148     5625
.4148     5845
.6100     4959


Mid-AR results for 6.94 & 6.95:

  AR      CPU time (seconds)
.4144     10801
.4144     10954
.4145     11380
.4148     11152


Additional results from 6.94 & 6.95 for comparison purposes:

  AR       CPU time (seconds)
.0088      9608
.0088      9480
.0090      8766
.0090      8749
1.172      3397
1.203      3409
1.203      3554
1.466      3166


Maybe someone familiar with the code could please explain why this performance issue exists at these angle ranges in these two releases and not in the previous release. Is it normal for these mid-ARs to run longer than VLAR WUs, or is something amiss with the AVX implementation?
ID: 40929 · Report as offensive
Josef W. Segur
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 05
Posts: 1137
Credit: 1,848,733
RAC: 0
United States
Message 40933 - Posted: 16 Jun 2011, 23:12:04 UTC - in response to Message 40929.  

...
Maybe someone familiar with the code could please explain why this performance issue exists at these angle ranges in these two releases and not in the previous release. Is it normal for these mid-ARs to run longer than VLAR WUs, or is something amiss with the AVX implementation?

Yes, there's something amiss with the AVX implementation. It's not pinned down yet, and your Beta testing is greatly appreciated.

Urs Echternacht has localized at least one problem. There might be others lurking since I did the AVX coding somewhat in the blind, hoping that the function tests performed during initialization would be sufficient protection.
                                                                 Joe
ID: 40933 · Report as offensive
Ishtel
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Dec 08
Posts: 1
Credit: 235,768
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 40935 - Posted: 17 Jun 2011, 12:23:51 UTC

Hey folks,
I am running the beta application on my notebook, which has a Sandy Bridge processor and thus supports AVX extensions.
Apparently, the application is not "bug free" yet. During the first run (v. 6.94), there was little progress, despite normal (100%) CPU utilization. Next, I restarted BOINC and the first (out of four) task started. Even after 40 minutes, the other tasks progress were in the 0.00x% range. After a further restart, a second task started and so on, until all were running. About 25 tasks finished without a problem, until I decided to run a second project (RNAworld) on my notebook.
After the RNAworld tasks (two of them) had started, the SETI-tasks kept running normally until they finished, but the newly downloaded tasks "failed" again (0,00x% after a few hours).
RNAworld was set to "new no task" and I aborted the remaining SETI work units. Then I reset SETI, exited BOINC, restarted the notebook and allowed new work for SETI (and hence upgraded to 6.95). Since then, not a single task (out of eight) ran as intended, even after a runtime more than four hours (a regular task takes 1.5 to two hours to finish), progress was at 0.00x%.

Host id: 51854


Yours sincerely
Oliver
ID: 40935 · Report as offensive
arkayn
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jan 07
Posts: 155
Credit: 194,400
RAC: 0
United States
Message 40936 - Posted: 17 Jun 2011, 15:56:07 UTC - in response to Message 40935.  

If I remember correctly, that is the the bug that Urs isolated.
ID: 40936 · Report as offensive
badgoes
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Jun 06
Posts: 2
Credit: 222,091
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 40983 - Posted: 26 Jun 2011, 20:37:32 UTC - in response to Message 40936.  

hi is the problem solved ??
ID: 40983 · Report as offensive
Josef W. Segur
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 05
Posts: 1137
Credit: 1,848,733
RAC: 0
United States
Message 40994 - Posted: 28 Jun 2011, 4:01:20 UTC - in response to Message 40983.  

hi is the problem solved ??

The last major puzzling symptom was understood yesterday and code has been designed which should fix the known problems. I expect there will be new builds to test when Eric has time to make them. Those of you with Sandy Bridge CPUs will be needed to prove whether the fixes are complete, or whether there are other problems which were hidden.
                                                                   Joe
ID: 40994 · Report as offensive
Father Ambrose
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 1 May 07
Posts: 556
Credit: 6,443,402
RAC: 445
United Kingdom
Message 41089 - Posted: 19 Jul 2011, 10:00:59 UTC

Getting low on WU's.

How or what is the present state of play?

There doesn't appear to be any news lately almost a month news wise is it ready for migration to seti@home or still work to be carried on.

Michael
ID: 41089 · Report as offensive
Profile Eric J Korpela
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 05
Posts: 1547
Credit: 26,991,474
RAC: 1,371
United States
Message 41091 - Posted: 19 Jul 2011, 14:23:11 UTC - in response to Message 41089.  

Currently on the wrong side of the planet to do much about beta. We'll be ready for a new release when I get back to Berkeley, so running out is OK. We get all fresh results with the new release.
ID: 41091 · Report as offensive
badgoes
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Jun 06
Posts: 2
Credit: 222,091
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 41126 - Posted: 3 Aug 2011, 14:45:19 UTC

hi

when can we sandy bridge cruncher test the new release
ID: 41126 · Report as offensive
Profile Eric J Korpela
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 05
Posts: 1547
Credit: 26,991,474
RAC: 1,371
United States
Message 41127 - Posted: 3 Aug 2011, 15:18:41 UTC - in response to Message 41126.  

I made some minor code changes yesterday. I should be able to get a new version out today.
ID: 41127 · Report as offensive

Message boards : News : SETI@home v7 6.95 release for windows_intelx86


 
©2019 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.