I would like to put my two cents worth... My computer is only powered up during the day that I might use it within a hour.. Other wise it is put to sleep... Primary purpose for my Mac is for my use, Boinc takes a secondary role and I am honored to contributed. But that it... there are limits..
I am just curious as to how many of the currently ~ 207000 users who are like me
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
There are still a lot of P4's out there - and even lesser hosts (like some of mine ;) )
While we may be beaten by the newer pc's, remember that many slow hosts together still add up to a lot of crunch power. After all, isn't that how the whole Boinc concept works? Even the best host on Boinc is slow when compared to the total crunch power of Boinc.
As long as my slowest hosts are returning valid results in time. I'll keep them going. (Assuming I can afford the electricity, of course!)
There are still a lot of P4's out there - and even lesser hosts (like some of mine ;) )
While we may be beaten by the newer pc's, remember that many slow hosts together still add up to a lot of crunch power. After all, isn't that how the whole Boinc concept works? Even the best host on Boinc is slow when compared to the total crunch power of Boinc.
As long as my slowest hosts are returning valid results in time. I'll keep them going. (Assuming I can afford the electricity, of course!)
Regards
Rod
There are a lot of P4s and perhaps their collective output is sizeable. But it's also slow and there is the data base and communications overhead associated with it...what is the cost versus the output? There are factors to consider other than the number of computers. I can only look at it from my perspective and my contribution is negligible until and if I can upgrade my computer. From a project perspective would you rather have 100,000 slow P4s or 50,000 fast Core 2 duos and quads?
There are still a lot of P4's out there - and even lesser hosts (like some of mine ;) )
While we may be beaten by the newer pc's, remember that many slow hosts together still add up to a lot of crunch power. After all, isn't that how the whole Boinc concept works? Even the best host on Boinc is slow when compared to the total crunch power of Boinc.
As long as my slowest hosts are returning valid results in time. I'll keep them going. (Assuming I can afford the electricity, of course!)
Regards
Rod
There are a lot of P4s and perhaps their collective output is sizeable. But it's also slow and there is the data base and communications overhead associated with it...what is the cost versus the output? There are factors to consider other than the number of computers. I can only look at it from my perspective and my contribution is negligible until and if I can upgrade my computer. From a project perspective would you rather have 100,000 slow P4s or 50,000 fast Core 2 duos and quads?
From a Project perspective, if I needed the crunching power and they were available I would take 100,000 slow(?) P4s AND 50,000 fast Core 2 duos/quads.
From a Project perspective, if I needed the crunching power and they were available I would take 100,000 slow(?) P4s AND 50,000 fast Core 2 duos/quads.
Slow is a relative term.
The more the merrier! :)
But I too was in the position of figuring how best to use my old, slow computer to get the "biggest bang for the buck", and where I could use it most efficiently and most productively.
Eventually it got to the point where I got a new computer, much faster and more energy efficient on a per calculation basis! :)
The project is going to be happy with any computing power resources contributed to it no matter how slow/fast the computer is, provided that the wu's are returned in the time frame granted. That is a given.
It is a matter of decision by the contributors on weighing the pros and cons, for whatever reason(s), that they decide whether to continue (and to what amount) or stop supporting the project.
For myself, I only have the quad hitting on two cylinders ATM for BOINC. That is all I can conscionably give right now after considerable consideration.
There are a lot of P4s and perhaps their collective output is sizeable. But it's also slow and there is the data base and communications overhead associated with it...what is the cost versus the output?
I would imagine that the amount of database and communications overhead is the same per WU. If that is so, then with the faster hosts downloading and uploading more often, they are actually making more demand on these that the slower hosts. Milkway@home, in fact, increased their crunch time to reduce the server load.
Quote:
From a project perspective would you rather have 100,000 slow P4s or 50,000 fast Core 2 duos and quads?
Ah, but it's not a question of 'OR' here, rather 'AND'. I'd rather have the fast and slow ones than only the fast ones. As RandyC also said.
I've stopped running S5R4 Einstein until there is a power app for Windows. I had one task that ran for 32 hours for a "standard" credit, whereas in S4R3 my run times with the power app were 8.5 to 11+ hours. Other S5R4 tasks ran at 18+ hours. That's too much of a credit per CPU time cut. I'd rather give my time to Rosetta even though their credit is also low.
I contributed to Einstein for 3 years now but I finally have to suspend it. My last task was over 31 hours while my wingman did it in half the time. My intel P4 contribution is miniscule these days and I too am throwing my meager cpu cycles to Rosetta. Credit is irrelevant. I might not discover gravity waves or pulsars but maybe I can contribute to curing health related diseases and do it in a more timely manner. If I ever upgrade my computer maybe I'll return. Sorry.
I agree. Just set E@H on my Dual-P4-3GHz machine to "no new tasks", my PowerMac (G5-Dual-2.7GHz) will follow tonight. For the time being only my MacPro will stay with E@H.
I'm not sure this is the best thread, but I have a question regarding S5R4 runtime on my Xeon E5440. It is quad core and the benchmarks are:
2903 Whetstone
5671 Dhrystone
for each core. My S5R4 WUs are taking 50 hours to complete. This is far longer than I would expect given my dual core E8500 cpu (with slightly better per core benchmarks) finishes the same S5R4 WUs in under 8 hours.
Does anyone know why the performance is so slow on the Xeon?
I'm not sure this is the best thread, but I have a question regarding S5R4 runtime on my Xeon E5440. It is quad core and the benchmarks are:
2903 Whetstone
5671 Dhrystone
for each core. My S5R4 WUs are taking 50 hours to complete. This is far longer than I would expect given my dual core E8500 cpu (with slightly better per core benchmarks) finishes the same S5R4 WUs in under 8 hours.
Does anyone know why the performance is so slow on the Xeon?
Odd... I don't have any 54xx Xeons but a 5345 that I have is at least in the ballpark with your 8500 at 9:30-9:50 or so (and that's on a Win2003 server running exchange, sharepoint, AD, etc. etc. so it's not like E@H gets to line up it's data neatly in the caches).
Without knowing anything more about the system (OS, other software running, etc.) I could only speculate that it might be the thermal management on the 5440 kicking in frequently. I'm not completely positive, but I think they can lower themselves to 1Ghz or so with thermal throttling, but that seems pretty unlikely.
I'm sure if you can provide as much detail about the system as possible, some of the gurus around here will come up with ideas for solutions.
I would like to put my two
)
I would like to put my two cents worth... My computer is only powered up during the day that I might use it within a hour.. Other wise it is put to sleep... Primary purpose for my Mac is for my use, Boinc takes a secondary role and I am honored to contributed. But that it... there are limits..
I am just curious as to how many of the currently ~ 207000 users who are like me
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
There are still a lot of P4's
)
There are still a lot of P4's out there - and even lesser hosts (like some of mine ;) )
While we may be beaten by the newer pc's, remember that many slow hosts together still add up to a lot of crunch power. After all, isn't that how the whole Boinc concept works? Even the best host on Boinc is slow when compared to the total crunch power of Boinc.
As long as my slowest hosts are returning valid results in time. I'll keep them going. (Assuming I can afford the electricity, of course!)
Regards
Rod
RE: There are still a lot
)
There are a lot of P4s and perhaps their collective output is sizeable. But it's also slow and there is the data base and communications overhead associated with it...what is the cost versus the output? There are factors to consider other than the number of computers. I can only look at it from my perspective and my contribution is negligible until and if I can upgrade my computer. From a project perspective would you rather have 100,000 slow P4s or 50,000 fast Core 2 duos and quads?
RE: RE: There are still a
)
From a Project perspective, if I needed the crunching power and they were available I would take 100,000 slow(?) P4s AND 50,000 fast Core 2 duos/quads.
Slow is a relative term.
Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.
RE: From a Project
)
The more the merrier! :)
But I too was in the position of figuring how best to use my old, slow computer to get the "biggest bang for the buck", and where I could use it most efficiently and most productively.
Eventually it got to the point where I got a new computer, much faster and more energy efficient on a per calculation basis! :)
The project is going to be
)
The project is going to be happy with any computing power resources contributed to it no matter how slow/fast the computer is, provided that the wu's are returned in the time frame granted. That is a given.
It is a matter of decision by the contributors on weighing the pros and cons, for whatever reason(s), that they decide whether to continue (and to what amount) or stop supporting the project.
For myself, I only have the quad hitting on two cylinders ATM for BOINC. That is all I can conscionably give right now after considerable consideration.
RE: There are a lot of P4s
)
I would imagine that the amount of database and communications overhead is the same per WU. If that is so, then with the faster hosts downloading and uploading more often, they are actually making more demand on these that the slower hosts. Milkway@home, in fact, increased their crunch time to reduce the server load.
Ah, but it's not a question of 'OR' here, rather 'AND'. I'd rather have the fast and slow ones than only the fast ones. As RandyC also said.
Regards
Rod
RE: RE: I've stopped
)
I agree. Just set E@H on my Dual-P4-3GHz machine to "no new tasks", my PowerMac (G5-Dual-2.7GHz) will follow tonight. For the time being only my MacPro will stay with E@H.
I'm not sure this is the best
)
I'm not sure this is the best thread, but I have a question regarding S5R4 runtime on my Xeon E5440. It is quad core and the benchmarks are:
2903 Whetstone
5671 Dhrystone
for each core. My S5R4 WUs are taking 50 hours to complete. This is far longer than I would expect given my dual core E8500 cpu (with slightly better per core benchmarks) finishes the same S5R4 WUs in under 8 hours.
Does anyone know why the performance is so slow on the Xeon?
RE: I'm not sure this is
)
Odd... I don't have any 54xx Xeons but a 5345 that I have is at least in the ballpark with your 8500 at 9:30-9:50 or so (and that's on a Win2003 server running exchange, sharepoint, AD, etc. etc. so it's not like E@H gets to line up it's data neatly in the caches).
Without knowing anything more about the system (OS, other software running, etc.) I could only speculate that it might be the thermal management on the 5440 kicking in frequently. I'm not completely positive, but I think they can lower themselves to 1Ghz or so with thermal throttling, but that seems pretty unlikely.
I'm sure if you can provide as much detail about the system as possible, some of the gurus around here will come up with ideas for solutions.