new to rosetta using q6600

Message boards : Number crunching : new to rosetta using q6600

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2

AuthorMessage
Paul

Send message
Joined: 29 Oct 05
Posts: 190
Credit: 62,111,465
RAC: 8,299
Message 51014 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 11:29:04 UTC - in response to Message 50963.  

Looking into this from another perspective, looking at http://boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.php?pr=rosetta&st=200&or=12 shows that for Rosetta, the Q6600 is ranked as 274th for credit per cpu-second (much higher ranking in other projects - see some earlier posting of mine in this thread).

Using the quoted average of 0.01945 Rosetta credits per cpu second, we find that a Q6600 @2.4 giving 100% of 24hrs to Rosetta should average 672 credits per day.


on my calculator, using your number 0.01945*3600*24, I get 1680 credits


Sorry, my mistake, it should read:

Using the quoted average of 0.001945 Rosetta credits per cpu second, we find that a Q6600 @2.4 giving 100% of 24hrs to Rosetta should average 672 credits per day.

0.001945 * 3600 * 24 * 4 = 672


Even then I have a problem, because on my Q6600 which does not run 24/7 (about 65% to 70% of that), and crunches 5 different projects (40% resource share for Rosetta), RAC is something like 590 credits/day. Okay, it is overclocked to 3 GHz, but even then running under the conditions you describe, it would exceed 672 credits per day, I think.

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=317645



The 0.001945 number must be an average. I have two Q6600s that are dedicated to R@H (both are overclocked to 3.4GHz) and I am getting at least 1800 RAC. I am only overclocked by 40% so if we reduce my results by 40%, we are still way north of 672.

Where does the 0.001945 constant originate?


Thx!

Paul

ID: 51014 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile dcdc

Send message
Joined: 3 Nov 05
Posts: 1673
Credit: 86,549,744
RAC: 65,806
Message 51015 - Posted: 27 Jan 2008, 15:11:13 UTC

I think it's from here:

http://boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.php?pr=rosetta&st=0

Although the figure currently given is 0.001784. Doesn't seem right.
ID: 51015 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Peter Ingham

Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 05
Posts: 14
Credit: 3,078,682
RAC: 4,876
Message 51091 - Posted: 30 Jan 2008, 8:31:05 UTC - in response to Message 51004.  

Thanks for the advice, I'd love to be contributing more, but the credits seen for other projects are much, much higher.


I know some people do distributed computing for credits, but I encourage you to also consider the scientific and medical value of your computer's work. In the end, credits are just numbers; medical breakthroughs can improve the lives of millions.


As an experiment, 1 of the Q6600's I have was set to run Rosetta 100% share, EIST was disabled & the system conf'd for 4 cpus, 100% usage etc. CPU-Z confimed ongoing 2.4Ghz Clock rate & BoincMgr often showing >99% on all 4 active running cores, even during interactive usage. After a week or so it was consistently getting a daily credit of about 500.

The Q6600 systems I have access to (currently 6 of them, a few more on the way) are now primarily processing SIMAP. I figure this is contributing (indirectly) to the same scientific and medical benefits as Rosetta. I'd hate to support something with virtually senseless aims!! Chasing credits is not my primary motivation, but it does add a little interest.

Why not support Rosetta, regardless of the credits? The stats seem to indicate that there is something fundamentally askew with Rosetta running on Q6600's. The averages across all Q6600's on Rosetta are way down compared to other projects where Q6600's rate much better on average. Based on my own claimed vs granted, many WU's are getting 10% of claim, which means a lot of wasted resource. If other projects are more suitable, then in terms of contribution to mankind's scientific knowledge it makes sense NOT to use them for Rosetta.

Cheers
ID: 51091 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Peter Ingham

Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 05
Posts: 14
Credit: 3,078,682
RAC: 4,876
Message 51092 - Posted: 30 Jan 2008, 8:38:10 UTC - in response to Message 51015.  

I think it's from here:

http://boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.php?pr=rosetta&st=0

Although the figure currently given is 0.001784. Doesn't seem right.


My posting https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=3890&nowrap=true#50960 gave the source as http://boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.php?pr=rosetta&st=200&or=12


As at now it appears at rank 316 in http://boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.php?pr=rosetta&st=300&or=12 with 0.001823


Cheers
ID: 51092 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Paul

Send message
Joined: 29 Oct 05
Posts: 190
Credit: 62,111,465
RAC: 8,299
Message 51123 - Posted: 2 Feb 2008, 13:33:58 UTC - in response to Message 51092.  

I think it's from here:

http://boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.php?pr=rosetta&st=0

Although the figure currently given is 0.001784. Doesn't seem right.


My posting https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=3890&nowrap=true#50960 gave the source as http://boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.php?pr=rosetta&st=200&or=12


As at now it appears at rank 316 in http://boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.php?pr=rosetta&st=300&or=12 with 0.001823


Cheers


I have 2 Q6600s running. One of them is running stock @ 2.4GHz and the other is running at 3.5GHz.

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=43057

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=591177

Both of them are over 1,000 RAC and I expect them to settle at 1,400 & 2,100.

Give me about a week of run time and I will post the results. Both of these systems are rebuilds and they were down for a few days. I should have solid numbers in a few days.

Paul

Thx!

Paul

ID: 51123 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : Number crunching : new to rosetta using q6600



©2021 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org