Message boards : Number crunching : new to rosetta using q6600
Previous · 1 · 2
Author | Message |
---|---|
Paul Send message Joined: 29 Oct 05 Posts: 190 Credit: 62,111,592 RAC: 8,270 ![]() |
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). 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 ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 3 Nov 05 Posts: 1673 Credit: 86,551,941 RAC: 65,770 ![]() |
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. |
Peter Ingham Send message Joined: 27 Sep 05 Posts: 14 Credit: 3,079,189 RAC: 4,876 ![]() |
Thanks for the advice, I'd love to be contributing more, but the credits seen for other projects are much, much higher. 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 |
Peter Ingham Send message Joined: 27 Sep 05 Posts: 14 Credit: 3,079,189 RAC: 4,876 ![]() |
I think it's from here: 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 |
Paul Send message Joined: 29 Oct 05 Posts: 190 Credit: 62,111,592 RAC: 8,270 ![]() |
I think it's from here: 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 ![]() |
Message boards :
Number crunching :
new to rosetta using q6600
©2021 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org