1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Are INTEL systems not getting enough credit or are AMD systems getting too much?
(Message 16196)
Posted 13 May 2006 by James Post:
Overclocking is not entirely off-topic in that it does account for some of the 'discrepancies' of claimed credits. Specifically, if you take two x2 4800s and one is overclocked to 2.7 ghz and the other is at 2.4 ghz it will be comparing 'apples to oranges'. This assumes that the overclocking is done correctly, ie, the system is producing stable benchmarks (if you don't get stable benchmarks decrease your frequency and/or multiplier). I happen to have my 4800 overclocked to ~2.67ghz as well as major tweaks on the memory clock, voltages, etc. I replaced the stock fan almost immediately with one that is large, hardly noticeable (stock runs at 3.5k rpm at full load), and decreases load temps by 5 C. As for 'optimized' clients I believe the actual 'point' is to receive credits that relate to the systems actual performance rather than a boinc benchmark bias, which is all the client really does anyway, ie, the rosetta application does the crunching. Another interesting point is that benchmarks are actually favored toward Intel machines due to the default compilation. AMD 'flags' are not part of the default one size fits all benchmark program which isn't the case with some 'optimized' clients. The point for those that use optimized clients is to get a benchmark that treats their machine fairly, rather than treat it as an Intel (which is what the benchmark is basically is compiled for). As more and more people migrate to 'optimized' clients the incentive for others, who are in a 'competitive' frame of mind, increases. This *is* happening. It's becoming much more widespread. It also shouldn't be an issue as the benchmarks attempt to accurately represent the systems true performance. That aside, the best 'client' out there is Trux's calibrated client (non-optimized) that allows you to significantly 'play around' with boinc, ie, set cpu affinity, block the annoying popups, set process priority, set project priority, force results to be reported immediately, etc. It'd be nice if the boinc developers would do the same rather than have this proliferation occur, which sort of decreases their motivation to innovate - the boinc client/gui developers are also biased to the SETI project which has an optimized *application*. Einstein@home also has an optimized application that is going to be integrated as default in the future. It vastly increases computing of WUs. Again, claiming that there is 'unfair' credit suggests that the sole purpose of the project is credit when it is actually science that is important. I'd also like to note that 'optimized' clients do *not* report default inflated scores but are based on your specific processor's capabilities. (the two legit ones are trux and crunch's). The ones that are 'suspect' are systems that are obviously running manipulated clients that were compiled to report completely false benchmarks as some individuals have done. |
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
RAC cheats, is this a problem
(Message 12956)
Posted 2 Apr 2006 by James Post: Looking at some of the top computers shows that they may be (are!) exploiting the credit system. My computer with a standard Boinc client charges about 14 credits per hour while many of the computers in the top RAC list are charging 40 to 60 credits per hour. Is this reasonable? I think not! Mod, you are twisting this a bit. Regardless of an 'opimized' client a project can calibrate the claimed credits - look no further than einstein@home. They most definately adjust the credits to get rid of the use of inflated benchmarks. As for the somewhat weak claim that people are merely doing this because boinc doesn't fully utilize their resources (which is the essence of your claim) that is a boinc issue and not a system issue. I know for a fact that AMDs are supported poorly in BOINC compilations in general. That doesn't mean I 'deserve' more credits. Yes, the source code has been released to the public. Perhaps you should also note that the client doesn't crunch the WUs - the Rosetta application does. It has nothing to do with the project other than to enable Rosetta's app to run and to manage preferences. Rosetta controls the project and has chosen NOT to release their source (unlike SETI where optimization can occur) and has chosen NOT to offer system specific compilations to maximize cpu efficiency. Which is neither here nor there. RAC cheating is an issue in that it seems to be a vanity issue where people feel the need to be in the 'top computer' section. Given that the run times of these WUs are known it's not exactly like you can't figure out how to adjust credits - Einstein has. |
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
600,000 second/165 Hour/7 day WU!!!
(Message 12955)
Posted 2 Apr 2006 by James Post: I'll grant credit for this extreme circumstance. We may consider granting credit for all time out errors in the future. Change your max timeout settings, perhaps using tux's xml script (not the OPTIMIZED client, the 'calibration' client that won't artificially inflate your benchmarks) that comes with his boinc client. This should have been 'killed' way before 600k seconds. For example, Rosetta runs 120 minute work units. I 'kill' all WUs that do not complete after 145 minutes. You can 'tweak' your preferences:) As for the credit issue, I have sympathy because I have participated in the climate projects and had unrecoverable errors at 50+ percent ( you know the MASSIVE as in WEEKS/MONTHS WUs). I did get credit though. Change your settings so you don't have it happen again. This part isn't addressed to you: Credit should be granted for 'real' processor usage. Rosetta, unlike say Einstein, does not calibrate WU times. It's getting to be pretty sickening in general because there are 3800s/2.+ghz machines that are claiming massive amounts of credits based upon unreal benchmarks. I overclock my 4800 from a stock 2.4ghz to 2.7ghz for each core and I know that a 3800 can't get 3 times my floating and integers:) The same is true for the 2ghzs intels that are doing the same thing. I'm not necessarily upset about the 'cheating' but it encourages others to do the same and it creates almost amusing benchmarks on the top computers pages. The 1 percent error is annoying - so is the fact that Rosetta has yet to incorporate a calibration feature like, say, Einstein that grants credit where credit is deserved, not manipulated artificially. |
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Give credit where credits due
(Message 12953)
Posted 2 Apr 2006 by James Post: |
©2024 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org