Posts by Shaktai

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Intel i7 CPU (Message 58449)
Posted 4 Jan 2009 by Profile Shaktai
with the i7 920 i'll probably try for an oc. supposed to be almost idiot-proof to 3.5, and with a little effort 4.0 can be hit.

do you mean you have a 940 or 965? haven't heard of an i7 950.

if you have the 965, its unlocked, and you can oc like a banshee! 5.0+ anyone ?!

EDIT ---> Nevermind, answered my own question, the i7 940 is clocked at 2.93

Duh. I was tired when I posted. That should be the 940, and I don't have any plans right now to overclock. Would need to upgrade fans and power supply and don't want to do that now. It is working fine so not willing to mess with it. Wish I had the 965 but that is out of price range. Could put 2 920's online for what that costs. Good luck with your overclocking though, a lot of people are getting some really good stuff out of them.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Intel i7 CPU (Message 58424)
Posted 3 Jan 2009 by Profile Shaktai
Well, for the three days before we ran out of work (which has started to flow again) my Core i7 950 (2.93ghz) was averaging a little over 3600 a day with hyperthreading turned on. Seems pretty decent to me. There is no overclocking. One of those days though is the day it ran out of work, so that average might be on the low side.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Intel i7 CPU (Message 58319)
Posted 1 Jan 2009 by Profile Shaktai

Thanks for adding the i7 Core. I want to buy a new system and I think i7 is the way to go. I love all of the inexpensive RAM and systemboards for intel 775 but i7 looks really good.

Can you bring those other computers over soon? R@H can use every process you have!

Thanks again and keep crunching.

Still early to see how it levels out, but so far it looks like the i7 is doing over 3300 per day.




This is more then I expected.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Intel i7 CPU (Message 58271)
Posted 31 Dec 2008 by Profile Shaktai

That's 1,000 credits since YESTERDAY!!!! Wow that is fast!! I have an intel P4 T2300 running at 1.66ghz and your i7 measures twice as fast in both floating and integer scores. You are also doing units in about an hour or so, mine is doing them in over twice as long!

Keep in mind the i7 is a quad core and is processing 2 threads per core or 8 work units at a time. I was definitely over 2000 in the first 24 hours and I think around 2500 or so. there was a short period where it wasn't crunching at all. It will take a few days to know for sure what it can do but so far am pleased with it. I may then bring my iMac core2duo 3.06 over and my macmini.

5) Message boards : Number crunching : Intel i7 CPU (Message 58245)
Posted 30 Dec 2008 by Profile Shaktai
Do we have enough stats on the i7 to know if it is good for R@H?

I looked at some of the BOINC Stats pages but I don't understand what it is telling me.

The Q6600 is a work horse and the Q9450 should be even faster with 45nm technology and an expanded cache.

What is the sweet spot for processors on R@H? Clearly faster processors are better but I am looking for the best RAC to $ ratio.

Don't know yet, but I just brought my i7 online today. It will be 100% Rosetta for a little while, not shared so should eventually have a good idea how it does.

6) Message boards : Number crunching : Intel i7 CPU (Message 57753)
Posted 9 Dec 2008 by Profile Shaktai
FAccording to most reports, hyperthreading on the Core i7 is much more efficient then prior implementations. While I can't confirm for Rosetta, on most other DC projects and most applications, it does improve efficiency, not decrease it. When calculating credit per day, it is important to treat it as 8 processors not just 4 which someone mentioned earlier. Really is a darn fast machine for most things. Will know how it does on Rosetta soon enough.

As dcdc mentioned earlier
I've seen a flaw in my previous logic though - my original calc was per core, but of course there are 8 logical cores here, and each is getting slightly less credit than my Q6600 per cycle, but as there are two threads (it looks like that machine is running 8 threads from the sum of the time on all tasks), then that's quite impressive. I'd be interested to see one with and without HT for comparison as it might be even quicker with only four rosetta threads running.
7) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Team Thread (Ads only, not for discussions) (Message 10557)
Posted 8 Feb 2006 by Profile Shaktai

TEAM MACNN - The Best Macintosh team ever.

If you are a Mac user, a multi-platform user or just wish you had a Mac, consider one of the friendliest teams around. Great Team stats, and really good people.

8) Message boards : Number crunching : code release and redundancy (Message 4987)
Posted 2 Dec 2005 by Profile Shaktai
First, terminology. A quorum only has one WU, and "n" results. That right there throws out your idea, unless the whole thing was redesigned on the server side. Each member of a quorum simply downloads a copy of the _same_ file from the server. That distribution would have to be changed. Also, how do you validate? Each result would be different, so no comparison would be possible. I realize there is effectively NO validation now, but you'd have to have some kind of validator running (more complex than current, though still simple) to do the credit averaging, even if it didn't actually look at the content of the results and only at the status and the claimed credit...

And, which is the canonical result? The lowest energy? I think they want to store _all_ the results.

Good basic idea, but I think given the structure of the BOINC architecture, it'd just be way too complicated to implement.

You make good points Bill. The issue is with the core point calculation method. It is important to address the root cause, which is a credit claim that can be manipulated, rather then "patch things" project by project with solutions that aren't fair to anyone. I support redundancy if it benefits the science, but if it is only to give the "illusion" of fairness, I must oppose it.

While the current BOINC credit calculation was well intentioned, people have found ways to manipulate it. Some with good intentions, to compensate for optimized science apps, and some with bad intent, to just boost the "illusion" of their production. I remember that it wasn't that long ago, there was someone who kept creating new unit ID numbers, and then would periodically just "merge" with one of the older Unit ID numbers. Did nothing for his real production or credits, but kept him at the top of some statistics lists because of the way it manipulated the RAC calculations. A silly game, but some people will do it no matter what.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : @Admins: quorum of 3 results needed (Message 4885)
Posted 1 Dec 2005 by Profile Shaktai
The problem is not Rosetta's only. The problem is the BOINC benchmarking system.

Optimized project apps and optimized BOINC clients are two seperate things. If you optimize the science app it claims less credit even though you are doing the same work, just faster, thereby penalizing the users of optimized apps who are doing more work. It is compensated by using an optimized client. Problem: There are many different projects with many different optimized project apps. (some official, some third party) Optimization of BOINC clients can be abused at worse, and at best still is not totally fair because they are not calibrated to the optimized science app.

It is a challenge. Only thing I am sure of is that if redundancy doesn't add to the science it should not be used as a feable and ineffective method to equalize credits.

I think all of the projects are aware of the issue, and the developers are looking at alternatives. The answers aren't easy because the projects are so diverse. Any solution must be reasonably consistent to all computers systems, all OS's and all projects. I tried to come up with ideas, but upon examination each idea was just as flawed as the current system. Somewhere, somebody always gets shortchanged.

As to optimized BOINC clients being cheating, that would be true only if they were only available to a limited few. They are available to everyone. Use if you want or don't. It is your choice, You are not being cheated. They are allowed, and in the case of users running optimized apps for some projects, optimized clients are the correct choice. They only create disparities if they are used on projects that don't have optimized science apps or that optimize science apps for only certain computers or OS.

10) Questions and Answers : Macintosh : WU Errors on Mac Platform (Message 4882)
Posted 1 Dec 2005 by Profile Shaktai
There are some problems with OS 10.3.x. I think that David Kim will be working on these when he gets back from vacation. For now, 10.4.x is required. This was answered in the other thread in this group as well.

I wish they would post this information before we waste days of CPU time trying to help out. Just a little something on the system requirements page maybe next to where they say it does work on Mac OSX 10.3.9.

The prior concern was fixed quite some time ago I believe, if you are experiencing other issues, please report them. Your response was to a thread that was 2 months old.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Any special OS X versions with Altivec? (Message 4175)
Posted 24 Nov 2005 by Profile Shaktai
None Yet. As mentioned, currently only SETI and Einstein have Altivec enabled apps. The default app on Einstein is altivec. If they get to where they can comfortably release the source code to some third party folks, then we may see an altivec enabled Rosetta app. They are considering that possibility.
12) Message boards : Number crunching : code release and redundancy (Message 3243)
Posted 15 Nov 2005 by Profile Shaktai
We would give a specific random seed for each work unit and use homogeneous redundancy.

Hmm! Predictor uses homogeneous redundancy. Rosetta creates a random seed so that each work unit is useful, not just a duplicate of another work unit. So in effect, you are not really validating credits as you are equalizing them to deter cheating. Each work unit would still be unique, it would just need to be matched up with a similar work unit on the same platform, even though the outcomes would be different. Homogenous redundancy would also ensure that any work from manipulated apps to cheat would not get any credit.

Am I understanding that correctly? If so, I might be able to buy into that.
13) Message boards : Number crunching : code release and redundancy (Message 2876)
Posted 11 Nov 2005 by Profile Shaktai
I think releasing the code is a good idea. However, I think it would be best to manage the release of the code to volunteers who agree to the terms of the code. I agree with David Kim's proposal. That way you control the code of the apps that actually goes out to users. There are a lot of people who are very good at optimizing code, and if they are willing to donate their expertise so it can be rolled back into the project, that is a good thing.

I don't like the idea of redundancy if it does not benefit the science. For some projects, redundancy is beneficial, but if it doesn't benefit the project, don't do it. I'm here for the science. The credit is just for fun.

Roll out the code, but manage it in a manner that restricts the code release to individuals who agree to the science.

Question: Is it possible to take the optimized code from the volunteers, and then incorporate a "verification code" of some kind that would be required to actually get credit? The "verification code" would then be added by the Rosetta team to actual public released apps.

There is no perfect answer or solution. However, I think that redundancy would be more damaging to the project in the long run, if it is not needed for the science. Avoid redundancy if there is no scientific benefit. Open to optimization, if you can manage and verify the contributions.

14) Message boards : Number crunching : No work from project with 89,369 queued (Message 2122)
Posted 3 Nov 2005 by Profile Shaktai

Is there a problem with the servers, or maybe the network?

Something's not right, and it would be nice to understand if I should retry tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year.

Thanks in advance.

Read David Kim's posts above. It looks like they are having to purge the database of completed work units. Might take a few hours I'd guess. Might want to give it another try tomorrow or a little later this evening. They are on Pacific (Washingtion state) time, so might still get it back up tonight though. I just fired up Einstein for the evening or until Rosetta comes back. Plenty of work, the database just choked on the unpurged finished work units.
15) Message boards : Number crunching : 1% for 37 hours (Message 1509)
Posted 19 Oct 2005 by Profile Shaktai
For work units stuck at 1%, restarting the BOINC will fix it most of the time. It seems to happen most often on Windows machines with HT (yours?), dual cores or dual processors. The issue is being looked into by the Rosetta team.
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Can't Upload, Downloads OK (Message 1502)
Posted 19 Oct 2005 by Profile Shaktai
Interesting. I noticed something similar on my Windows machines today, but it only occurred on Windows machines. My Macs didn't have the problem. I had about 10 work units on 4 machines waiting for upload.

A manual update fixed the problem and they uploaded immediately. Below is a sample message.

10/18/2005 5:43:42 PM|rosetta@home|Started upload of 1bmbA_abrelax_05091_1_0
10/18/2005 5:43:42 PM|rosetta@home|Started upload of 1bmbA_abrelax_05091_1_1
10/18/2005 5:43:44 PM|rosetta@home|Finished upload of 1bmbA_abrelax_05091_1_0
10/18/2005 5:43:44 PM|rosetta@home|Throughput 72541 bytes/sec
10/18/2005 5:44:04 PM|rosetta@home|Temporarily failed upload of 1bmbA_abrelax_05091_1_1 = ERR_IO: bytes_xferred: 0, file offset: 0, expected content length: 0
10/18/2005 5:44:04 PM|rosetta@home|Backing off 1 minutes and 0 seconds on upload of file 1bmbA_abrelax_05091_1_1
17) Questions and Answers : Windows : XP 64 (Message 1501)
Posted 19 Oct 2005 by Profile Shaktai
What are your settings under account preferences? You may need to increase the amount allowed there. Rosetta won't use it all, but it BOINC is a bit funny in how it handles it.

Also it is helpful if you provide your BOINC client version and basic machine configuration.
18) Message boards : Number crunching : Would people be interested in being able to see the result plots of users, computers, and teams from the leader lists? (Message 1497)
Posted 18 Oct 2005 by Profile Shaktai
Sounds like a good idea to me.
19) Message boards : Number crunching : Mac OS - status on 10.3.9 app? (Message 1376)
Posted 15 Oct 2005 by Profile Shaktai
David spent much of this past week working on this, and with some help from other members of the Rosetta community I think he has solved the problem. Tell your friends to check back mid next week.

Thanks for the quick response. I'll pass the word when the new app is ready. I know David K is working hard on several different things, and it is appreciated that he found time to work on this issue as well. And thanks to everyone who helped out.
20) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Welcome to The Rosetta Cafe Come On In! (Message 1369)
Posted 15 Oct 2005 by Profile Shaktai
Okay, where's the bar? I could use an ice cold ale.

Next 20

©2021 University of Washington