| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Teams
Thread:  Join "MyOnlineTeam" Today - Chapter 31 |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 613
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Dataman
Ace Cruncher Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 4865 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I noticed that they took tons of hours (11 allegedly) to complete and didn't want to waste any time. I'll chalk my one errored out WU to random chance/my monkeying. They are huge. I'd one take 33+ hours on a Q6600 quad. I think they are trying to compete with CPDN.    |
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I actually have a related query. I just got my first Clean Energy Project WU and got a computation error. Now, that might be because I'd been changing the speed of my CPU all day and am now seriously overclocked at 3.24ghz (Thanks Blizzie. Vcore is set to 1.4 btw, is that too low for 3.2ghz?). Or it might be new project issues. Has anyone else seen a Clean Energy failure? 1.4vcore is a bit high for 2.34 GHz. Did you stress test it before crunching. You might be able to get 3.4 GHz with 1.42 vcore.. But again.. Every CPU is different so you must test for stability. Then lower vcore down until it is no longer stable. |
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I actually have a related query. I just got my first Clean Energy Project WU and got a computation error. Now, that might be because I'd been changing the speed of my CPU all day and am now seriously overclocked at 3.24ghz (Thanks Blizzie. Vcore is set to 1.4 btw, is that too low for 3.2ghz?). Or it might be new project issues. Has anyone else seen a Clean Energy failure? 1.4vcore is a bit high for 2.34 GHz. Did you stress test it before crunching. You might be able to get 3.4 GHz with 1.42 vcore.. But again.. Every CPU is different so you must test for stability. Then lower vcore down until it is no longer stable. Sorry brain f@rt. I mean 3.34ghz at 1.4 vcore. Seems stable. No crashes, Boinc up all night, no overheating (at 55C under load), even the graphics OC seems to have gone fine. 702 mhz up from 600! |
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
It helps when I move my PC to the window where the air is coming in at 20F. For a few hours my CPU was at 3.5 ghz with a higher vcore obviously and CPU temps never went above 45C under full load (and graphics crunching)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
It helps when I move my PC to the window where the air is coming in at 20F. For a few hours my CPU was at 3.5 ghz with a higher vcore obviously and CPU temps never went above 45C under full load (and graphics crunching)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Have to make sure it's fully stable with a stress test. WCG doesn't count. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Dec 9, 2008 12:09:02 AM] |
|||
|
||||
|
keithhenry
Ace Cruncher Senile old farts of the world ....uh.....uh..... nevermind Joined: Nov 18, 2004 Post Count: 18665 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
MyOnlineTeam Daily Statistics for 12/08 - All Members:
----------------------------------------Team rank movement report =========================
Points milestones report ======================== mlafferty reached 700,000 points  Runtime milestones report ========================= No runtime milestones found.  Results returned milestones report ================================== Tomwp returned their 3,500th result mlafferty returned their 2,200th result New members report ================== No new members found. Retired members report ====================== No new retired members found. For the week as a team: Statistics Total Run Time Points Results Team Records: Results Returned: 12/19/2007 2,522 Points: 12/19/2007 379,990 Runtime: 01/25/2006 1:123:00:53:34 Good crunching folks!!!! |
|||
|
||||
|
keithhenry
Ace Cruncher Senile old farts of the world ....uh.....uh..... nevermind Joined: Nov 18, 2004 Post Count: 18665 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
MyOnlineTeam Daily Statistics for 12/08 - Active Members
----------------------------------------Active team members report ==========================
Note: Active members are those who earned points in the prior 30 days. Top Ten active members returning points today: 01: RT - 36,235 points 02: Mushball - 22,142 points 03: marysduby - 20,448 points 04: Dave Bell - 17,251 points 05: mlafferty - 16,841 points 06: parmesian - 15,437 points 07: Blizzie - 14,905 points 08: Blueprint - 14,256 points 09: keithhenry - 12,575 points 10: sulcata - 9,596 points Total points returned today: 255,643 Active members returning points today: 36 Average points per member active today: 7101.19444 |
|||
|
||||
|
RT
Master Cruncher USA - Texas - DFW Joined: Dec 22, 2004 Post Count: 2636 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
The i7 has 4 cores but 8 threads so it's considered a "Octo" core. It is not a true Octo just yet. I'm not sure how crunching on those virtual cores will turn out though. 64 bit operating system should not affect crunching by producing bad work unit results. On the first issue, I am not an expert on the processors. But watching this i7 makes one wonder. It is Hyper-Threading but it seems to work differently than the previous incarnation of Hyper-Threading. Watching the CPU utilization stats on the 4 cores indicates that at least 8 processes are needed to keep them all maxed out. Now that does not seem right but that is what the monitors show. I will cut that machine off from the net for a while today and see if we can get an estimate of the number of CPU hours per hour it produces (can be somewhat deceiving). And how many Cancer WUs per hour; perhaps that will shed some light on the matter. No, there is no overclocking or other tinkering been done on any of these processors ... at least yet. As to HPFII work units, my personal experience indicates we need to keep HPFII off the 64 bit machines with 64bit vista. One of the CAs might want to point this out to the WCG Techs and have them take a look at the HPFII stats: 64bit Quads with 64bit Vista: Gimli (i7 920) 4 pending, 3 valid, 11 failures. Gandalf (Core2 Q9550) 7 pending, 9 failures The 32 bit Vista results are: Elrond 1 in process, 2 pending, 1 valid Eowyn: 1 pending, 2 valid, 1 failure 32 bit XP results: Theoden: 1 Pending Dual Core with 64bit Vista results Samwise 1 pending, 1 valid. Sorry that I do not have more stats on this but this is all I can see at the moment. Kind Regards to all. Update: I blocked the i7 920 from getting to the net ending at 9PM Central Time. Now in doing this test I started when 8 work units were running and at the end of the test 8 work units were running. Just looking at the % complete it did not appear that there was a significant difference between the amount processed prior to the test starting and that was running when the test ended. So in the 17 work units, that were completed, the work already done when the test started was counted and all the work in progress at the end was not counted. So it seems that it was sort of a sloppy version of "fair". In 12 hours, it processed 17 Cancer work units that lasted an average of 5hr 42 minutes. So, if you believe that, then it produced 96.9 work-hours in 12 hours or 8.075 hours of work per hour....now given the somewhat sloppy process, I believe that at least all the CPU time was counted (whether real or not) and we would have to run some time with only 4 concurrent WUs to see if they would run faster on a dedicated processor. Something that I don't have the desire to do at the moment. But harkening back to the earlier discussion on what the monitors show, it takes 8 WUs (not 7) to keep all the processors running 100%. So what can we draw from all this? I don't know except that Gimli does lots of work and I think that one needs to run more than 4 simultaneous WUs on this type of quad--likely 2 per core. If anyone else runs any tests and has contrary findings or can shed more light on this, I would certainly be interested. EDIT> Looking at similar WUs on my 9550, they seem to be averaging 3 hours and 50 mins.. So, that means that the Q9550 does about 12.5 WUs in that same 12 hour period that the i7 ran 17. Beats Me  Makes my old brain fade.---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by RT at Dec 9, 2008 5:13:57 AM] |
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
......CONGRATULATIONS MLAFFERTY ON REACHING 700,000 MOT POINTS !!!...... |
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I don't know except that Gimli does lots of work and I think that one needs to run more than 4 simultaneous WUs on this type of quad--likely 2 per core. I agree entirely that it can pump out masses of work units fast, but did you check the temperature when it was crunching on all eight cores? My i7 has been crunching constantly the last couple of days at only 4 cores, and the cores are currently running toasty at between 65-80 degrees Celsius each. I guess the temperature would also vary on the environment, its currently quite warm over here in Australia and we're entering summer now, so we're gonna be hitting around 30-40 degrees Celsius on a daily basis soon. |
|||
|
||||
|
|