| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Support
Forum: BOINC Agent Support
Thread: Just found a code for cc_config, but.... |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 5
|
|
| Author |
|
|
themoonscrescent
Veteran Cruncher UK Joined: Jul 1, 2006 Post Count: 1320 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Just found a code for Boinc CC_Config that effectively splits cores up (forcing hyper threading if you like: single core - dual core / dual core - quad core ect), I very new to the whole cc_config.xml file thing and so I wanted to ask for opinions first.
----------------------------------------The obvious advantages are that you can obtain more days per day (albeit the work units will double in time), but what are the pit falls associated with doing it? will it cause errors? will it damage the CPU? what about using the code on already hyper-threaded systems? I did a quick few seconds test and it does work (changed my quad core to an octo core for 10 seconds), I'm not thinking of using it, just interested in what others think also I haven't said the code so that others won't use it, thinking it's okay to (in case it isn't). Cheers.   [Edit 1 times, last edit by themoonscrescent at Oct 17, 2012 11:41:11 PM] |
||
|
|
Ingleside
Veteran Cruncher Norway Joined: Nov 19, 2005 Post Count: 974 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
The obvious advantages are that you can obtain more days per day (albeit the work units will double in time), but what are the pit falls associated with doing it? No, while it will double the run-time, when it comes to badges and so on you're using the cpu-time and this won't change.  "I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might." |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
If it is the code I think it is, you don't say and think you better not post as it's one designed for testing, what I anticipate to happen is, that the *Elapsed* time will double, but the CPU time will be half of that [in different wording to what Ingleside says]. Opposed to true hyperthreading, here half the cycles is what I think a task will get... less in fact as there's overhead added.
|
||
|
|
themoonscrescent
Veteran Cruncher UK Joined: Jul 1, 2006 Post Count: 1320 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Cheers for both responses, I'm not going to use it, was just wondering about why it was created
---------------------------------------- . "and think you better not post as it's one designed for testing", it had crossed my mind, which is why I didn't post it (didn't want to be flamed by loads who used it and came unstuck  ).Cheers. |
||
|
|
mikey
Veteran Cruncher Joined: May 10, 2009 Post Count: 821 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Cheers for both responses, I'm not going to use it, was just wondering about why it was created . "and think you better not post as it's one designed for testing", it had crossed my mind, which is why I didn't post it (didn't want to be flamed by loads who used it and came unstuck ).Cheers. And THAT is the problem with alot of 'codes', people who have NO BUSINESS using it use it and something goes wrong and they go elsewhere not realizing it was their own fault! There is also an easy code for forcing your gpu to run 2 units at once, or 3 units, or 4 units or whatever, the problem again is the damage that can be caused is often unrepairable!! That can get REAL expensive REAL quick!!   |
||
|
|
|