Forum > Windows
New apps based on code revision 2.2 'Noo? No, Ni!' have been released!
BenHer:
There are more routines added to the benchmarking suite for 2.2 vs 2.0. Notably timing & choosing which folding routine and choosing which transpose routine will be used.
When the program is running these tests it tries to make sure it gets accurate numbers on how well each of the routines will perform when crunching an entire WU. It only has access to a counter to tell it how long each version required, however in modern operating systems, because of multi-tasking, the O/S might freeze Seti and then begin running a media player - word processor or whatever else needs to use some CPU time. If an interruption occurs the timing of a given routine will be completely wrong (time = time of rotuine + time for O/S switch + other program running + coming back).
Therefore, the benchmark routines, just before they start timing a function version, raise the task priority very high, and just after the routine timing it restores task priority to where it was (usually the IDLE_PRIORITY level).
On most higher end systems (pentium D and beyond X2, etc), the benchmark testing should only require around 3-4 seconds of time, with a quad core, perhaps more because of memory contention.
During this time the computer might seem unresponsive. The priority setting and benchmarking occurred in the 2.0 version also, however a few more routines are timed in 2.2.
Note: Each individual pass/test turns priority high/low, and the the slowest test is about 1/50th of a second on an AMD 3800+ X2. Every low priority time dip between tests allows the O/S to do whatever switching is needed.
KarVi:
Well that explains it :)
IMHO its something that needs fixing, since its has become very apparent in the newest version.
Don't really know how it could be done though, as i understand the reasoning behind raising the priority.
Running the test at just normal priority would remove the problem on most systems I think, but would also give the risk of wrong measurements.
Its a trade-off: Does one want absolutely accurate measurements, or an app. that doesn't interfere with normal operation.
I vote for the last, but I will let it be up to you guys to decide.
Furex:
Being already used to see lower memory requirements of R2.2, this one caught my eye:
Simon:
That would mean that for this particular WU, it chose chirping functions other than Alex Kan's.
Strange, since if supported those functions should almost always be used (and definitely always if they've been chosen before).
Is this host being used exclusively for BOINC, or do you do work alongside?
Regards,
Simon.
Furex:
--- Quote from: Simon on 21 Feb 2007, 05:30:24 pm ---Is this host being used exclusively for BOINC, or do you do work alongside?
--- End quote ---
It only crunches in its idle time; do I sense an explanation coming? :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version