I'm telling you that come next month your going to be very busy changing numbers on your records page!:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by poke349
I'm telling you that come next month your going to be very busy changing numbers on your records page!:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by poke349
lol ^^:),
/post
that X5650 is a monster :cool:.
Wait for Dave when the NDA lifts on the Gulftowns... :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by onex
yeah, this is one curiosity teaser :)...
I tried advanced swap mode, but when I set it to use G:\ the program went into an infinite loop (still in the menu, hadn't even started yet).
Where in the menu?Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
It asks you for the # of drives first. Then it asks for the paths.
http://www.numberworld.org/y-crunche...s_3_7_2010.jpg
I should probably write my own prompting function instead of using cin >> c;
Since cin >> x; does that infinite loop when it gets a letter instead of an integer.
Nope, not that slow!:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by onex
Ah, I see. I didn't see the first line and thus thought it wanted a comma-separated list or something.
can you put my runs in?
ive got a few more
im working on the 10 and 25 billion right now, hopefully it works :)
HOLY @#&%^*&!!! :slobber::slobber::slobber:
WOW!!!
Quad socket + 32 GB of ram! (Though you were switching between 16GB and 32GB?)
Quick question: Do you actually have enough ram for the 10b and 25b runs? Or are you using the swap modes?
thanks, this is the first time ive ever benched the rig, usualy it just sits and crunches away on my boinc projects. ive got a total of 3 quads :D.. that one normaly runs 16gb, the other 2 have 8gb each. i borrowed the mem from the others to use all 32 for this run. its back to 16 now, and ill just start using the swap modes for the other runs
this is the 10 billion run :)
Validation Version: 1.0
Processor(s): Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 8356
Logical Cores: 16
Physical Memory: 34,356,379,648 ( 32.0 GB )
CPU Frequency: 2,311,021,151
Program Version: 0.5.2 Build 9082 Alpha 3 (x64 SSE3 - Windows ~ Kasumi)
Constant: Pi
Algorithm: Chudnovsky Formula
Decimal Digits: 10,000,000,000
Hexdecimal Digits: 8,304,820,238
Threading Mode: 16 threads
Computation Mode: Basic Swap
Swap Disks: 1
Working Memory: 20.1 GB
Start Time: Wed Mar 10 18:14:47 2010
End Time: Wed Mar 10 22:20:16 2010
Computation Time: 14,081.835 seconds
Total Time: 14,726.781 seconds
CPU Utilization: 667.83 %
Multi-core Efficiency: 41.73 %
Last Digits:
9763261541 1423749758 2083180752 2573977719 9605119144 : 9,999,999,950
9403994581 8580686529 2375008092 3106244131 4758821220 : 10,000,000,000
Timer Sanity Check: Passed
Frequency Sanity Check: Passed
ECC Recovered Errors: 0
----
Checksum: 1117a7c3424cae6a13185f85c7b024f2381a2428ffed75e218 078c94ad268809
im running the 25 now, wish me luck :)
3 of them... :slobber::slobber::slobber::slobber::slobber:
If you have any extra hard drives lying around, they'll really help out the larger runs using Advanced Swap.
Since you have sooo much computation power, it'll obviously be heavily bottlenecked by disk bandwidth. ;)
Someday... I need to optimize the program better for NUMA machines like your quad-sockets... Only then will it be able to bring out their true potential... :rolleyes:
id be more than wiling to run the optimized program anytime you get it ready and report the results on it. i have a perfect way to test the difference between the 2. all 3 rigs have the same tyan s4985 mobo, same memory, same opti 8356's with the same batch number and same hdd.
for the hdd, are you saying that the best bet would be to run 15gb of mem, and the hdd in a raid0 array??? to get the bandwith that i need?
would 2 75 gig raptors work better than 4 regular 7200 rpm hdds?
Quote:
Originally Posted by skycrane
It's not a simple fix. Virtually the entire multi-threading structure of the program needs to be redesigned from scratch and re-written to do that.
That's not something I have on my plans. So it may not be for years. :( (assuming I'll still have interest in the program by then)
The hardware that I need to do it would be well beyond my budget. :(:(:(
(I'd basically have to build myself a Beowulf cluster of high-end dual or quad-socket machines fully loaded with an absolutely obscene amount of ram.)
Perhaps a single 4P Beckton or a 4P Magny Cours machine will be enough... both of which are well beyond my budget. (And I'm speaking as a college student so i have no money or income... lol)
Basically I need a machine that is VERY Non-Uniform in memory to be able to write for it...
About the hard drives:
From the results that I have gotten so far, letting the program manage your HDs separately does seem to be more efficient than RAID 0.
So RAID doesn't seem to be useful until you run out of drive letters.
With your amount of ram (> 16 GB), disk seeks won't become significant until you push over 100 billion digits. So bandwidth will be the only that really matters. (In other words: 4 x 7200RPM will beat out 2 x raptors.)
sounds good :) im heading out now to grab a few more 1tb drives :) maybe ill be the first one to 1t :D
I get about 50% loading on 12 CPUs using swap mode on my 15K disks. :) That's actually quite impressive, imo. Good work on efficient swapping!
my results
Config:
Supermicro X8DA6
2x Xeon X5550
6x2gb ddr3 1333mhz 99928
I just approximate Pi as 3.14, and it's pretty fast
:)
Woah... I go away for day, and there are 4 new posts... lol
Wow... you're probably the first person (besides me), who actually went out to buy hardware to run this program. :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by skycrane
Good luck with that. Gonna be very interesting. :D
p.s. Lemme warn you though... 1 trillion digits is gonna take a LONG time. As in: more than 20 days...
Thanks. :D Granted, you've got 8? hard drives... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Using just one would be an absolute pain... :p:
The swap mode wasn't an easy task. I've been working on it (on and off) since November 2008. (well before the first release of this program)
I actually had it completely designed and laid out on paper about a year ago, but I never found the time to actually finish it.
It wasn't until this winter quarter, that my class load was low enough to let me goof off a bit. :(
And when I actually had it partially working, testing it was a complete nightmare since swap computations take forever.
Due to the nature of the algorithms, things behave differently for small and large computations. So a "simple" test on the larger sizes would take hours. Of course, nobody gets it right on the first try...
So I spent much of January abusing my workstation with 40GB ram drives to actually test and debug this thing...
I remember sitting there in horror when a 30 hour test failed on my Core i7 rig...
Then I got the idea to ram drive it on my workstation... made it sooo much easier to fix the bug...
(This was prior to getting the 4 x 2TB. So everything was REALLY slow.)
Wow. Another i7 dualie. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by tj_jackson
Is your system reserving 1GB for video or something? Since the program is only reading 11GB.
Been getting mostly multi-socket results these few days... :D
22/7 is better. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidNitrogen
Both 3.14 and 22/7 need 4 characters to write, but 22/7 is more accurate. :D:D:D
22/7 is faster too. Fewer strokes to write. :p:
Guilty! I've got eight Fujitsu MBA3147RCs on a HighPoint RocketRAID 4320 in RAID-5. The program moves hundreds of megabytes per second while running. :D
It was running on the fastest part of the disk:
http://www.pcrpg.org/pics/computer/rr4320/hdtune.png
haha. yep! :rofl::rofl::rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Disk is the clear bottleneck... So I made it so that you can fix that by just throwing more drives at it. :D:D:D
@skycrane
You've got very some serious competition to 1 trillion digits. :rolleyes:
Want me to PM you the specifics?
Actually, if you're willing to run that awesome machine of yours for more than a week like that, you're actually in good shape of breaking some of the world records for the other constants.
(Namely the records that I set between March - May last year.)
e, Log(2), and Zeta(3) are your best bets.
e:
I recently set this to 500 billion digits on my Core i7 machine with 12 GB ram + 4 x 2 TB. It took 12.8 days to compute and verify.
Log(2):
This was done to 31 billion digits last year on my 64GB workstation. But it only took 40 hours to compute and verify. So 50 billion digits could possibly go sub-one week if you have enough drives running in parallel.
Same applies to Log(10), but no one gives a crap about Log(10). So lol.
Zeta(3) - Apery's Constant:
This was also done to 31 billion digits last year on my 64GB workstation. It took 4 days on my workstation to compute and verify. So it's slower. But there's a Wikipedia article on it with a list of records.
I didn't mention Square Root of 2 and Golden Ratio because there's someone already working on that.
(They're both already computed to much more than the current official records, but are both pending verification.)
Catalan's Constant and the Euler-Mascheroni Constant don't support Advanced Swap Mode yet, so you'll need more than 64GB of ram to beat those. (Not to mention they are both FREAKING slow...)
:rofl:Quote:
Nope, not that slow!:rofl:
man, your teasing around too much :rofl:.
E:
that cpu was seem listed somewhere.. since mid February..:yepp:
A competition! Hmm. I've got another array that does 300MB/s I could add to the mix...
You guys will never guess what I'm doing...
*whistles*
PS: Samples are an average of about 2 minutes, so peak utilizations aren't shown.