Hi crunchers!
Is anybody using the 6.x.x version of BOINC with Vista?
I tried, but it can't communicate with the project servers :confused:
I had CA certificate error, and I found a fix for this at WCG forums, but it didn't worked :shrug:
Printable View
Hi crunchers!
Is anybody using the 6.x.x version of BOINC with Vista?
I tried, but it can't communicate with the project servers :confused:
I had CA certificate error, and I found a fix for this at WCG forums, but it didn't worked :shrug:
A certificate error often occurs when the computer has incorrect date settings.
The 6.1.XX series is intended mainly for developers. They have never been released as betas.
Thanks sierra_bound!
I have upgraded from a working 5.10.30 to 6.1.5. When I have got a finished workunit, I tried to manually upload it. Then came the CA error. I have downloaded the certificate, shutted down BOINC, overwritten it, and started BOINC again. That didn't helped. After a few tries, I have installed 5.10.30 again, and it is worked perfectly until 5.10.35 came out. I am crunching with that now.
I have noticed, that 6.1.6 is out, maybe I give it a try :)
Not working :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunfire
Here is the log (cutted version because it is too long):
2008.01.14. 16:09:32||Version change (5.10.35 -> 6.1.6)
2008.01.14. 16:10:05|World Community Grid|Restarting task X0000043960095200412231103_0 using hcc1 version 515
2008.01.14. 16:10:06|World Community Grid|Restarting task ll835_00022_14 using hpf2 version 518
2008.01.14. 17:27:11|World Community Grid|Started upload of X0000043960095200412231103_0_0
2008.01.14. 17:27:19||Project communication failed: attempting access to reference site
2008.01.14. 17:27:19|World Community Grid|Temporarily failed upload of X0000043960095200412231103_0_0: HTTP error
And a little later:
2008.01.14. 18:02:21|World Community Grid|Scheduler request failed: Peer certificate cannot be authenticated with known CA certificates
2008.01.14. 18:03:21|World Community Grid|Sending scheduler request: To fetch work. Requesting 698 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
2008.01.14. 18:03:23||Project communication failed: attempting access to reference site
2008.01.14. 18:03:25||Internet access OK - project servers may be temporarily down.
I give up, changed back to 5.10.35 :)
2008.01.14. 19:51:01||Version change (6.1.6 -> 5.10.35)
2008.01.14. 19:51:42|World Community Grid|Finished upload of ll835_00022_14_0
2008.01.14. 19:51:49|World Community Grid|Finished upload of dddt0301m0750_ZINC01911099-0000_00_0_1
2008.01.14. 19:51:57|World Community Grid|Sending scheduler request: Requested by user. Requesting 27291 seconds of work, reporting 3 completed tasks
2008.01.14. 19:52:07|World Community Grid|Scheduler request succeeded: got 2 new tasks
From what I've read, people have had issues with various 6.1.XX versions. 6.1.0 seems to be fine. I've been running that version for quite some time on one of my machines.
BOINC should be releasing 6.0 (official version) soon. It will have a new graphics engine. But it can only be run as a service.
5.10.38 beta is now available for Windows users.
32-bit version
64-bit version
Thanks! Installing immediately :)Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
where is the 6.X service install for Vista, thought it was due this month?
Hopefully soon.
5.10.38 beta is now available for Mac OS X users.
Standard GUI
Unix command-line version
Testing it out now!Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
My rigs are still on 5.10.13 and 5.10.13 x64. Is there a newer set of clients that will give noticeably higher ppd? A 5% increase will give me 40K+ more per day.
DDTUNG:cool:
5.10.39 beta is available for Windows users.
32-bit version
64-bit version
5.10.39 beta is now available for Mac OS X users.
Standard GUI
Unix command-line version
5.10.40 beta is now available for Windows users.
32-bit version
64-bit version
5.10.40 beta is now available for Mac OS X users.
Standard GUI
Unix command-line version
That was quick, 5.10.41 beta is now available for Windows users.
32-bit version
64-bit version
sierra_bound: Corrected, thanks :)
I think you meant 5.10.41 ;)
5.10.41 beta is now available for Mac OS X users.
Standard GUI
Unix command-line version
Alright, I just updated the first post, which was long overdue. Thanks for keeping up with things SB, I sorta gave up keeping track of the new versions since you always get to them so quick :)
Any comments/idea? Should I add any of the versions that the members here consider most stable, if so which ones?
5.10.13 is a favorite of mine. Have had no problems with either the 32-bit or 64-bit versions.
Today, I was testing various versions on my Clovertown system. 5.10.39 x64 seems very stable. Unfortunately, during the testing process I inadvertently aborted the project twice. So now I have 69 pages of errors! But even worse, I've used up my daily quota of work units. So my most productive rig will not be crunching for half a day.:( I've also been running the 32-bit version on my only cruncher that doesn't have a 64-bit OS. Have had no problems.
5.10.42 beta is now available for Windows users.
32-bit version
64-bit version
And for Mac OS X users.
Standard GUI
Unix command-line version
I have had good results with 5.10.39 x64 and my Clovertown rig. Dhrystone benches about 500 points higher than 5.10.13 x64. Work units are being completed faster. This of course means more results returned per day. Quorum results have also been encouraging. Still too early to draw definitive conclusions. But I like what I see so far.
5.10.42 beta is available for Linux/Ubuntu users.
32-bit version
64-bit version
Older Linux x86 and x64
Heh, just messed with the Ubuntu 64-bit one a couple days ago, worked fine on Gentoo and should work for any other distro. Although after getting the compiler flags sorted out(don't use ANY optimization flags, unlike how the BOINC project wiki happens to show, otherwise it'll over claim compared to the regular releases) I just compiled it myself and has been working just fine. This way I won't have to wait for any slow releases like in the past... :)
I'm using the 5.10.42 in both Windows 32 and x64 flavours and they work fine :)
Can't say if there is any improvement over 5.10.30 though.
I found that it breaks Synaptic if you force a newer version that it has in it's database. Tells you to do a "sudo apt-get -f" (deleting the newer BOINC) before it will allow anything in the entire system to be updated.Quote:
Originally Posted by rcofell
5.10.43 beta is now available for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux.
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download_all.php
5.10.44 beta is now available for Windows users.
32-bit version
64-bit version
5.10.44 beta is now available for Mac OS X users.
Standard GUI
Unix command-line version
5.10.44 beta is now available for Linux/Ubuntu users.
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download_all.php
5.10.45 beta is now available for Windows and Linux users.
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download_all.php
I saw there are several optimized Boinc versions for SETI. Are there no Boinc versions optimized for WCG?
I still use 5.10.30, still OK, or should i install a newer one?
The problem with using optimized clients is the BOINC quorum. If your results are way out of line with those of other quorum members, you run the risk of having your result declared invalid. Or in the case of two-member quorums, the lower of the two results will often be used for granted credit.
There are better options than optimized clients. Running a 64-bit OS and client will give you a boost in production. And you won't necessarily be punished in the quorums.
As far as which client version to use, each person has his or her favorite. You just have to try other versions to see if they are better than the recommended client.
5.10.45 beta is now available for Mac OS X users.
Standard GUI
Unix command-line version
About the optimized clients, the only reason to use an optimized [boinc] client is to match up with an optimized science application, so that your reported score(benchmark * time) is somewhat accurate when compared to someone doing the workunit with the standard science app. A workunit should be worth the same no matter how it's crunched, no? The optimized client evens things back up by boosting the benchmark, usually by compiling with SSE(1/2/3/4) optimizations through the compiler.
Granted there's the fact that the existing benchmark system isn't so great to begin with, but how else could you do an accurate comparison when it's a unique workunit being crunched by only you? The best would be a benchmark built into the specific workunit that's based on of the algorithms actually being used, but that would probably be too complex to implement, plus you'd have all the complaints about inter-project scoring... Truth be told, running a large quorum is actually the most fair of all under the existing system, since you're being paired up with a good mixture of the other computers running the project and you're all deciding on what the fair value for a workunit is. Despite the attitude sometimes expressed here, you're not getting cheated out of anything. Sure it may seem like other computers are dragging your score down, but the truth is if you have a faster computer you would have finished the workunit faster and will be able to get more done in the same time period as a slower computer. Total throughput is the factor here, score per workunit(should be constant across different machines to be fair as a scoring system) * workunits per day, much like processor speed is based on the balance of architectural efficiency and clock speed :)
This works out for seti@home, since the source code for the science app is open source and people are allowed to optimize it; this would mostly include taking advantage of newer processor instructions like SSE, or I suppose any other optimization techniques, like inline code perhaps. Now in the case of WCG, all the projects being run are closed source, so we can't tamper with the code and optimize it, even with just compiler options. This is understandable, since we're mostly dealing with medical computations, where accuracy is very important(which the quorum system should help with too).
It would be great if these projects would optimize for SSE, but the fact is they have to make it so the program runs on practically any x86 processor(i386 you could say), so it's pretty unoptimized for modern processors. Of course, boinc added the capability to read cpu instruction flags later on, so this does give the ability to select what's the most optimized science app a computer can handle, but I'm sure it won't be much use until a majority of users have a version supporting that(not sure what version it was added, maybe 5.10.x).
So this basically leaves us with this, if you run an optimized boinc client without an optimized science app, then you gain nothing. It could be considered cheating in a sense, since you're knowingly(hopefully) inflating your score, somewhat like the lazy person claiming he did the most work... It doesn't really make anything go faster computation wise, maybe the boinc client will be a little snappier, but that has almost no bearing on the workunit being crunched.
About upgrading clients, technically there should be nothing wrong staying back at 5.10.30(or probably even 5.10.23). It's just what you prefer, I like to stay up to date if I can, but sometimes I don't pay attention and run behind. New features are always nice, but there hasn't been anything major added, I think they're just maintaining the 5.10.x code base until they release 6.x.
I didn't intent on writing a book on this, but it was quite an issue a while back and thought I should voice my thoughts on it :)
P.S.
I tried running all the 6.1.x clients after 6.1.0 and they all seem to have that CA certificate issue with WCG only, since they're the only project to require a secure connection. Word is it'll be fixed in 5.10.9, so in the meantime stick to 6.1.0 or a 5.10.x release.
People searching for space aliens need all the help they can get.
http://projectsanctuary.com/SPACE/im...-spaceship.gif
Now, if only they could get the computers that can complete the WU in similar times to actually claim a similar value... I'd be relatively happy with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rcofell
Yeah, it's never spectacular using a synthetic benchmark to judge real world performance, especially when it varies between boinc versions... I take it the whetstone/drystone benchmark doesn't really stress the memory subsystem very much, whereas a science app may, or else the real mixture of integer and floating point operations. I'll have to admit it looks like my claimed scores are usually not too far off from the granted, at least within 20%, usually 10%. Using a larger quorum should even out the results, since they're basically taking the mean(with some outliers discarded) of your result and a decent of the project population(well, better than just you and another machine). Of course, I wonder if it would even be worth scrutinizing single workunit results on quorums of just two, since over time the law of large numbers should take care of discrepancies. I hate to advocate statistics, the word makes me shudder(I took a random processes course instead :) ), but that's basically that's what this becomes; the long term results should be what we're focused on, not the short term. Perhaps one day a new method will be found to calibrate the scoring, a good way would be to have each project require you to crunch a short benchmark workunit before being allowed real workunits to download and work on. That would probably yield much more consistent results and keep scoring pretty calibrated, unless the workunits vary that much; they do in execution time, but I'm not sure about the execution characteristics(instruction/algorithm usage ratios).
I wish more information on results was given to us, like the specs of the other machines in the quorum... It would be nice to have a database of what different machine specs are getting long term, but you'd have to be careful and separate by projects run. It should be realized that by running multiple wcg projects it's very similar to running different boinc projects, since each project has its own science app and thus own performance characteristics. I'm also curious how workunits are actually split up, if they keep all the windows ones separate from linux, along with x86 vs x86_64, or if they overlap them at all and it's just the client that varies.
Again I typed more than I expected, lol. I don't think it's just this screen being smaller than my normal one.
6.1.10 beta is now available for Mac OS X users.
Standard GUI
Unix command-line version
5.10.45 is now the recommended version for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux users.
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download_all.php
FYI, I've been using this version on one machine for about a week. Seems fine.:)
Just a quick question: How do you upgrade from one version to another (eg 5.10.30 to 5.10.45) without losing current work units? Is it just a matter of installing the new version to the same folder as the old one, and let Boinc do the rest?
This is a question for both Windows (Vista) and Ubuntu (where Boinc is installed by a .sh file, not the dep package).
Eller
Just install it on top of the old version. That's what I always do. The installer will remove files that are no longer needed.
NO. Then my sh1tty Pentium M would get as much credit for completing a task as an E8400, it's just that the E8400 could complete 3 times as many workunits in a given period of time, even on only one core. Another project I participate in, Primegrid, has an app (PSP Sieve) that always gives the same amount of credit, regardless of CPU time. My Pentium III gets the same 4.99 points as my friend's E6300 for completing a task. It takes my Pentium III 40 minutes to complete a task, and the E6300 12. This seems hardly fair, as my Pentium III is still working as hard as it can.Quote:
Originally Posted by rcofell
So you're basically saying you're basically in favor of getting points based on how much hardware you have running it, regardless of speed? Recycling old hardware and giving it a continued use is a good thing, but the goal of these projects is to crunch the most data the fastest, so logically the scoring system could be based on how you contribute to it in terms of work done. Besides the fact that running a bunch of old machines that run slower than a few new ones wouldn't make sense once you take into account energy costs and the such, hence I have a bunch of PIIIs I don't run(well, plus I'm at college and I prefer to sleep at night too :) ).
Sure, it'd be nice to involve effort somehow, but that's always a tough metric to measure. Of course it could also be said that if you're putting forth that much effort into a project you probably aren't in it for the points and just care for the science(how many times have I heard this before...), I couldn't say for sure though. Granted points are pretty much a game though, just a friendly competition that happens to help the project out, it gives people a reason to spend money towards the hobby :D Seems awful free market to me, another thing people tend to have a problem with sometimes :shrug:
My vista machine did NOT continue work after installing 5.10.45, hmmm, lost hours of work. But the xp machine continued on as if nothing happened.
6.1.12 beta is now available for Windows 32-bit users
Download link
Says it is not valid for XP 32-bit...
The installer says that? I have not tried it yet. It's technically an alpha version. When the middle number is odd (as in 1), that means alpha. An even number indicates beta or recommended version.
It's working with Vista x86, but it's always showing the graphics window :confused:
Back to 5.10.45...
6.1.14 is now available for Windows 32-bit users.
Download link
This is a development version, so use at your own risk.
Did you tried it?Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
No, I have not tried it. I'm happy with the BOINC versions (5.10.13, 5.10.39 & 5.10.45) that I'm using now.:)
S_B, what versions do you recommend for XP x64 and Server 2003 E 32bit? I am running 5.10.30 now.Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
Thanks,
John
I use 5.10.39 x64 on my Clovertown system with Server 2003 x64. Combination works really well. That rig averages close to 32K points a day.
5.10.13 x64 and 5.10.45 x64 on two machines that have Server 2008 x64.
5.10.13 x64 on one system with XP Pro x64.
5.10.45 on another machine with XP 32-bit.
I've always liked 5.10.13 because it runs problem-free. I'm testing to see if 5.10.45 does a little better with Server 2008.
I don't use Vista. When Microsoft stops supporting Server 2003 and XP, I will probably switch over to Linux. Server 2008 is okay for crunching. But I would never use it for daily tasks.
:) That means the possibility will rise that i get paired with better pc's, and get more points :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
Actually there are more BOINC users running Linux than Vista.:)
http://boincstats.com/stats/host_os_...hp?pr=wcg&st=0
When you are look at the average credit/os you know what i mean :)
But i have to say that since the 5.8 or 5.10 versions, the linux clients got closer to the points/wu value windows gives. Given that you have more wu/day with linux, it is maybe equal. When i (hopefully) finish school this may, i have more time to test things like that ;)
Server 2008 actually produces more points/day than Server 2003 on same system. Unfortunately Server 2008 reminds me too much of Vista. Not surprising since it uses the same kernel as Vista SP1.
This video summarizes my feelings about Vista.:D
http://www.blimptv.net/mostpopularV1.html
:ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
S_B, you never cease to amaze me. :up: :up:
It's funny, I've been running Vista for a very long time now on 4 machines and never had any problems. =/
:rofl: :rofl: I have seen this vid before, but i lost it. Thanks for posting.
I had the same feeling with 98 already, and so i switched to linux. And approx since XP i am totally microsoft free. Well, not totally, if i need win for photoshop cs3 (ps cs2 works in linux now, yay ;) ) i have my trustworthy virtualbox. There windows can do what it want, a single click and everything is in a working condition again....
Welll,...wasnt that thread about boinc versions once? :cat: :rofl:
6.1.14 is now available for Mac OS X users.
Standard GUI
Unix command-line version
Development version. Use at your own risk.
:ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: DCS,:rofl: :rofl: , i like it, you made my day!Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
6.1.14 is now available for Linux users.
Linux x86
Linux x64
Older Linux x86 & x64
Development version. Use at your own risk.
6.1.15 is now available for Mac OS X users.
Standard GUI
Unix command-line version
Development versions. Use at your own risk.
[ebuild U ] sci-misc/boinc-5.10.45
New ebuild in portage for the gentoo-crunchers. Yay.
Edit:
Works. And, if anyone needs a binpkg of it: you may download it from my server ;)
Hmm, I'm just curious, for the gentoo ebuilds does it make sure to not use any optimizations? I seem to remember compiling the trunk code directly from Berkeley based on their trac wiki instructions, but obviously the instructions were for optimizing the client's benchmarks so I had to drop back to only the -O2 flag, or maybe even not that.Quote:
Originally Posted by brot
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/CompileClient
That doesnt look like an attemp to optimize the client, even if they use very agressive cflags.
Those cflags get used in the ebuild, too:
So it looks like it is normal to build it with flags like that.Code:src_compile() {
#upstream recommendation for flags
append-flags -O3 -funroll-loops -fforce-addr -ffast-math
Hmm, because I remember using those flags when I first compiled and I was getting results way above what the normal binaries do. I'll have to see if I still have the results here, or do the testing again.
6.1.15 is now available for Linux users.
Link
Development versions. Use at your own risk.
I'm still using 6.1.0 on Vista Business x64, is that bad?
Not really, I'm still running it also. Although I should try one of the newer builds, as I'm hoping they fixed the issue they had with WCG on all the other 6.1.x releases I tried(up to 6.1.8 I'm thinking).
Well, after hours of frustration over compiling from svn, I've given up doing a comparison by manually compiling it, although maybe I'll make a script to do it for me later if I feel like it... For some reason it refuses to make the self extracting binary, although I guess I finally figured out it was actually compiling correctly( yay :rolleyes: ), just not getting to the step of archiving itself, because for some reason boincmgr doesn't compile even though the compiling doesn't end with any major errors... It does that when I compile it normally, but then when I compile it as a release it'll spit out garbage about libcurl having issues...Quote:
Originally Posted by brot
What I should've done right away was just take Berkeley's version off the site and compare it to the gentoo ebuild. I don't know how to feel, my suspicions were correct, but I wasted 3 hours in the process of getting mad at the source code(yeah, I guess I'm either too stubborn or just get too focused on a subject)...
On second thought it wasn't that hard to compile once I knew that it was actually compiling the client(luckly all you need is the base client to run the benchmark, and maybe only one or two other files thereafter to run with a project, like the one for openssl), so I've included the results.
Code:Linux: 2.6.23-gentoo-r8
Athlon X2 4200+ @ stock (yeah, yeah, it's the school's comp)
All the clients are the x86_64 ones.
5.10.45 binary from Berkeley
2090 Whetstone
4374 Dhrystone
5.10.45 ebuild with "-O3 -funroll-loops -fforce-addr -ffast-math" flags
2709 Whetstone
6033 Dhrystone
5.10.45 compiled with "-02" flag only
2102 Whetstone
4359 Dhrystone
5.10.45 compiled with "-O1" flag only
2029 Whetstone
4032 Dhrystone
Thanks for the headsup s_b. I am going to give 5.10.39 x64 a try.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
DDTUNG:cool:
http://www.getdeb.net now has deb's for BOINC 5.10.45 for *buntu :up:
6.1.16 is now available for Mac OS X users.
Standard GUI
Unix command-line version
Development versions. Use at your own risk.
6.1.16 is now available for Windows 32-bit users.
Download link
Again, this is the 32-bit version. It's a development version, so use at your own risk.
um.........looking through the thread...........I don't recall a Vista 32 bit version...........is there one?
Just use the generic Windows 32-bit (or Windows x86) version. Works fine with Vista.Quote:
Originally Posted by phelan1777
Eller
ty:DQuote:
Originally Posted by karl_eller
ok i just DLed both 5.10.13 since i didnt know which one to use. the file names are boinc_5.10.13_windows_x86_64 and boinc_5.10.13_windows_intelx86, so which one do i use? i'm assuming one is for an intel based computer and one is for an AMD?
1) Use version 5.10.45. It's the latest official full release, and gets more points than most of the older ones.
2)
boinc_[version number]_windows_x86_64 is the 64-bit client (for 64-bit operating systems).
boinc_[version number]_windows_x86 is the 32-bit client.
A 64-bit OS will net you more points, as well as possibly be more stable (depending on which OS you're using), but if you're already using a 32-bit OS then obviously you wouldn't want to change just for WCG.
Eller
Eller
6.1.17 is now available for Linux users.
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download_all.php
Development versions. Use at your own risk.
6.2.1 is now available for Windows 32-bit and Mac OS X users.
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download_all.php
Development versions. Use at your own risk.
6.2.1 is now available for Linux users. See link in previous post.
6.2.2 is now available for Windows 32-bit and Mac OS X users.
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download_all.php
Development versions. Use at your own risk.
6.2.2 is now available for Linux users. See link in previous post.
6.2.4 is now available for Windows 32-bit and Mac OS X users.
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download_all.php
Development versions. Use at your own risk.
6.2.4 is now available for Linux users. See link in previous post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
OK, I am finely get this squared away for a 24/7 crunching rig. I plan on using Linux x64, since I do not want to purchase another operating system. So, Sierra, do I download 'Ubunto x64' from http://www.ubuntu.com/ and burn an .iso image to a cd and install, then install 'Boinc' from
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download_all.php or does the above link install both Linux x64 and Boinc?
Thanks
The link above installs BOINC only ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by doakh
BOINC is included in Ubuntu x64 (though it may not be the latest version). You just need to install the BOINC client and manager using the Synaptic Package Manager. Takes about a minute to do. Instructions can be found here.
Installing the latest version of BOINC for Linux x64 is a little more complicated. Follow the instructions on this page.
6.2.5 is available for XP/Vista 64-bit users.
Download link
Development version. Use at your own risk.
6.2.6 is now available for Windows users.
32-bit version
64-bit version
Development versions. Use at your own risk.
6.2.6 is now available for Mac OS X users.
Standard GUI
Unix command-line version
6.2.8 beta is now available for Windows 32-bit users.
Download link
Development version. Use at your own risk.
6.2.8 beta is now available for Mac OS X users.
Standard GUI
Unix command-line version
6.2.9 beta is now available for Windows 32-bit users.
Download link
Are these V6 clients any good? I'm still on 5.10.45 on all rigs... but willing to change if the new ones are faster ;)
6.2.9 beta is now available for Windows 64-bit users.
Download link