I know from past experience that O3 does a crazy amount of inlining. So I didn't want it to blow up on me the first time given the codesize of yc.
I'll play with it later.
EDIT:
Found the source of why the validation files were all screwed up.
Linux uses 4 bytes for wchar_t...
Which makes it inherently incompatible with Windows... Not sure what I'm gonna do.
Here's the first semi-biased comparison between Windows and Linux using the x64 - SSE3 binary.
It's semi-biased because the program hasn't been tuned for GCC or Linux yet.
(click to enlarge)
http://www.numberworld.org/y-crunche...2010_small.png
http://www.numberworld.org/y-crunche...2010_small.png
The validation file is the only thing left to do. :D So hopefully it won't be too long. :rolleyes:
Seems that it all boils down to CPU multicore utilization, I wonder why though. Could be OpenMP overhead but I doubt it.
Are my scores ok? Not sure if I'm running the app correctly.
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/3576/500kf.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Wow!!! You definitely ran it right! :rofl::rofl::rofl:
It can definitely be tuned better, but that's still hard to beat without going multi-socket!
About the linux port: I just finished fixing a huge (and very annoying) issue with scanf() not working for string inputs... bleh :shakes::shakes::shakes:
So I'll get to the validation file later... :rolleyes:
Other than that, it's mostly working now.
Benchmark obviously works.
Stress test works.
Haven't tested batch mode yet - but I see no reason for it to not work.
All 3 computation modes seem to work - though I haven't tested the swap modes with multiple HDs yet.
(I need either my i7 rig or my 64GB workstation to test multiple HDs. But I'm currently moving back to Illinois, so they're both offline right now... :rofl:)
And I still need to test the compressed output and the digit viewers...
Just something I stumbled upon which you mihght find interesting once you start the optimizing work: http://ompf.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=896
Here is another result for 250k & 32m & 256m
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/4874/250k.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/7031/32ml.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/2685/256m.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Nice results! Updated the list.
Okay... So due to random reasons, I was told that I absolutely had to get a Linux version released before the end of this week.
Since my graduate dorm hasn't opened yet, I'm stuck in a hotel right now without access to the all my stuff that's in storage (which includes my two monitors and my i7 rig).
And because I needed to get this done, I had to go out and grab a new monitor so that I could get my workstation back online... (I only brought the rig with me, no monitor... :rofl:)
So I probably have the most ridiculous computer in the entire hotel right now... :rofl::ROTF::shakes:
And with that, I spent this whole night working on the Linux port... I think it's working well enough to be released. Enjoy!
http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/#Download
I guess at this point, it's gonna be the users who will help me find bugs. :rolleyes:
(click to enlarge)
Here's a tiny Advanced Swap Mode test using all 8 HDs...
http://www.numberworld.org/y-crunche..._8hd_small.png
And here's the 10b all-in-ram test that I do way too often... :shakes:
http://www.numberworld.org/y-crunche...gisa_small.png
btw, the clock in that Linux boot is completely messed up. It always resets to 7 - 9 hours ahead or behind the correct time every time I boot into Windows and then boot into Linux... :shrug:
Oh. Linux version out, awesome! Now I just need a x64 linux box and I can finally test yc myself. :)
Oh, and CPU multicore efficiency went up? Or is it just due to a longer run?
The clock issue is is because of the difference between how Linux handles the clock and how Windows handles it.
You have most probably set the linux clock settings to UTC time, which means that to figure out the time, it substracts your timezome(GMT-8?) from the localtime(BIOS clock). Windows doesn't do this, it just uses whatever time the BIOS gives it. I haven't used Ubuntu for a long while so I can't quite help fixing it, apart from suggesting to take a look at the System menu. :)
It's probably just the sheer size of the run.
The CPU usage approaches 100% as the size goes up when it's all done in ram.
One more crack at it with a little tweaking.:rocker:
http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/9476/500k2.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://eaglelake.homelinux.net/~jura...-fix1-500m.png
Multi-core efficiency: 97.4699 %
I would say thats pretty good for Core 2 Quad :up:
Gentoo amd64
2.6.34-gentoo-r1 kernel
Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.4GHz, 8GB 1066MHz DDR2
btw, nice program, do you plan to release it's sources? :)
Nice results! And the first Linux benchie. :D
Getting kinda late here, so I'll update later... I need to start color-coding the entires for Windows and Linux. :rofl:
97% does seem ridiculously high for "any" quad-core machine... I guess that's where Linux starts to show it's advantages over Windows.
Once I've settled down and finished moving in to my dorm, I'll compile the other binaries for Linux to see what improvements they'll have (if any). Then I'll start playing with the GCC compiler options.
And when that's done, I'll do a full batch benchmark run from 25m to 10b on my workstation for Windows and Linux to see how they compare. :p:
p.s. Looks like Linux DOES have colored console output... Need to do that whenever I get the time. At least get it to start "looking like" the Windows versions. :rofl::rofl::rofl:
Updated. ;)
@ hlonipha
I just noticed that your new 500m is a lot faster. :shocked:
Just curious, what did you tweak? 139 -> 126 is a huge. :up:
Many thanks for this, love your work :)
A question, when it says the "digits appear to be ok" is that actually making sure the CPU has not lost its marbles due to an OC? I like in Prime95 how it will clearly error out if the CPU looses the plot.
It just means that the digits are correct. So yes it's to make sure that the computation is correct and that there are no errors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nullack
If the digits are wrong, it will tell you. It means the hardware errored. (it could also be a bug in the program, but that's not likely since everyone runs them all the time.)
Just checked in on this. Glad you got the Linux version working :)
Constant : Pi
Algorithm: Chudnovsky Formula
Decimal Digits : 500,000,000
Hexadecimal Digits: Disabled
Threads: 16
Mode : Ram Only
Start Time: Tue Aug 24 12:45:37 2010
Allocating and Reserving Memory... 2.42 GB
Constructing FFT lookup tables...
Begin Computation:
Summing Series: 35,256,838 terms
Time: 164.065 seconds ( 0.046 hours )
InvSqrt...
Time: 7.181 seconds ( 0.002 hours )
Final Multiply...
Time: 3.799 seconds ( 0.001 hours )
Pi: 175.045 seconds ( 0.049 hours )
Constructing Base Conversion Table:
Time: 0.963 seconds ( 0.000 hours )
Base Converting:
Time: 22.879 seconds ( 0.006 hours )
Writing Decimal Digits: 500,000,001 digits written
Verifying Base Conversion...
Time: 5.742 seconds ( 0.002 hours )
End Time: Tue Aug 24 12:49:09 2010
Total Computation Time: 198.945 seconds ( 0.055 hours )
Total Time (with output + verify): 212.407 seconds ( 0.059 hours )
CPU Utilization: 1190.53 %
Multi-core Efficiency: 74.4084 %
Last Digits: Pi
3896531789 0364496761 5664275325 5483742003 7847987772 : 499,999,950
5002477883 0364214864 5906800532 7052368734 3293261427 : 500,000,000
Version: 0.5.4 Build 9150 (fix 1) (x64 SSE3 - Linux)
Processor(s): Unable to Detect
Logical Cores: 16
Physical Memory: Unable to Detect
CPU Frequency: Unable to Detect
Benchmark Successful. The digits appear to be OK.
Result File: Validation - Pi - 500,000,000.txt
Dual L5520 w/ 72GB of ram running Ubuntu 10.04 x64. Now I just need to find a way to cluster these boxes, 10GbE backbone would make it possible. Time to research Beowulf clusters :up:
10 Billion digits in 4699 seconds. Ran out of disk space, only had a 10GB partition for the main drive :D
Constant : Pi
Algorithm: Chudnovsky Formula
Decimal Digits : 10,000,000,000
Hexadecimal Digits: Disabled
Threads: 16
Mode : Ram Only
Start Time: Tue Aug 24 13:01:04 2010
Allocating and Reserving Memory... 45.0 GB
Constructing FFT lookup tables...
Begin Computation:
Summing Series: 705,136,696 terms
Time: 4511.288 seconds ( 1.253 hours )
InvSqrt...
Time: 124.614 seconds ( 0.035 hours )
Final Multiply...
Time: 64.026 seconds ( 0.018 hours )
Pi: 4699.929 seconds ( 1.306 hours )
Constructing Base Conversion Table:
Time: 16.307 seconds ( 0.005 hours )
Base Converting:
Time: 586.732 seconds ( 0.163 hours )
Writing Decimal Digits: 4,232,205,921 digits written
Error Writing File.
:rofl::rofl: lol... Only 10GB.
Benchmark mode will always write to the path that is in the cmdline when the program is launched. So you can cd to whatever path you want before you launch y-cruncher.
Custom Compute will let you choose the path.
Speaking of large tests... I'm running a 50b run in Linux on my workstation... I need to do a large run that isn't bufferable just to see the impact of using non-raw I/Os...
(click to enlarge)
http://www.numberworld.org/y-crunche...2010_small.png
Once my new 2TB HD gets here I'll be able to clear out the 4 x 1TB in my i7 machine enough to start doing Linux tests on that as well...
Then I'll be able to build the Ushio and Nagisa binaries for Linux. :D
But I can't build the Kasumi binary for AMD K10 anymore because I no longer have access to the machine that I used to make it... :(
A little update on the Linux version:
So I got all the minor features like CPU and frequency detection to work. :D
But... I had to use a bit of assembly to access the cpuid and rdtsc instructions to do this... So I guess the program isn't 100% C/C++ anymore... :(:rofl:
As far as optimizations go:
I tried O3... It doubled the size of the binary and made it about 1% slower...
So that's a no-go... Though I was half expecting it since I knew it would inline things that I wouldn't want it to.
So I tried raw I/Os... The raw I/O interface in Linux is the same as in Windows with the same alignment restrictions (all addresses and sizes have to be a multiple of the cluster size of 512 or 4096 bytes).
That seemed easy enough, so I basically copy/pasted the WinAPI implementation into the Linux implementation and replaced all the I/O calls with the Linux versions...
Initial tests on 50b tests showed that it ended up being 20 - 50% slower than the non-raw I/Os... :shrug::shrug::shrug: (On Windows, raw I/Os were about 10 - 20% faster than non-raw... :confused:)
On the other hand, raw I/Os seem to be fastest on smaller test sizes...
I'm still toying with this right now... I'm not sure if it's because Linux does something very inefficient with NTFS drives in raw I/O mode... (the 8 x 2TB swap drives are still NTFS formatted since I use them in Windows)
Whatever the case, this is taking an annoying long time since these tests take half a day or more...
(click to enlarge)
My laptop: Intel Core i7 720QM @ 1.6 GHz (stock)
http://www.numberworld.org/y-crunche...2010_small.png
My i7 rig: Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.33 GHz (3.5 GHz turbo)
http://www.numberworld.org/y-crunche...2010_small.png
p.s.
Is it just me or does WUBI eat a small percentage of the ram?
My laptop is reporting in with 7.8 GB.
My i7 rig is reporting 11.7.
But my workstation (which has a native Linux install) reports the full 64GB.
It should be possible to get the CPU info without any assembly. At least by reading /proc/cpuinfo and parsing the data from there. It should include everything you'd be interested in.
I would guess the NTFS support isn't greates on Linux, it used to be very experimental few years ago. I would suggest formatting one of the drives to use ext4 filesystem, it seems to be the fastest all-around filesystem currently, but since there are lots of candidates(xfs, ext2, ext3, reiserfs etc) it could be that there is more suitable filesystem for the work yc does.
Using -O2 and cherrypicking the best optimizations(if any) from that -O3 enables should result in the best outcome. Also trying to disable some -O2 enabled optimizations could help too, though it's most probably not worth the effort.
Have you tried any -march/-mtune (they're actually the same as far as I know) switches?
So it says -O3 includes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
-finline-functions
-funswitch-loops
-fpredictive-commoning
-fgcse-after-reload
-ftree-vectorize
I looked at each of those, and it looks -finline-functions is the only one that will affect performance-critical code. And since most of the stuff that is worth inlining are already inlined (by abusing macros)... probably explains why it backfires.
The list of other optimizations in GCC is huge... I haven't looked at all of them yet. One that seems interesting is -funsafe-math-optimizations, but I'm not sure if it's able to optimize around messy SSE instructions that mix stuff like addsubpd and haddpd/hsubpd into the normal addpd/subpd instructions.
I'll try this later once I'm through with the raw I/O stuff.
EDIT:
I'm actually pretty surprised at how many "unsafe" optimizations I can turn on and still keep the program working... but none of them seem to produce any noticeable speedup. :(
I'm not a fan of compiler tuning/profiling since it tends to give inconsistent speeds between different versions of the program...
a little pic, that helps a lot :p:
http://eaglelake.homelinux.net/~juraj/Optimizations.png
btw, why not just use tmpfs (it's almost like RAMdisk), put there 50gig file and test your RAW I/O from there?
I think there is no need to run the computational part and create same 50gig PI file over and over again...
tmpfs hint:
add one line to your /etc/fstab
something like:
tmpfs /testdir tmpfs size=50G,mode=0775,uid=YOURUSERNAME,gid=YOURGROUP 0 0
edit yourusername and yourgroup to match your's
(or just set mode to 0777 and make that directory writeable for everyone)
be sure not to delete the other lines in fstab :D
and then run "mount -a"
btw, do you use ncurses for colored output?
with ntfs I recomend ntfs-3g, it's userspace implementation, and works very well, (last time I used it was about a year ago and it was flawless)
in Ubuntu search with aptitude for ntfs3g or ntfs-3g (not sure how it's called there...)
PS:
You are not OCing, you are not Xtreme :ROTF:
EDIT: ok, just noticed :D you are OCing your i7, good boy :ROTF: