Page 17 of 33 FirstFirst ... 71415161718192027 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 425 of 813

Thread: New Multi-Threaded Pi Program - Faster than SuperPi and PiFast

  1. #401
    Xtreme Mentor Particle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,101
    I appreciate your explanation. It's interesting to hear about the internals of a project like your own, being a programmer. I hadn't really paid much attention to what error I was getting once I realized it was a pattern. I ran it again just now though, and this is what it shows (attached).

    I didn't realize you could set the memory when I started it. I'd actually launched it Monday morning just to serve as a stress test after making some cooling changes to the system. I decided to let it keep going. heh I've only got 8GB of memory in this box and need most of that for my daily stuff, as you can tell. Using an extra 2GB of memory for ycrunch caused a memory low condition while I was doing daily development and gaming. All your other guys doing 100B runs have rigs with much greater amounts of memory than I.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
    As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.

    Rule 1A:
    Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.

    Rule 2:
    When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.

    Rule 2A:
    When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.

    Rule 3:
    When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.

    Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!

    Random Tip o' the Whatever
    You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.

  2. #402
    Xtreme Enthusiast poke349's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by Particle View Post
    I appreciate your explanation. It's interesting to hear about the internals of a project like your own, being a programmer. I hadn't really paid much attention to what error I was getting once I realized it was a pattern. I ran it again just now though, and this is what it shows (attached).

    I didn't realize you could set the memory when I started it. I'd actually launched it Monday morning just to serve as a stress test after making some cooling changes to the system. I decided to let it keep going. heh I've only got 8GB of memory in this box and need most of that for my daily stuff, as you can tell. Using an extra 2GB of memory for ycrunch caused a memory low condition while I was doing daily development and gaming. All your other guys doing 100B runs have rigs with much greater amounts of memory than I.
    What does the bottom of the validation file say?

    Normally it is:
    Code:
    Last Digits:
    3803750790 9491563108 2381689226 7224175329 0045253446  :  24,999,950
    0786411592 4597806944 2455112852 2554677483 6191884322  :  25,000,000
    
    Timer Sanity Check:      Passed
    Frequency Sanity Check:  Passed
    ECC Recovered Errors:    0
    But you should be getting something else when it fails.
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  3. #403
    Xtreme Mentor Particle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,101
    Timer sanity check failure.

    Code:
    Validation Version:  1.0
    
    Processor(s):        Six-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2427
    Logical Cores:       12
    Physical Memory:     8,587,915,264 ( 8.00 GB )
    CPU Frequency:       2,385,183,943
    
    Program Version:     0.5.2 Build 9082 Alpha 3 (x64 SSE3 - Windows ~ Kasumi)
    Constant:            Pi
    Algorithm:           Chudnovsky Formula
    Decimal Digits:      50,000,000
    Hexdecimal Digits:   Disabled
    Threading Mode:      16 threads
    Computation Mode:    Ram Only
    Swap Disks:          0
    Working Memory:      332 MB
    
    Start Time:          Sat Mar 20 01:19:53 2010
    End Time:            Sat Mar 20 01:20:16 2010
    
    Computation Time:    19.994 seconds
    Total Time:          21.454 seconds
    
    CPU Utilization:         825.39 %
    Multi-core Efficiency:   68.78 %
    
    Last Digits:
    4127897300 0153683630 8346732220 0943329365 1632962502  :  49,999,950
    5130045796 0464561703 2424263071 4554183801 7945652654  :  50,000,000
    
    Timer Sanity Check:      Failed
    Frequency Sanity Check:  Passed
    ECC Recovered Errors:    0
    
    ----
    
    Checksum:    53cc1527bc87df760d3dd7a2bb049be5848e39eb4325ca2c19572a8d6af91b1d
    Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
    As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.

    Rule 1A:
    Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.

    Rule 2:
    When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.

    Rule 2A:
    When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.

    Rule 3:
    When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.

    Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!

    Random Tip o' the Whatever
    You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.

  4. #404
    Xtreme Enthusiast poke349's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by Particle View Post
    Timer sanity check failure.

    Code:
    Validation Version:  1.0
    
    Processor(s):        Six-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2427
    Logical Cores:       12
    Physical Memory:     8,587,915,264 ( 8.00 GB )
    CPU Frequency:       2,385,183,943
    
    Program Version:     0.5.2 Build 9082 Alpha 3 (x64 SSE3 - Windows ~ Kasumi)
    Constant:            Pi
    Algorithm:           Chudnovsky Formula
    Decimal Digits:      50,000,000
    Hexdecimal Digits:   Disabled
    Threading Mode:      16 threads
    Computation Mode:    Ram Only
    Swap Disks:          0
    Working Memory:      332 MB
    
    Start Time:          Sat Mar 20 01:19:53 2010
    End Time:            Sat Mar 20 01:20:16 2010
    
    Computation Time:    19.994 seconds
    Total Time:          21.454 seconds
    
    CPU Utilization:         825.39 %
    Multi-core Efficiency:   68.78 %
    
    Last Digits:
    4127897300 0153683630 8346732220 0943329365 1632962502  :  49,999,950
    5130045796 0464561703 2424263071 4554183801 7945652654  :  50,000,000
    
    Timer Sanity Check:      Failed
    Frequency Sanity Check:  Passed
    ECC Recovered Errors:    0
    
    ----
    
    Checksum:    53cc1527bc87df760d3dd7a2bb049be5848e39eb4325ca2c19572a8d6af91b1d
    That's interesting... I guess I overestimated the precision of the hardware timers on some of these motherboards...

    Another thing to add to my to-do list for v0.5.3.

    Anyways, I'm off for the night. Gotta catch a plane tomorrow morning.
    Last edited by poke349; 03-19-2010 at 10:40 PM.
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  5. #405
    Xtreme Mentor Particle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,101
    Good night. Have a good trip!
    Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
    As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.

    Rule 1A:
    Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.

    Rule 2:
    When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.

    Rule 2A:
    When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.

    Rule 3:
    When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.

    Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!

    Random Tip o' the Whatever
    You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.

  6. #406
    Xtreme Enthusiast poke349's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by Particle View Post
    Good night. Have a good trip!
    Thanks! Going home for spring break.
    About to head to the airport. Guess I'll be spending the time on the plane migrating the program to the new thread API that I just knocked up.
    (If I can manage to open up my 17-in. laptop on a seat tray... )

    Then I'll tweak the validation to make it less sensitive to clock variation...
    (I might need your help for this, since I don't have a system with a very imprecise hardware timer like yours - assuming that's the problem.)

    The last thing I have planned for v0.5.3 is a new conversion algorithm.
    It's based on the same approach that was used to set the current Pi record and is 3 - 4x faster than one I'm currently using. So I guess the credit goes Fabrice Ballard for coming up with such an ingenious algorithm... (or whoever he got the idea from)

    I doubt I'll finish this before I get back to school, since I'll probably be spending the whole break fixing my workstation and getting trashed with my high school friends...

    With this new algorithm, the program should be 10 - 20% faster.
    This gives me room to insert some new redundancy checks without making v0.5.3 any slower than v0.5.2.
    Last edited by poke349; 03-20-2010 at 08:22 AM. Reason: typo fix
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  7. #407
    Xtreme Cruncher skycrane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,288
    have a great time on spring break

    remember, dont eat the worm,
    Its not overkill if it works.


  8. #408
    Xtreme Mentor Particle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,101
    Hey, some people do.
    Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
    As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.

    Rule 1A:
    Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.

    Rule 2:
    When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.

    Rule 2A:
    When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.

    Rule 3:
    When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.

    Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!

    Random Tip o' the Whatever
    You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.

  9. #409
    Xtreme Enthusiast poke349's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by Particle View Post
    Hey, some people do.


    Spent all of yesterday debugging my workstation... No matter what I did, it always managed to fail Linpack (or some other stress test, but it fails Linpack the fastest).
    I switched the PS... same results.
    I switch the processors... same
    Clock down to 2.4 GHz... same
    I individually stress each core, and every combination of 2 and 4 cores... same
    I test with only one processor. (and switch them around too)... same

    Gonna try to get a mobo RMA today. I live 20min. from the Tyan RMA department.


    Anyways... I finished migrating the program to the new thread library. It has the new protocol that checks if a thread has its task before it is terminated.
    I haven't made any attempt to implement any sort of recovery measure yet... since that's more complicated.

    It was a major change, but it looks stable for now. I need either my Core i7 rig (which is back in my dorm), or my workstation (which is down) to test it...


    Lastly, here's some very large results that I got over the past few days:

    W. Wong & R. Chang: 50 billion digits of Pi - 8 socket monster
    Note that program hasn't been optimized for NUMA so the scaling is crap...
    Code:
    Constant :  Pi
    Algorithm:  Chudnovsky Formula
    
    Decimal Digits    :   50,000,000,000
    Hexadecimal Digits:   41,524,101,187
    
    Threads:    32
    Mode   :    Basic Swap  ( Disks = 1 )
    
    Start Time: Fri Mar 19 17:43:51 2010
    
    Allocating and Reserving Memory...       100 GB
    Constructing FFT lookup tables...
    Setting Permissions for File Allocation...
    
    Begin Computation:
    
    Summing Series:  3,525,683,470 terms
    Time:    52347.467 seconds  ( 14.541 hours )
    InvSqrt...
    Time:    2574.078 seconds  ( 0.715 hours )
    Final Multiply...
    Time:    3706.343 seconds  ( 1.030 hours )
    
    Pi:  58627.890 seconds  ( 16.286 hours )
    
    Writing Hexadecimal Digits:   41,524,101,188  digits written
    
    Constructing Base Conversion Table:
    Time:    2505.771 seconds  ( 0.696 hours )
    Base Converting (Primary Cutting Parameters):
    Time:    13961.596 seconds  ( 3.878 hours )
    
    Writing Decimal Digits:   50,000,000,001  digits written
    
    End Time:   Sat Mar 20 15:25:57 2010
    
    Total Computation Time:                 75095.294 seconds  ( 20.860 hours )
    Total Time (including writing digits):  78124.232 seconds  ( 21.701 hours )
    
    CPU Utilization:        2010.91 %
    Multi-core Efficiency:  62.8411 %
    
    Last Digits:  Pi
    3967497298 9229992389 7944203755 6895008004 9953150775  :  49,999,999,950
    6599559400 3447556105 3766739199 8513398712 7510930042  :  50,000,000,000
    
    Version:          0.5.2 Build 9082 Alpha 3 (x64 SSE3 - Windows ~ Kasumi)
    Processor(s):     Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 8356
    Logical Cores:    32
    Physical Memory:  154,615,586,816 (  144 GB )
    CPU Frequency:    2,300,188,015 Hz  (frequency may be inaccurate)
    
    Result File: Validation - Pi - 50,000,000,000.txt
    
    
    Press any key to continue . . .



    Shigeru Kondo: 1 trillion digits of Sqrt(2) - New World Record
    Below are the two computations that were used to compute and verify.
    The Core i7 975 was actually overclocked to 4 GHz via multiplier. But the program can't detect non-stock multiplier frequencies. So it still reads at 3.33 GHz.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  10. #410
    Xtreme Enthusiast poke349's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    700
    Finally got my workstation up and running again...
    I drove the Tyan's RMA lab in Fremont, CA to drop off the mobo (and the CPUs, ram, and video card to make sure everything else was fine).
    They confirmed a problem with the mobo and gave me a new one. So I went and picked it up on Friday. (along with all the other stuff I left with them)
    Spent the rest of Friday putting it back together, reconfiguring the hardware and installing Win7.

    Here's some pictures. (Click to enlarge)



    The hardware changes were that I switched the video card with a GTS 250 and replaced the SSD with a 1.5 TB HD.
    The RMA lab said that my old 9800 GTX+ was failing. (Though it still seems to work fine, I'm not gonna trust it anymore.)
    The SSD was one of the old write-bricking ones. I couldn't stand it anymore so I turned it into a flash drive.

    I also put cages on the Ultra Kaze fans.
    They've spilled enough blood already... And I'm not kidding...


    I've never actually run any v0.5.2 Advanced Swap computations on it because it went down shortly before I finished v0.5.2.
    Now I can finally let it rip through and see what it can do...

    Tomorrow... hopefully I'll have something - along with a sneak peak into v0.5.3.
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  11. #411
    Xtreme Enthusiast poke349's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    700
    And it's DONE!!!



    (click to enlarge)
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  12. #412
    Registered User Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    67
    Glad to hear you got your workstation up and running again! if i had more storage on mine, i would run some swap mode runs as well. all my drives are bound by a single gigabit connection to my server that has 6 1tb drives in it.

    I haven't had the ultra Kazes draw blood yet....
    Try my multi-threaded prime benchmark!
    If you like it and want to see more - bitcoin me!!
    1MrPonziaM4QT2S7SdPEKQH88BGa4LRHJU
    1HaxXoRZhMLxMJwJ52VfAqanSuLuh8CCki
    1ZomGoxrBqyVdBvHwPLEERsGGQAtc3jHp
    1L33thAxKo1GqRWRYP5ZCK4EjTMUTHFsc8

  13. #413
    Xtreme Enthusiast poke349's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Glad to hear you got your workstation up and running again! if i had more storage on mine, i would run some swap mode runs as well. all my drives are bound by a single gigabit connection to my server that has 6 1tb drives in it.

    I haven't had the ultra Kazes draw blood yet....
    Thanks!

    Been itchin to run Advanced Swap Mode on my workstation since it went down in January.

    Just that sheer power of ram... it's not the fastest machine, but it should still beat Dave's 12-core monster to 100b - provided he doesn't throw in a couple dozen VelociRaptors...


    EDIT:
    About the Ultra Kazes... Between me and two of my friends... we've had close to 10 deep cuts from Ultra Kazes (we have about 5 of them)... Each time... resulting in blood spewing out like a fountain or like in an Anime when someone gets beheaded... (sorry for being so graphic...)

    yeah... painful... gross... whatever... totally worth the 2 dollars for the cages...
    Last edited by poke349; 03-28-2010 at 02:59 PM.
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  14. #414
    V3 Xeons coming soon! Movieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    33,392
    Quote Originally Posted by poke349 View Post
    Thanks!

    Been itchin to run Advanced Swap Mode on my workstation since it went down in January.

    Just that sheer power of ram... it's not the fastest machine, but it should still beat Dave's 12-core monster to 100b - provided he doesn't throw in a couple dozen VelociRaptors...


    EDIT:
    About the Ultra Kazes... Between me and two of my friends... we've had close to 10 deep cuts from Ultra Kazes (we have about 5 of them)... Each time... resulting in blood spewing out like a fountain or like in an Anime when someone gets beheaded... (sorry for being so graphic...)

    yeah... painful... gross... whatever... totally worth the 2 dollars for the cages...
    In that machine right now is one 36 gig raptor as a boot drive and a WD Black 750 gig for storage..That's it and was that a challenge I heard?
    Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
    The XS WCG team needs your support.
    A good project with good goals.
    Come join us,get that warm fuzzy feeling that you've done something good for mankind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frisch View Post
    If you have lost faith in humanity, then hold a newborn in your hands.

  15. #415
    Xtreme Enthusiast poke349's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by Movieman View Post
    In that machine right now is one 36 gig raptor as a boot drive and a WD Black 750 gig for storage..That's it and was that a challenge I heard?
    THAT's RIGHT Dave!!! I'm challenging you to beat 31 hours on 100 billion digits.

    If you accept, I'll send you the same build that I used, which is 0.5.3.9103.


    So the question is: Can your 12 OC'ed and HT'ed cores make up for a lack of ram?
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  16. #416
    V3 Xeons coming soon! Movieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    33,392
    Quote Originally Posted by poke349 View Post
    THAT's RIGHT Dave!!! I'm challenging you to beat 31 hours on 100 billion digits.

    If you accept, I'll send you the same build that I used, which is 0.5.3.9103.


    So the question is: Can your 12 OC'ed and HT'ed cores make up for a lack of ram?
    so I need to go buy 12-4 gig sticks of DDR3-1333 ECC and maybe 10-2 tera drives correct...Ahhh, nope unless you want to send the check!
    Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
    The XS WCG team needs your support.
    A good project with good goals.
    Come join us,get that warm fuzzy feeling that you've done something good for mankind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frisch View Post
    If you have lost faith in humanity, then hold a newborn in your hands.

  17. #417
    Xtreme Enthusiast poke349's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by Movieman View Post
    so I need to go buy 12-4 gig sticks of DDR3-1333 ECC and maybe 10-2 tera drives correct...Ahhh, nope unless you want to send the check!
    Dave's afraid to lose... Dave's afraid to lose...

    jk... *expects banhammer*

    That would be overkill. I think 4 - 8 x 2TB drives will be enough. Extra ram probably isn't necessary...
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  18. #418
    Xtreme Mentor Particle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,101
    It probably never came up since it's so old, but y-cruncher doesn't appear to run on Windows 2000 SP4. You might want to make a notice of that on the download page. Error in Kernel32.dll shortly after launch.
    Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
    As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.

    Rule 1A:
    Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.

    Rule 2:
    When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.

    Rule 2A:
    When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.

    Rule 3:
    When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.

    Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!

    Random Tip o' the Whatever
    You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.

  19. #419
    Xtreme Enthusiast poke349's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by Particle View Post
    It probably never came up since it's so old, but y-cruncher doesn't appear to run on Windows 2000 SP4. You might want to make a notice of that on the download page. Error in Kernel32.dll shortly after launch.
    Good point

    This seems to be the reason why it needs XP or later:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...8VS.85%29.aspx


    I think I almost accidentally used a Vista or later function once. But it was a good thing I took a good look at the function specs before I did it.
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  20. #420
    Xtreme Enthusiast poke349's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    700
    Dave... Try and beat this!!!

    The validations don't work on these because they were run with build 9074 (which was before I fixed it).

    Credit: Daniel Ghidali

    Code:
    Validation Version:  1.0
    
    Processor(s):        Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X7560 @ 2.27GHz
    Logical Cores:       32
    Physical Memory:     137,424,424,960 ( 128 GB )
    CPU Frequency:       2,261,038,496
    
    Program Version:     0.5.2 Build 9074 Alpha 3 (x64 SSE4.1 - Windows ~ Ushio)
    Constant:            Pi
    Algorithm:           Chudnovsky Formula
    Decimal Digits:      10,000,000,000
    Hexdecimal Digits:   Disabled
    Threading Mode:      32 threads
    Computation Mode:    Ram Only
    Swap Disks:          0
    Working Memory:      46.2 GB
    
    Start Time:          Fri Mar 05 23:14:54 2010
    
    End Time:            Sat Mar 06 00:01:35 2010
    
    
    Computation Time:    2,276.566 seconds
    Total Time:          2,800.493 seconds
    
    CPU Utilization:         2613.05 %
    Multi-core Efficiency:   81.65 %
    
    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:    01c4398c710d6dbe00ce7f0778af8bec0ace5e4837666302196bfdaf5e576c10

    Code:
    Validation Version:  1.0
    
    Processor(s):        Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X7560 @ 2.27GHz
    Logical Cores:       32
    Physical Memory:     137,424,424,960 ( 128 GB )
    CPU Frequency:       2,261,038,352
    
    Program Version:     0.5.2 Build 9074 Alpha 3 (x64 SSE4.1 - Windows ~ Ushio)
    Constant:            Pi
    Algorithm:           Chudnovsky Formula
    Decimal Digits:      25,000,000,000
    Hexdecimal Digits:   Disabled
    Threading Mode:      32 threads
    Computation Mode:    Ram Only
    Swap Disks:          0
    Working Memory:      116 GB
    
    Start Time:          Sat Mar 06 09:06:41 2010
    
    End Time:            Sat Mar 06 11:12:45 2010
    
    
    Computation Time:    6,192.782 seconds
    Total Time:          7,564.867 seconds
    
    CPU Utilization:         2655.72 %
    Multi-core Efficiency:   82.99 %
    
    Last Digits:
    2448547079 5329693979 7145627081 9204187454 9483487803  :  24,999,999,950
    1309759846 5364560010 7388984278 8403481193 9913806533  :  25,000,000,000
    
    Timer Sanity Check:      Passed
    Frequency Sanity Check:  Passed
    ECC Recovered Errors:    0
    
    ----
    
    Checksum:    5dd78330683ccafd0bfdebf821112eb7b1308cf69ca057f713eb27cb1748e55a
    Last edited by poke349; 04-02-2010 at 01:08 PM.
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  21. #421
    V3 Xeons coming soon! Movieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    33,392
    Now how the hell can I match that as I only have 12 gig.
    Have this person do a one billion run and I'll roll over that 16 core/32 thread slowpoke like they are sitting still!
    Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
    The XS WCG team needs your support.
    A good project with good goals.
    Come join us,get that warm fuzzy feeling that you've done something good for mankind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frisch View Post
    If you have lost faith in humanity, then hold a newborn in your hands.

  22. #422
    Xtreme Enthusiast poke349's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    700
    A couple of larger test runs for v0.5.3. Still a lot more tests to do...

    10 billion on my old Pentium D @ 2.8 GHz : (click to enlarge)


    250 billion on my workstation: (click to enlarge)



    As mentioned, v0.5.3 is about 10% - 15% faster than v0.5.2 depending on the computation size. (for Pi)
    This time, the speedup is entirely algorithmic, so it is the same for both AMD and Intel, and across all processors.

    This makes it the biggest speedup this program has had to date for all processors except on Core i7 between v0.4.2 - v0.4.3
    - which I think is just enough to put it ahead of both PiFast 4.3 and QuickPi 4.5 for single-threaded runs (and using the same instruction sets for fairness).
    It's still slower than TPI on anything with fewer than 4 cores... but at least it ties it on 4-core and beats it on 8-core.

    Single-threaded performance was always (and still is) y-cruncher's achilles' heel. But at least it isn't as embarrassing as it used to be...


    The other major change I made is in the stress-test feature:
    • It will now run in Below Normal priority. This gives the system a bit more responsiveness since y-cruncher had a tendency of starving everything else of CPU.
    • When one threads stops due to an error, the other thread will stop after it finishes (or fails) its current test. (So both threads will now stop after an error.)
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  23. #423
    Xtreme Enthusiast poke349's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    700
    I've attached some more results on quad-socket Beckton. (4 x 8 physical cores)
    25m all the way up to 25b - All in RAM!!!
    (Credit: Daniel Ghidali)


    Dave's OC'd X5680's are indeed still faster for the sizes that he can run.
    It's obvious that NUMA + low clock speed prevents the Becktons from scaling well on smaller sizes.



    And also...


    Version 0.5.3 is out!!!

    Yeah, it took long enough...
    There were a couple of bugs that needed several days to reproduce... So it took a hella long time to fix those...

    • 2x faster Base Conversion -> 10% faster Pi
    • The stress test now runs in below normal priority.
    • The stress test will now stop both threads soon after either one detects an error.
    • New "Validation.txt" file that can be customized with your name/sn... (full support for unicode and international characters)
    • Automatic memory selection for Advanced Swap Mode. (it can still be manually overrided)
    • Added detection for the failed thread-creation bug that was discussed a few pages earlier. (Though I have yet to be able to properly test it...)
    • Decreased sensitivity of the cheat-detection. (too many false positives before)
    • New redundancy checks have been added to detect errors closer to when they occur.
    • Fixed: Junk output for computations larger than 41 billion digits on x86 and x86 SSE3.
    • Fixed: Possible stack-corruption for computations larger than 500 billion digits.
    • Fixed: Minor bugs in the interface.


    Special thanks to Shigeru Kondo for helping me test this version.


    Here's my first result from the public release of v0.5.3.

    100 billion digits in 46 hours: (Down from 53 hours for v0.5.2.)
    Core i7 920 @ 3.5 GHz - 12 GB DDR3 - 4 x 2 TB Hitachi
    (click to enlarge)
    Last edited by poke349; 04-15-2010 at 06:12 PM. Reason: typo
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  24. #424
    Xtreme Enthusiast poke349's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    700
    Thought I give this thread a slight bump.

    I've also done some new detailed multi-core scaling benchmarks on v0.5.3/v0.5.4. (I haven't done these since v0.4.3.)

    http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/#Benchmarks


    v0.5.4 is the same speed as v0.5.3. So all benchmarks that I have posted of it are fully comparable with v0.5.3.
    I don't plan on releasing it for a while, but if anyone is curious, it has the following changes:

    • Checkpointing - Allows Advanced Swap computations to be restarted in the middle of a computation. (This allows recovery from power outages, crashes, etc...)
    • More aggressive error-correction. For large computations, more than 90% of run-time is covered by at least one layer of ECC.


    Checkpointing will increase the chance that a large computation will finish at all.
    The error-correction will greatly increase the chance that a large computation will finish correctly.
    (It seems that even on stable hardware, soft errors are common enough to be a problem for large computations...)
    But as always, any error that is detected (and corrected) will trigger an ECC flag which will show up in the validation certificate.


    I've also halted all optimizations for v0.5.x.
    I'm in the process of rewriting a very large portion of the program and will be using this opportunity to experiment with some new algorithms and programming tricks that will scale with AVX and FMA. (So it will take at least several months.)
    Last edited by poke349; 05-13-2010 at 10:55 AM.
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  25. #425
    Registered User Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    67
    got a new one for you - dual dualies for you!

    599.285 - v0.5.3.9134b x86 SSE3 - Alpha - 2x Operon 275's @ 2.2Ghz - 2gb DDR 266
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Try my multi-threaded prime benchmark!
    If you like it and want to see more - bitcoin me!!
    1MrPonziaM4QT2S7SdPEKQH88BGa4LRHJU
    1HaxXoRZhMLxMJwJ52VfAqanSuLuh8CCki
    1ZomGoxrBqyVdBvHwPLEERsGGQAtc3jHp
    1L33thAxKo1GqRWRYP5ZCK4EjTMUTHFsc8

Page 17 of 33 FirstFirst ... 71415161718192027 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •