Quote Originally Posted by Sandon View Post
Stopped and ran the I/O performance analsys thingy:

Code:
I/O Performance Analysis:

Note that this may take a while depending on your hardware configuration.

Working Memory:      179 GB
Swap-file Size:      358 GB
Min I/O Size:       32.0 MB
Computation Threads:    32

Sequential Write:          852 MB/s
Sequential Read:          1.74 GB/s
Threshold Strided Write:   489 MB/s
Threshold Strided Read:    498 MB/s

Overlapped VST-I/O Ratio: 0.5933

Notes:

  - The overall I/O speed is unable to keep up with the CPU(s).
    The I/O throughput is 1.68549x slower than the CPU throughput.
    Large computations will be significantly slowed down by disk access.
    I/O bandwidth can be increased in a number of ways:
      - Add more drives in parallel. This is the obvious way.
        Many machines have 4 or more drives just to run this program!
      - Defragment the drives.
      - Use empty drives. Empty and freshly formatted drives perform best.

  - Your threshold non-sequential I/O bandwidth is very high.
    This may cause sub-optimal algorithm selection for large computations.
    The optimal ratio between sequential/non-sequential I/O is about 3 to 1.
    It is recommended to decrease the "Min I/O Size" setting and re-run
    this benchmark.

  - Your write bandwidth is significantly lower than your read bandwidth.
    It is recommended to examine your storage configuration if you are
    expecting balanced read/write speeds.

Press ENTER to continue . . .
These values don't seem bad?
An answered most of this in the email reply. But yes, it's an amazing system.

Quote Originally Posted by NEOAethyr View Post
Sorry I kinda forgot about ya, I didn't realize I still had a screenshot on my drive for ya but never posted it.


Sorry it's not much..
In the first case with the illegal instruction, it appears that you don't have proper operating system support to use AVX instructions. But y-cruncher is mistakenly detecting that it does.
The proper behavior of the program is to give you a red warning that your OS doesn't support AVX, then fall back to the SSE4.1 version.

  • In v0.6.1 - v0.6.4, the AVX binaries use the Microsoft compiler which does no run-time checking for instruction set compatibility. Since my own check is clearly buggy, it proceeded to crash on an AVX instruction.
  • In v0.5.4 - v0.5.5, the AVX binaries use the Intel Compiler. The Intel compiler does its own compatibility checks and it detects that you don't have proper operating system support. So it refuses to run the AVX binary.

Question: What OS are you running anyway? And service pack? I'd like to know so I can fix the AVX detection.

Edit:
If I were eventually able to collect up enough screenshots of my 4930k failing on the edge of stability, usually around 4.5hrs..., would you beable to make it so it runs the same "old" test repeatedly so the error can be found faster?
The newer ver's don't seem to find the error any faster then the older ver that runs perfect (I can launch the newer ones with the old launcher thing).

Ibt and linx don't detect the error at all, tried 8hrs worth and nothing.

Anyways I got one screenshot, I've had it fail twice so far I think it was the same test, the 1st time at 4.5hrs.
I don't develop older versions of y-cruncher. For that matter, I don't even fix bugs in the latest version unless they are serious. (since I usually have even newer builds*)
So if you plan on sticking with v0.5.5, what you have is it. In v0.6.x, the component stress-tester is fully customizable.

*Hint: My latest developer build has a fully working AVX2 binary...


Quote Originally Posted by Movieman View Post
Yea, after all this time I still own all the records from 25 mil to 5 billion!
Figured by now someone would have stepped in and booted me out!
Shigeru Kondo sent me some benchmarks a while back. I just haven't updated the charts yet. So I don't remember if they were faster than yours though.