[halimedia]

OK, here's some baseline-data. My procedure: Using the reference-wu and the 5.13 SETI stock worker, I run the following command:

time ./setiathome_5.13_powerpc-apple-darwin -nographics

The time command at the beginning of the line reports the processing time required at the end of the task. On machines with multiple CPUs, I only run one instance, which is not necessarily reflective of real-world performance when running under boinc, but it's close enough. No processor-intensive tasks are run in parallel.

Power Mac G5 Quad 2.5GHz w/ 4GB PC2-4200E-444 RAM, 10.4.6:
real 202m41.208s (=12161.208s)
user 202m13.581s
sys 0m55.723s (all three from time command)
wu_cpu_time: 12147.410551 (from init_data.xml)

Power Mac G5 DP 2.5GHz w/ 5GB PC3200U-30330 RAM, 10.4.6:
real 242m26.379s (=14546.379s)
user 240m4.987s
sys 1m6.640s
wu_cpu_time: n/a (was reported as 0 in init_data.xml - don't know why, have to look into this)

Mac mini G4 1.42GHz w/ 1GB PC2700U-25330 RAM, 10.4.6:
real 537m31.119s (=32251.119s)
user 528m39.193s
sys 2m12.853s
wu_cpu_time: n/a

Power Mac G4 Digital Audio DP 533MHz w/ 768MB PC133-333 RAM, 10.4.5:
real 986m35.925s (=59195.925s)
user 979m6.251s
sys 2m57.985s
wu_cpu_time: n/a

NB: It appears that the wu_cpu_time reported in init_data.xml is now far more accurate than in pre-enhanced times.

HTH,

Ron

[Todd Madson]

Checked this morning - the Pentium M XP machine, the Athlon box, and the G4 all still
have over 100+ blocks to crunch of the old style before I can switch them.

I already have Crunch3r's client ready to go when I switch.

G5 has been switched, looks around 1hr 40mins remaining right before I left the
house and the thing was already at 30-40%. More later.

[Todd Madson]

Update: Very very weird. I've got a bunch of blocks at 100% but they WILL NOT
upload. They just sit there while more blocks get crunched. I've tried doing the
force communcations but nothing occurs.

[lepetitmartien]

On my side, a few WU more, no problem at all.

[Thanar]

If the communications has been deferred for a particular ammount of time, there is no way of forcing connection to the servers, you'll have to wait... Actually, there is a way, by modifying some xml files, but it's a bit tricky...

[Todd Madson]

I set it so I only had 5 days of work and it finally took them.

On a 2.5 dual, we're getting around 11,2xx-11,4xx seconds per
block as seen here:

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/resul...6496&offset=40

Not optimal, around three hours but certainly better than eight to twelve
hours which is just ridiculous in my mind.

Thanks, Boog for your assistance on making life a bit easier for us here!

[halimedia]

First comparative results - ref-wu w/ stock 5.13 worker vs. boog's b5 on G5 Quad:

stock 5.13 worker:
real 202m41.208s (=12161.208s)
user 202m13.581s
sys 0m55.723s
wu_cpu_time: 12147.410551s

boog's b5:
real 184m40.884s (=11080.884s)
user 183m51.573s
sys 0m21.703s
wu_cpu_time: 11011.876272s

That makes b5 1080.324s, roughly 18 minutes or 9% faster than the stock worker! Great job, boog!

NB: The result-files are not identical, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge whether the differences are within the realm of what can be considered normal. If anyone has more experience with this regard, please pm me and I'll gladly mail the results.

[sdubz]

Originally Posted by halimedia

First comparative results - ref-wu w/ stock 5.13 worker vs. boog's b5 on G5 Quad:

stock 5.13 worker:
real 202m41.208s (=12161.208s)
user 202m13.581s
sys 0m55.723s
wu_cpu_time: 12147.410551s

boog's b5:
real 184m40.884s (=11080.884s)
user 183m51.573s
sys 0m21.703s
wu_cpu_time: 11011.876272s

That makes b5 1080.324s, roughly 18 minutes or 9% faster than the stock worker! Great job, boog!

NB: The result-files are not identical, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge whether the differences are within the realm of what can be considered normal. If anyone has more experience with this regard, please pm me and I'll gladly mail the results.

Sweet! I'm going to run a test on another build I did.

I spent alot of time trying to get everything to compile with gcc 4.0 instead of 3.3 and I'm having issues with it still.

Then I noticed that my hdd was almost full on my mini, do I yanked my dvd burner out of it's firewire case to add a 100gig drive, so, I have spent alot of time moving everything and getting it all set up again.

I just started my latest test, we can compare it to the 1.42 mini you have above, and the stock worker here on mine wich finished in 31109.065713 seconds.

My other build finished in 29799.417300 wich is still only 9% faster on my mini, so it looks like the best increase I can achieve for now.

[beadman]

Perhaps one of you can tell me where my thinking is wrong. I have a MacBookPro with following info:
Machine Name: MacBook Pro 15" with OSX 10.4.6
Machine Model: MacBookPro1,1
CPU Type: Intel Core Duo
Number Of Cores: 2
CPU Speed: 2 GHz
L2 Cache (shared): 2 MB
Memory: 2 GB
Bus Speed: 667 MHz
Boot ROM Version: MBP11.0055.B02

I'm running the standard BOINC client as BOINC Manager with the standard SETI client, setiathome_5.13_i686-apple-darwin. Here's an example of the results: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/worku...?wuid=78593724 I'm the 2414031 user.

Both of the PCs running this WU are Intels with dual processors, and 3 GHz or faster CPUs; my processor is only a 2.0 GHz duo-core, I have processed the same unit more than three times faster than one of the PCs and in two-thirds of the time of the other. My question is: Why and How? I've checked several other WU, and I'm continually faster that the PCs even though they have faster clock speed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, but I also am not intending to brag; I honestly want to know how this machine is able to do the same WU in so much less time, using the standard BOINC and SETI client. I've been running Rick and Alex's SETI client on my G4 PowerBook and my G4 iBook, and and really enjoyed the speed differential there, but this machine is using the standard versions and seems to go so much faster than the PCs.

Any info appreciated.
Claude

[jedimstr]

Originally Posted by beadman

Perhaps one of you can tell me where my thinking is wrong. I have a MacBookPro with following info:
Machine Name: MacBook Pro 15" with OSX 10.4.6
Machine Model: MacBookPro1,1
CPU Type: Intel Core Duo
Number Of Cores: 2
CPU Speed: 2 GHz
L2 Cache (shared): 2 MB
Memory: 2 GB
Bus Speed: 667 MHz
Boot ROM Version: MBP11.0055.B02

I'm running the standard BOINC client as BOINC Manager with the standard SETI client, setiathome_5.13_i686-apple-darwin. Here's an example of the results: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/worku...?wuid=78593724 I'm the 2414031 user.

Both of the PCs running this WU are Intels with dual processors, and 3 GHz or faster CPUs; my processor is only a 2.0 GHz duo-core, I have processed the same unit more than three times faster than one of the PCs and in two-thirds of the time of the other. My question is: Why and How? I've checked several other WU, and I'm continually faster that the PCs even though they have faster clock speed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, but I also am not intending to brag; I honestly want to know how this machine is able to do the same WU in so much less time, using the standard BOINC and SETI client. I've been running Rick and Alex's SETI client on my G4 PowerBook and my G4 iBook, and and really enjoyed the speed differential there, but this machine is using the standard versions and seems to go so much faster than the PCs.

Any info appreciated.
Claude

The Pentium 4 and the Pentium D are not as efficient with SSE2/SSE3 instructions as the Core Duo. Also the memory bandwidth and L1/L2 Cache efficiency for the Core Duo is much greater than the Pentiums. Since even the new standard Seti Enhanced apps are already optimized to use SSE, and since SETI has always been hungry for more memory cache speed, the Core Duo will beat a P4 or PD even at lower Ghz rates.

Another, albeit smaller factor, is that the Core Duo (based on the Pentium M and P3 model) can do much more per cycle than any netburst based (P4/PD) processor whose original purpose was to win the Ghz war even at the expense of doing less per clock tick.

[Gecko_r7]

HI Boog,

Here 's the results of the reference unit on my G4;

Machine Name: Power Mac G4
Machine Model: PowerMac3,6
CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (3.3)
Number Of CPUs: 2
CPU Speed: 1.33 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 256 KB
L3 Cache (per CPU): 2 MB
Memory: 1.5 GB CL 2.5
Bus Speed: 167 MHz


Stock 5.13 Worker
real 499m12.054s ( = 29952.054s)
user 498m11.342s
sys 0m57.878s
wu_cpu_time = 29915.352618


Boog's b5
real 475m24.735s ( = 28524.735s)
user 474m26.235s
sys 0m53.655s
wu_cpu_time = 58388.782092 (???)

Looks like 4.75% faster on the G4, which is better than a
I'm going to summize that my small 256K L2 cache, higher L3 latency, slow FSB, and architectural differences vs. those big and speedy G5s account for the difference. Got to believe the G5 can make more efficient use of Boog's improvements. Gone are the days when G4s ruled Mac-earth....
The wheels are turning. Let's see how fast we can rev this up!
Count on me for more help.

[sdubz]

Originally Posted by Gecko_r7

HI Boog,

Here 's the results of the reference unit on my G4;

Machine Name: Power Mac G4
Machine Model: PowerMac3,6
CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (3.3)
Number Of CPUs: 2
CPU Speed: 1.33 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 256 KB
L3 Cache (per CPU): 2 MB
Memory: 1.5 GB CL 2.5
Bus Speed: 167 MHz


Stock 5.13 Worker
real 499m12.054s ( = 29952.054s)
user 498m11.342s
sys 0m57.878s
wu_cpu_time = 29915.352618


Boog's b5
real 475m24.735s ( = 28524.735s)
user 474m26.235s
sys 0m53.655s
wu_cpu_time = 58388.782092 (???)

Looks like 4.75% faster on the G4, which is better than a
I'm going to summize that my small 256K L2 cache, higher L3 latency, slow FSB, and architectural differences vs. those big and speedy G5s account for the difference. Got to believe the G5 can make more efficient use of Boog's improvements. Gone are the days when G4s ruled Mac-earth....
The wheels are turning. Let's see how fast we can rev this up!
Count on me for more help.

I think it is the L2 cache being the bottleneck, I have heard that it is what makes the faster cpu's crunch faster, my mini is:

Machine Name: Mac mini
Machine Model: PowerMac10,1
CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (1.1)
Number Of CPUs: 1
CPU Speed: 1.42 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 512 KB
Memory: 1 GB
Bus Speed: 167 MHz

This was originally a 1.25ghz model.

[beadman]

Originally Posted by jedimstr

The Pentium 4 and the Pentium D are not as efficient with SSE2/SSE3 instructions as the Core Duo. Also the memory bandwidth and L1/L2 Cache efficiency for the Core Duo is much greater than the Pentiums. Since even the new standard Seti Enhanced apps are already optimized to use SSE, and since SETI has always been hungry for more memory cache speed, the Core Duo will beat a P4 or PD even at lower Ghz rates.

Another, albeit smaller factor, is that the Core Duo (based on the Pentium M and P3 model) can do much more per cycle than any netburst based (P4/PD) processor whose original purpose was to win the Ghz war even at the expense of doing less per clock tick.

Makes sense - thanks for the info, jedimstr!
Claude

[sdubz]

Originally Posted by boog

I'm going to run a test on another build I did.

I spent alot of time trying to get everything to compile with gcc 4.0 instead of 3.3 and I'm having issues with it still.

Then I noticed that my hdd was almost full on my mini, do I yanked my dvd burner out of it's firewire case to add a 100gig drive, so, I have spent alot of time moving everything and getting it all set up again.

I just started my latest test, we can compare it to the 1.42 mini you have above, and the stock worker here on mine wich finished in 31109.065713 seconds.

My other build finished in 29799.417300 wich is still only 9% faster on my mini, so it looks like the best increase I can achieve for now.

Here is the latest build that I did, it actually was 9.5% faster on my mini, but I think I am stuck at this point and may have to wait on Alex and Rick to give us more.

http://boog.is-a-geek.org/seti/seti_enhanced_g4_b7.tgz
http://boog.is-a-geek.org/seti/seti_enhanced_g5_b7.tgz

[arkayn]

I will get it going on my eMac then.

[TiloProbst]

ok both my Single 1.8 G5 and my Dual 2.0 G5 ran out of work a few days ago.

how fast are those enhanced clients compared to the optimized PC clients?
I mean with rick/alex's clients my Dual G5 achieved something about 1200 RAC, outperforming a 3,8 GHz HT P4 (on a not-so-good-mainboard though). I'd like to take on on that level not to disappoint the team

and, more important, who could give me some short seti -> seti enhanced transition instructions for my G5s?

[sdubz]

Originally Posted by TiloProbst

ok both my Single 1.8 G5 and my Dual 2.0 G5 ran out of work a few days ago.

how fast are those enhanced clients compared to the optimized PC clients?
I mean with rick/alex's clients my Dual G5 achieved something about 1200 RAC, outperforming a 3,8 GHz HT P4 (on a not-so-good-mainboard though). I'd like to take on on that level not to disappoint the team

and, more important, who could give me some short seti -> seti enhanced transition instructions for my G5s?

I doubt these will give you those kind of numbers, but should be better than stock. Hopefully Alex and Rick will come out with something more impressive!

All you should need to do it unzip the tgz file and put the files in your startup disk>library>application support>boinc data>projects>setiathome.berkeley.edu folder and fire boinc back up!

[Gecko_r7]

Boog, Thanks for posting b7. I've got it on the G4 now and will run it w/ Ref WU 2-night.
Hope that you, Rick and Alex will be able to collaberate some soon.
Regards,
Ian

[arkayn]

b7 gave me nothing but unrecoverable results.