[Knightrider]

Here is my first fully validated result with V4. I am number 2427722

For some reason the wu has been issued seven times.

K.

[cwasko]

I keep getting stuff similar to this on v4: "Wed May 31 07:10:53 2006|SETI@home|Unrecoverable error for result 14ja99aa.6153.17921.517322.3.154_3 (process exited with code 2 (0x2))"

It does this for WUs that I download. I ran the fft_test_shell and copied the wisdom.sah to the seti projects dir as well. I have a Rev a PowerBook 17", 1 GHz G4, 2 GB RAM.

Edit: Also running 10.4.6

[linsyloo]

i've also been getting loads of these with v4 :

Wed 31 May 11:40:22 2006|SETI@home|Checksum or signature error for 23mr99aa.20172.4225.561076.3.89

Wed 31 May 11:39:54 2006|SETI@home|Unrecoverable error for result 03mr99ab.11329.13297.336072.3.108_3 (process exited with code 2 (0x2))

and am using a fft_test_shell generated wisdom.sah

this is the first problem i've had using optimised clients, v3 was runing nicely on my 1.25 mac mini 10.4.6 1 gig ram

otherwise, the other clients rocked

[Karl Schimanek]

Holy sh*t!

PPC970MP 2.5GHz (MacOS) faster as an Opteron 280 2.4GHz (Windows). V3 on PPC side and Crunch3r on x86.

8,668.18 vs. 9,401.09
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/worku...?wuid=80003455

Keep on rockin'
Karl

[arkayn]

Here are my first 2 results with v4.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/worku...?wuid=80185860
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/worku...?wuid=80179758

Pretty good time.

[cwasko]

Originally Posted by arkayn

Here are my first 2 results with v4.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/worku...?wuid=80185860
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/worku...?wuid=80179758

Pretty good time.

Looks good. Unfortunately, I'm not even getting that far. As soon as the v4 client starts to process, it bails out immediately with the errors I noted above.

[Knightrider]

Re:Error Messages.

Here is a url to couple of Wiki pages about error messages. Look under "U', a couple of options shown. Of course none of these may be the right ones for your error instance.Take a look in the stderrdae.txt to see if there is any additional info.

http://boinc-wiki.ath.cx/index.php?t...:BOINC_Message

K.

[cwasko]

Ok. I feel like a dope. I was suspending Boinc and then starting it again. Even after clearing out WU's etc. I then killed Boinc, and life is good. I've been through the process before so I'm not sure what the heck I was thinking...

I'll let ya'll know how it goes when I actually process some WU's.

[BTBlomberg]

Here is my first WU with v4 only. It took 55298.94 sec. (15.36 hours) on the PowerBook G4 500 X 10.4.6. My Previous 1/2 v3 / 1/2 v4 WU took 63546.70 sec. (17.65 hours), so this is at least 2.25+ hours of improvement there, maybe 4.5 when you consider 1/2 & 1/2 on the WU.

I expected it to be faster, but each WU can be a little different it seams. More so than with the old SETI. I will see with more WUs, but I am gald about the improments so far. A separate G4 & G5 version may help next round.

In aditional observations of SETI Enhanced, it seams the first 1/2 of a WU processes slower than the second half. The opposite seamed to be true of the old SETI, but it may be based on what tasks are more optimized than others and the order of the processing tasks, but I don't know.

[Todd Madson]

Here's one for the DP 2.5 with Alex's v4:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/resul...ltid=330299597

About 12,588 seconds. And a tad more credit than actually claimed.

RAC is now about 1100, down from around 2K on that machine.

[halimedia]

Originally Posted by BTBlomberg

As of Ver 3 he has a lot in the "strerr out". Here is an example from a failed WU:

Code:
<core_client_version>5.4.9</core_client_version>
<message>
Maximum disk usage exceeded
</message>
<stderr_txt>
ar=0.422310 NumCfft=72953 NumGauss=           464507884 NumPulse=         89036768383 NumTriplet=       7691545591808
ar=0.422310 NumCfft=72953 NumGauss=           464507884 NumPulse=         89036768383 NumTriplet=       7691545591808

Crashed executable name: seti_enhanced-ppc-v3
built using BOINC library version 5.5.0
Machine type PowerPC 7400
System version: Macintosh OS 10.4.6 build 8I127
Sun May 28 22:04:06 2006
Stack frame backtrace:
 #  Flags Frame Addr  Caller PC   Return Address Symbol
===  ===  ==========  ==========  =====================
  1  ---  0xf0100560  0x000d5374  MoreBacktraceMachSelf + 0x12c
  2  ---  0xf01005e0  0x000a81e8  PrintBacktrace + 0x6c
  3  ---  0xf0101930  0x00084dd8  _Z26handle_process_control_msgv + 0x110
  4  ---  0xf0101d80  0x00084f00  _Z12worker_timeri + 0xc0
  5  ---  0xf0101de0  0x0008512c  _Z12timer_threadPv + 0x30
  6  ---  0xf0101e30  0x9002ba68  
</stderr_txt>

It does not reflect the FFT info though.

I can confirm that neither v3 nor v4 include any such output by default. This apears to be debugging output (noticed 'Crashed executable name...'?) that Alex decided to write to stderr_txt. This information does not appear in the stock worker.

HTH,

Ron

[halimedia]

Originally Posted by Gecko_r7

Halimedia: Have you seen the description we're referring in v3 or v4 WU report summary? I have not.

Neither have I - see my post above.

Another reason that it will be helpful is to better identify and compare processing times and differences between different AR wus and ap versions. Reported crunch times can be highly variable w/ Enhanced (and confusing if using opt aps) because WUs can be of substantially different length as described by the WU's AR.
Example: (not actual WUs)
v3 WU 18,000 secs, AR= .417
v4 WU 18,000 secs AR = .324 (on v3, time = 21,000)

Please excuse my ignorance, but what does AR stand for and how is it calculated?

[adream]

sofar so good here on my dual 2.7 G5:

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/resu...hostid=2406731

the last 23 results or so are with v4

no errors so far, and the 60ish credit units are coming in between 10-11000 seconds which is stonking fast as far as I'm concerned

many thanks alex for your time and effort, much appreciated, also a vote of thanks for boog too who put in some sterlin work in the early days

regards

adream

[halimedia]

Status report v4: after crunching through more than 100 WUs on just about all flavors of G4 and G5, I haven't seen a single invalid result. Quality job, Alex!

[liebsmaschine]

Well, I finally found the reference WU, but I have not had a chance to run it yet. I've also had v4 running for about 30 hours now, so I've crunched several WUs. It appears that the *average* time per WU (yes, I know it's highly variable) has settled down to about 4-5 hours (see <a href="http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?userid=8344130">here</a>).

<a href="http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=80196983">Here's</a> an interesting one for speed comparison: I'm the third result down at 13,319 seconds. The first result, at 19,140 seconds, is a "PowerMac11,2" with a BOINC benchmark that's about double mine (some sort of G5 or G5 dual, maybe). I'm running a PowerBook G4 1.67, so it's cool to see that v4 on my machine is beating out the stock worker on a much faster machine.

I'm also consistently competitive with Intel processors running from 2-3GHz, although depending on the specific setup and if they're using optimized apps, mine sometimes takes the longest.

My PM 350 also just started crunching with v4. It has not yet finished a WU yet, though. I think it did get through one or two WUs with v2, but I haven't kept specific track of which WU was done by what worker. Also, S@H's results page seems to clear out old results much faster than it used to...any idea why?

All of my WUs for both v2 and v4 (I was about to install v3 when I saw that Alex had just posted v4) have validated--not a single failure. Congratulations, Alex!

[halimedia]

Here's a potentially interesting bit of food for thought: today, I have taken a 1.66 GHz Core Duo Mac mini into service, and it's been crunching SETI with stock worker and BOINC client for a number of hours now. Some comparative data of WUs that are worth around 62 credits:

Quad G5, stock worker: 15,500s
Quad G5, v4: 10,500s
CD Mac mini, stock worker: 13,600s

Impressive if not disturbing, I'd say. Ref-wu comparison will follow at some point soon.

[TiloProbst]

Originally Posted by Gecko_r7

Reported crunch times can be highly variable w/ Enhanced (and confusing if using opt aps) because WUs can be of substantially different length as described by the WU's AR.
Example: (not actual WUs)
v3 WU 18,000 secs, AR= .417
v4 WU 18,000 secs AR = .324 (on v3, time = 21,000)

I'd like to have an explanation on those .xxx numbers too, since there is some comparison thread at planet3dnow.de mentioning comparison WUs with 0,42x AR.

[beadman]

Originally Posted by halimedia

Here's a potentially interesting bit of food for thought: today, I have taken a 1.66 GHz Core Duo Mac mini into service, and it's been crunching SETI with stock worker and BOINC client for a number of hours now. Some comparative data of WUs that are worth around 62 credits:

Quad G5, stock worker: 15,500s
Quad G5, v4: 10,500s
CD Mac mini, stock worker: 13,600s

Impressive if not disturbing, I'd say. Ref-wu comparison will follow at some point soon.

Here's another comparison for you. I have a loaner 2.0 GHz Mac Book Pro duo core running the stock BOINC and stock SETI (5.4.9 universal). http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/resul...4031&offset=20 and it's coming in around 12,000s on the average.

My iBook G4, 1.33 GHz, is coming in around 43,000s using the stock 5.4.9 universal SETI client. http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/resul...hostid=1360780

My PowerBook G4, 1.67 GHz, has finished one stock WU for 33,800 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/resul...hostid=2041993. I just switched it over today to Alex's v4 after about 27% computed on a WU with the stock client. Switchover went very smoothly and no hiccups. This is the same computer that was getting around 5,000s per WU using Alex and Rick's G4-A5 client on the old SETI WU.

beadman

[Gecko_r7]

Originally Posted by TiloProbst

I'd like to have an explanation on those .xxx numbers too, since there is some comparison thread at planet3dnow.de mentioning comparison WUs with 0,42x AR.

Hi Gents:
AR = Angle Range. I have just enough understanding to be dangerous, but am not confident that I can do the subject appropriate justice. Needless to say, the days of seeing consistent crunch times w/ only minor variation between WUs (except the occasional short/noisy WU) are over. Enhanced is a different animal. WU completion time is heavily influenced by the AR of the WU and identical AR's can still differ in length, though they do trend to be highly similar. My best advice is to read a few of these links: Just as an FYI, I have been on Enhanced since the public rollout w/ my x86 rig and noticed pretty quickly that ARs in the vicinity of .417 were the most common. These threads mention same.
Personally, I find and catalog these specific .417-.421 ARs for my "sample" group and average the times to represent an expected time of the most typical WU.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum...d=30625#305440
http://www.marisan.nl/seti/
http://www.teamlambchop.com/runtime303.htm
http://je2bwm.at.infoseek.co.jp/i04-whats-AR.html

Hope this helps.

BTW, v4 is working flawlessly. No validation issues, no errors.
Also, I'm happy to report that when comparing similar ARs with v4 on the G4 to Crunch3r's 5.12 ap on M-1.6 Banias, the perfomance gap has narrowed to only a 45% difference per WU (M being faster), down from 60% diff. w/ previous A5.3 and Crunch3r's best ap for PentM-SSE2....a 15% differential IMPROVEMENT vs. the best we had w/ Seti Std. All things being equal (and if my rigs are good enough representative examples...G5 should be even better yet as SSE3 on x86 is worth only 2-3% more real-world), it appears PPC is now BETTER optimized than current x86 ap. Way to go Alex!

Can anyone else confirm/invalidate this generalization with what you're seeing on your x86s and PPCs? Cheers!