I guess if that happens I will be able to see a computation error in the log, and be able to presume that this was the reason, since the machine is at stock clocks. Are you saying that the safest way might be to run 2 concurrent tasks with 6 cores each?So far I have shied away from spreading task across two sockets. On the other hand, the fairly good scaling that I saw with increasing thread count (on Linux, mind) indicates that there is little inter-thread communication going on. Still, there is the potential issue of non-uniform memory access.
So it would seem that setting affinity is not necessary, which is good, I don't have time to babysit the machines all the time. I was able to get a monitor over to one of the dual hexacores and shut off HT, let's see how its results compare to the other dual hexacore, which runs faster clocks but is also doing GPU and is stuck with HT on. Very scientific!One CPU having to access memory which is located at the other CPU would not cause an error, it would merely slow things down. On the other hand, it is possible that the programmers already took precautions specifically for a multithreaded task which runs on two sockets. Here is a place were we could ask to find out.
A pro pos: Right at the end of that thread is a posting which says that multithreaded tasks are in fact properly balanced over physical cores and don't wander around (unlike several concurrent processes which are not being balanced as good and, to add insult to injury, tend to migrate from core to core on Windows). The poster presumes that this positive side-effect of running LLR multithreaded is thanks to an underlying library.
Day 11.05 stats:
[...]
Looks like we're in a good spot, but unlikely to catch Poland.
Well, the benchmark I saw said that Ryzen was barely better than Skylake and I have 4 times the cores, and probably more MHZ. Even if the mhz was even, 4 x mine is 26 hours. So I hate to say it, but it right Its think. Your dual E5660's might kick some hiney though, if configured to run like mine, all cores in one task. Thats 12 at 3 ghz with HT off, or my estimate would be not far from my Ryzen.Hmm, my i5-6500 is going to take 28 hours to finish one WU using all 4 cores, something is wrong. I don't see any warnings in the log. I thought Skylakes were supposed to be good at this project.
Well, here's the weird thing. I have an i5-4690 that says it's going to finish one in about 14 hours, and that is with only 3 cores because it's overheating on 4. So the discrepancy is what is making me wonder.Well, the benchmark I saw said that Ryzen was barely better than Skylake and I have 4 times the cores, and probably more MHZ. Even if the mhz was even, 4 x mine is 26 hours. So I hate to say it, but it right Its think. Your dual E5660's might kick some hiney though, if configured to run like mine, all cores in one task. Thats 12 at 3 ghz with HT off, or my estimate would be not far from my Ryzen.
Hmm, my i5-6500 is going to take 28 hours to finish one WU using all 4 cores, something is wrong. I don't see any warnings in the log. I thought Skylakes were supposed to be good at this project.
No, I just don't understand it. I rebooted just to see if that would help, negative:Sounds like the performance of two cores rather than four. Does task manager confirm that all four cores are near fully used? Anything else running on this host?
Tony, what is the config file for your 2683's, and is HT off, and whats the PPD ? I have 4 of them that could make quite the difference, and one more Ryzen. at 15k per 6 hours, that 60k ppd I think for the one Ryzen. And we need almost 500k ppd to catch Poland ?
Oh, now that you mention it, this board has a damaged socket pin that killed a channel! I never realized it would make that much difference! Dang...Are you sure your RAM is running dual-channel?
Did you OC the RAM?Here is my app_config.XML
<app_config> <app> <name>llrPSP</name> <fraction_done_exact/> </app> <app_version> <app_name>llrPSP</app_name>
<cmdline>-t 14</cmdline> <avg_ncpus>14</avg_ncpus> <max_ncpus>14</max_ncpus> </app_version> </app_config>
And yes, this is at stock, these Xeons don't OC
The E5-2683 was done from less than 1% to finish with -t=14.The box which I have currently running -t 14 needs 3h30m right now. These are WUs with 16,300...16,500 points per WU.
Half a week ago it was less than 3h:07m as an average, but it had WUs with 10,500 and 15,700 points mixed in together with 16,300 ones. So, WUs are definitely variable.
@Markfw, here is a WU of yours with merely 12,100 points credit, completed at 21:26 UTC. Was this already with -t 14 from start to finish?
Edit:
I have got DDR4-2400 cl17 registered ECC RAM, is yours faster?