3 Different Versions?
Anonymous
20 Nov 2004 20:44:33 UTC
Topic 12264
(moderation:
> I currently have einstein 4.35. Then BOINC downloaded 4.42, and I checked the
> E@H applications section and it said that. Then it downloaded 4.40 and the
> section says 4.35. What is going on?
The 4.42 and 4.40 apps had problems with graphics so we went back to 4.35.
One of the programers should be able to give you a better answer.
3 Different Versions?
)
Well, no better answer yet. We found to have trouble with the 4.4x binaries, so we switched back to 4.35 until we have found and fixed the problem. Thanks for participating in this alpha-test!
BM
BM
Good to hear. Yes, we found
)
Good to hear. Yes, we found and fixed the problem. The 4.44 ist out since yesterday and besides containing some fixes behind the scenes should be 20-25% faster than the 4.35.
BM
BM
Are all these values posted
)
Are all these values posted here taken from einstein_4.44 on Windows, or are there some Linux ones between them? On our systems (mainly Intel) the speedup under Linux (gcc) was larger than that of Windows (MSVC), but we've never ever seen a slowdown. The two (Windows) machines I'm sitting in front of (2,6GHz P4 and 1,8GHz Centrino) consistently show a speedup of about 20%. On Linux Systems we've seen up to 80%.
We are working to get the Mac graphics running, the next Mac app will have the faster "science code", too.
BM
BM
Thanks a lot for the
)
Thanks a lot for the feedback. Anyone else noticed a slowdown like senator2?
BM
BM
No, the results of that host
)
No, the results of that host look all ok. However, the cpu hours per WU dropped from 1.8 to 1.3 since using einstein_4.44. Maybe your machine is busy with something else? Maybe with somethig it shouldn't do?
BM
BM
Hm, I can see that the
)
Hm, I can see that the receiving times of 4.35 WUs are about 105 mins apart, while now are about 75 mins. So this would figure, too.
I know that the estimated time is calculated based on the benchmarks (and others) and these are wrong in the 4.13 client for Windows. Maybe you just had a lucky day when your initital benchmark was ran and it now had been ran again?
Sorry, I'm only guessing, but I really don't know what happened.
BM
BM