New (Albert) application and workunits

log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Cruncher's Corner : New (Albert) application and workunits

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 7 · Next
Author Message
Profile Bruce Allen
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 1105
Credit: 171,768,817
RAC: 0
Message 24094 - Posted: 24 Dec 2005, 5:16:38 UTC
Last modified: 28 Dec 2005, 4:33:32 UTC

I wanted to tell the dedicated crunchers a bit about the new application (called 'Albert') and workunits, that I have started testing on the public project today.

We've been doing private testing within the small group of Einstein@Home developers for several months, and are no longer finding problems and errors. So I have started to distribute a few thousand of these workunits to 'the general public'. If they work well we will start issuing primarily these workunits in the coming days.

A couple of key differences between the 'albert' (new) and 'einstein' (old) workunits.

- The new WU have different execution times, typically ranging from about 25% to 100% the previous execution times

- The new WU application incorporates all BOINC graphics and other bug fixes to date

- The new WU application has a slightly re-arranged screensaver, which includes our top wish-list item: a real time clock

I'll update (edit) this post if questions arise about how these new WU are structured. In many cases I'll then delete the post which asked the question, to keep the thread as compact as possible.

I have not forgotten that when we launched Einstein@Home in February 2005, we found a number of bugs because of the vigilance and sharp eyes of Einstein@Home users. So please call attention to strange behavior, either in this thread or in the Problems and Bug Reports message board.

Bruce Allen

[Edit Dec 24, questions from Paul Buck]

1) We wouldn't have been lucky enough to get FLOPS counting this time around would we?

No, but I'll take a quick look at the API, and implement this if it's easy.

2) Are the improved run times from optimized compiles for windows?

The compilation process is no more and no less optimized than before. The differences in run times come about because we are now using a sky search grid and frequency band which depends upon frequency. This makes it impossible for all workunits to be the same length.

3) Is the Mac version still using Altiec?

Yes, the Mac version still uses Altivec optimization if the CPU supports the Altivec instruction set.

I got one running right now by the way (thanks), and it is hard to tell over RealVNC, but the graphics looks like they are a little "prettier". Estimated run time is ~3 hours so that looks like about 25% of the prior (though I am only 13% through).

If you have a real-time clock in the upper right hand corner of the screensaver/graphics screen and the wording in the corners has slightly cleaner layout, then yes, you are running 'Albert'.

[EDIT 25 December, questions from various people]

Will we be switching back and forth between Einstein and Albert apps?

Yes, for some time now, until we are sure that the Albert app is working as required.

Does the Albert application have its own number (like 4.80) or is it still 4.79?

The Albert app has its own number and name. You will know you are running this by seeing what the name of the application is in the BOINC manager, or in the title bar of the graphics window. See the list of applications for more info.

Is there any way we can download the new Albert application?

No. What work (and hence, what application) your computer gets is determined by chance. The 'scheduler' decides this when work is sent out.


[EDIT December 27]
Is is intentional that the target number of results is three rather than the old value of four?

Yes, this is intentional. It may slow down result validation in some cases but will increase our computing power by ~ 25%.


____________
Profile Stef
Send message
Joined: 8 Mar 05
Posts: 149
Credit: 12,267,522
RAC: 0
Message 24188 - Posted: 26 Dec 2005, 16:37:09 UTC

Linux optimisation seem to got even worse:
http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/workunit.php?wuid=3061680
The same CPUs and the same WU: 28848s for linux and 18498s for win.

Stick
Send message
Joined: 24 Feb 05
Posts: 788
Credit: 1,043,107
RAC: 1,900
Message 24190 - Posted: 26 Dec 2005, 16:50:38 UTC - in response to Message 24188.
Last modified: 26 Dec 2005, 16:53:26 UTC

Linux optimisation seem to got even worse:
Workunit in question
The same CPUs and the same WU: 28848s for linux and 18498s for win.
.

Check again. The 18498s result also indicates a Linux OS.

____________
Michael Karlinsky
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 896
Credit: 21,367,625
RAC: 18,766
Message 24192 - Posted: 26 Dec 2005, 17:37:24 UTC - in response to Message 24190.


Workunit in question


Just noticed that "initial replication" is set to 3, instead of 4
for the old application.

Was that intentional?

Michael
____________
Team Linux Users Everywhere
Profile Stef
Send message
Joined: 8 Mar 05
Posts: 149
Credit: 12,267,522
RAC: 0
Message 24193 - Posted: 26 Dec 2005, 17:37:32 UTC - in response to Message 24190.


Check again. The 18498s result also indicates a Linux OS.

Oops, you're right. Why the difference then?
Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 17 Jan 05
Posts: 754
Credit: 5,385,205
RAC: 0
Message 24197 - Posted: 26 Dec 2005, 18:31:02 UTC - in response to Message 24193.


Check again. The 18498s result also indicates a Linux OS.

Oops, you're right. Why the difference then?

Number of CPUs = 1, = 2 ...

One is HT, the other is not most likely.

HT gives you 2 logical processors but does not give 2x speed. I see 20-40% better THROUGHPUT at a loss of individual processing time, they take longer ...
____________
Stick
Send message
Joined: 24 Feb 05
Posts: 788
Credit: 1,043,107
RAC: 1,900
Message 24199 - Posted: 26 Dec 2005, 18:45:32 UTC - in response to Message 24192.
Last modified: 26 Dec 2005, 18:51:11 UTC

Just noticed that "initial replication" is set to 3, instead of 4
for the old application.

Was that intentional?

Michael


I've processed one Albert unit so far - and its "initial replication" was also 3 - so, my guess is it was intentional.

But, getting back to this unit, I noticed the "failed" result's computer is still using BOINC 4.19. Is BOINC 4.19 "too old" for Albert or was this just a coincidence?

____________
Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 17 Jan 05
Posts: 754
Credit: 5,385,205
RAC: 0
Message 24200 - Posted: 26 Dec 2005, 18:56:43 UTC

Can't find the minimum requirement any longer. But, if the BOINC Software was out of date the work should not have been issued. But, this may need project attention. Did they test Albert with 4.19?

Of course, with the better versions out there I have no idea why anyone would still use 4.19 ... :)
____________

AnRM
Send message
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 213
Credit: 4,346,941
RAC: 0
Message 24213 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 0:11:40 UTC

Daily quota problems with 'Albert'.....please see 'Problems and Bug Reports' for details.....Cheers, Rog.
____________

Desti
Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 05
Posts: 117
Credit: 12,819,243
RAC: 12,120
Message 24215 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 0:29:05 UTC - in response to Message 24192.


Workunit in question


Just noticed that "initial replication" is set to 3, instead of 4
for the old application.

Was that intentional?

Michael


3 is a good idea. 4 is a big waste of resources, because a lot of WUa are done with 3 valid results and the fourth is completed for nothing.
____________
Boris@siberia
Send message
Joined: 30 Apr 05
Posts: 2
Credit: 3,471,463
RAC: 2
Message 24218 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 1:23:58 UTC

to Paul
Because 4.19 has a progress bar.
Knowing is important with heavy WU which is like "Einstein@home".

I want to run with "Albert" soon.

Thanks.
____________

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 17 Jan 05
Posts: 754
Credit: 5,385,205
RAC: 0
Message 24223 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 8:26:07 UTC

Hmmm, with BOINC View I have lots of progress bars ...

Only runs on Windows though ...
____________

Profile Honza
Send message
Joined: 10 Nov 04
Posts: 136
Credit: 3,332,354
RAC: 0
Message 24229 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 11:40:48 UTC
Last modified: 27 Dec 2005, 11:41:54 UTC

A screenshot from a new 'Albert' may interest Einstein's participants, I guess. Anyone...?
____________

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 17 Jan 05
Posts: 754
Credit: 5,385,205
RAC: 0
Message 24233 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 14:11:53 UTC - in response to Message 24229.

A screenshot from a new 'Albert' may interest Einstein's participants, I guess. Anyone...?

Without a sample link, how do I know if what you had was interesting?
____________
Profile Honza
Send message
Joined: 10 Nov 04
Posts: 136
Credit: 3,332,354
RAC: 0
Message 24234 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 14:16:26 UTC - in response to Message 24233.

Without a sample link, how do I know if what you had was interesting?
Sorry Paul, I wasn't clear enough - I was actually asking if someone can provide such a screenshot...

____________
xi3piscium
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 Dec 05
Posts: 55
Credit: 30,088
RAC: 0
Message 24236 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 14:29:31 UTC - in response to Message 24234.

Without a sample link, how do I know if what you had was interesting?
Sorry Paul, I wasn't clear enough - I was actually asking if someone can provide such a screenshot...


I made a screen shot of the new Mac graphics, can't figure out how
to upload or post it as a msg. Feeling stupid in SW China :)
____________
Profile Honza
Send message
Joined: 10 Nov 04
Posts: 136
Credit: 3,332,354
RAC: 0
Message 24238 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 14:42:44 UTC - in response to Message 24236.
Last modified: 27 Dec 2005, 15:04:13 UTC

I made a screen shot of the new Mac graphics, can't figure out how to upload or post it as a msg. Feeling stupid in SW China :)

Once you have got the image on a server (there are free webhosting providers for personal/non-commericial use) you need to use BOINC forum tags.

For example, use (see the code using Reply to this post button)


____________
Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 17 Jan 05
Posts: 754
Credit: 5,385,205
RAC: 0
Message 24250 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 17:47:54 UTC - in response to Message 24236.

Without a sample link, how do I know if what you had was interesting?
Sorry Paul, I wasn't clear enough - I was actually asking if someone can provide such a screenshot...


I made a screen shot of the new Mac graphics, can't figure out how
to upload or post it as a msg. Feeling stupid in SW China :)

E-mail it to me and I will post it and link it...

p.d.buck@comcast.net
____________
Profile Edo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Feb 05
Posts: 96
Credit: 1,516,302
RAC: 0
Message 24267 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 19:19:46 UTC

Today I got 4 Albert WUs, and all 4 resulted in "Client error".

Description for 1st WU error is...

<core_client_version>5.2.13</core_client_version>
<message>app_version download error: couldn't get input files:
<file_xfer_error>
<file_name>albert_4.37_windows_intelx86.exe</file_name>
<error_code>-120</error_code>
<error_message>signature verification failed</error_message>
</file_xfer_error>

</message>

And for other 3 it is...

<core_client_version>5.2.13</core_client_version>
<message>WU download error: couldn't get input files:
<file_xfer_error>
<file_name>skygrid_1290_r_T09.dat</file_name>
<error_code>-119</error_code>
<error_message>MD5 check failed</error_message>
</file_xfer_error>

Any ideas what it is all about and how I could fix it?

Thanks
Edo
____________

Profile Honza
Send message
Joined: 10 Nov 04
Posts: 136
Credit: 3,332,354
RAC: 0
Message 24272 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 20:33:24 UTC - in response to Message 24267.

Any ideas what it is all about and how I could fix it?
I would try to reset the project. It will delete create new HostID and trigger fresh download of Einstein's project files.
____________
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 7 · Next

Message boards : Cruncher's Corner : New (Albert) application and workunits


Home · Your account · Message boards

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grants PHY-1104902, PHY-1104617 and PHY-1105572 and by the Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the investigators and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or the MPG.

Copyright © 2016 Bruce Allen