Folding Forum

I hope F@H makes the announcement when it is... since most of us dual SMP quad guys will need to convert their boxes over!

Will we be able to keep our older 5.91 client then and the core or will we need to get teh new 6.10...

Thanks for the info Xil

Sunin wrote:I hope F@H makes the announcement when it is... since most of us dual SMP quad guys will need to convert their boxes over!

Will we be able to keep our older 5.91 client then and the core or will we need to get teh new 6.10...

Thanks for the info Xil

Project changes rarely touch the FAH client itself - all is about the core. I doubt that it is much different this time as well.

Now that the p2665 is across all my Boxen, I noticed an E8400 clocked to 3.6GHz is doing the same frame times as a Q6600 clocked to 3.1GHz both using the Win SMP client and 1 instance. I guess work is needed on the Client?

Datsun 1600

The A1 core scales horribly wrong on this WU ...but don't worry, that's going to change in the near future

Yes--we're working hard on the scaling. We will definitely post when we release the next round of improvements, never fear!

I fear. I fear greatly.

Is anyone running 2665 on Vista 64bit? I've noticed that this WU is runnning 34 - 35min frame times on my E6400 with 2GB ram on Vista 64 ultimate, however on a E4500 XP 32bit system with 2GB ram I'm getting 26-27min frame times. Neither system is overclocked and I don't have any old logs to look at but I'm pretty sure my E6400 used to outperform the E4500 on older WUs and I believe the E6400 should be the better CPU. Any ideas why my Vista system would be underperforming? Is 2GB not enough? There isn't anything else running on the Vista system from what I can see in task manager.

p2665 can use 800 MB plus. Vista can use 1.5 GB plus. XP uses less than half that. You are probably hitting the pagefile pretty hard on that Vista box, slowing performance.

So no, 2 GB is probably not enough to get the best performance with that particular SMP work unit and the memory hog called Vista.

I've now had a couple of p2665's thorugh in the last week or two and OMG!! they are a bit more hefty than the usual units aren't they. Each one's taking about 22 hours to complete and coming in at 900ppd below that of a p2653.

7im wrote:p2665 can use 800 MB plus. Vista can use 1.5 GB plus. XP uses less than half that. You are probably hitting the pagefile pretty hard on that Vista box, slowing performance.

So no, 2 GB is probably not enough to get the best performance with that particular SMP work unit and the memory hog called Vista.

Thanks 7im, I took a look at the memory usage a little closer and task manager says I only have about 50-55% of my memory comitted and I turned on some performance monitor traces and I'm not seeing any swap file activity. Memory is cheap and I don't have a problem adding more if I can be sure that really is the issue here. And I'm not seeing FAH using anywhere near 800mb, one core has a working set size of about 60K and the other 3 are around 20-30K.

larvi wrote:
Thanks 7im, I took a look at the memory usage...

Mine was using 400MB for the 2665 WU, and 1.8 GB for Vista.

Good to know anyway, now we have to look elsewhere. Any ideas?

7im wrote:

larvi wrote:
Thanks 7im, I took a look at the memory usage...

Mine was using 400MB for the 2665 WU, and 1.8 GB for Vista.

Good to know anyway, now we have to look elsewhere. Any ideas?

7im, are you saying just Vista is using 1.8GB? That seems extremely high. The laptop I'm typing this on is running Vista with a Linux SMP client under VMware and using ~1 GB total. hmmm....

Shockingly I don't have any 2665's currently running but I'm definitely going to take a look at memory usage on the next one i get.

7im wrote:

larvi wrote:
Thanks 7im, I took a look at the memory usage...

Mine was using 400MB for the 2665 WU, and 1.8 GB for Vista.

Good to know anyway, now we have to look elsewhere. Any ideas?

Thanks, not sure where else to look, just wondering if anyone else has any comparisons of this WU running on Vista 64 bit vs XP 32 bit on similar processors for comparison sake.

My Vista system is capable of dual booting back to XP so I may try doing that and running FAH there for comparison. There could be a problem with my hardware that is causing the slowdown. Would I be able to run FAH from the same directory as I use for Vista or would that cause problems? I'm also hoping I'll get assigned WUs other than 2665 so I can compare those to my other server to see if the Vista machine is just running slower on the 2665 or other WUs as well.

theMASS wrote: 7im, are you saying just Vista is using 1.8GB? That seems extremely high. The laptop I'm typing this on is running Vista with a Linux SMP client under VMware and using ~1 GB total. hmmm....

Sorry. It's using 1.65 GB TOTAL right now, 412 MB of that is the SMP client. Vista 64 Ultimate.

larvi, have you looked at fahinfo.org to compare performance numbers with that WU to your hardware? It's a very handy comparison tool, and will show if the numbers are way off or not.

7im, no I wasn't aware of that fahinfo. It looks like they don't have any data yet for conroe processors for p2665 though. But I'll keep checking to see if any gets put up or if I get another WU on that machine I can use that to compare. Thanks.