Stomp stomp stomp!
- Thread starter Cob
- Start date
I go away in about half an hour so this is my last post until Tuesday. Hopefully my machine wont fall over while I am away!
The parts from my old machine [4400+ etc] are going to a friend some time soon and I shall be getting it folding for the cause! Might be too little too late but I have a horrible habit of surprising people with sudden bursts of PPD
Still, you only got this close because I didn't fold for about 2 weeks!
I will make sure the cell is nice and tidy, just in case you drop by while I am away
The parts from my old machine [4400+ etc] are going to a friend some time soon and I shall be getting it folding for the cause! Might be too little too late but I have a horrible habit of surprising people with sudden bursts of PPD
Still, you only got this close because I didn't fold for about 2 weeks!
I will make sure the cell is nice and tidy, just in case you drop by while I am away
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,564
- Location
- West London
is that a new euphemism?Cob said:
Damn you! It would appear you are running more machines than I am. My PPD is stuck at around 2.2K and there is nowt I can do right now to increase that.
Oh well, at least I have given you a small battle before the inevitable
Oh well, at least I have given you a small battle before the inevitable
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,564
- Location
- West London
Cob said:Tho it packs a hefty punch
And the understatment of the month goes too.......
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,564
- Location
- West London
Errr - look at his sig 
but that doesn't tell you his Overclock (@3.0 I beleive) or the number of SMP clients it's running (2+?)
but that doesn't tell you his Overclock (@3.0 I beleive) or the number of SMP clients it's running (2+?)
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 9,348
- Location
- Derbyshire
Watercooled? Quad-Core? Overclocked within an inch of it's life? Sweet!!!
It's a Q6600 running at 'only' 3Ghz (my DS3 won't clock the quads over a 330mhz FSB. That will be fixed with a new mobo in the coming week or so).
And I'm running two copies of Ubuntu 7.04 in a pair of VMWare virtual machines on Vista x64, making a total of 4 linux SMP clients, one for each core.
But each frame is taking about 40-50% longer than it was with my e6600 at 3.6ghz (<30mins as opposed to <20 mins). Some of that difference can be attributed to the ~20% lower overclock, but it's still more than I'd hoped for. Vista isn't a contributing factor because I get the same times on x64 XP, tho VMWare Server v1.0.3 isn't yet fully optimised for Vista. Vista still isn't officially supported on the Server, tho the latest version of Workstation is fully supported and I'd expect the next release of Server to be tweaked a little.
So there's still plenty of tweaking left to be done, although I realise that I won't ever get double the production I was getting with the dual-core e6600.
And I'm running two copies of Ubuntu 7.04 in a pair of VMWare virtual machines on Vista x64, making a total of 4 linux SMP clients, one for each core.
But each frame is taking about 40-50% longer than it was with my e6600 at 3.6ghz (<30mins as opposed to <20 mins). Some of that difference can be attributed to the ~20% lower overclock, but it's still more than I'd hoped for. Vista isn't a contributing factor because I get the same times on x64 XP, tho VMWare Server v1.0.3 isn't yet fully optimised for Vista. Vista still isn't officially supported on the Server, tho the latest version of Workstation is fully supported and I'd expect the next release of Server to be tweaked a little.
So there's still plenty of tweaking left to be done, although I realise that I won't ever get double the production I was getting with the dual-core e6600.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,564
- Location
- West London
Have you tried just two SMP clients that way you can get rid of the second VMware and it's losses.
Afterall SMP is made for four cores, and the second client should use up the extra 10% (and shair the 90%) that not utilised by just one client.
I'm sure you've tested this and in theory e6600 users can run two smp's so a Q6600 should run 4.
How about two linux/VM and a winSMP client?
Afterall SMP is made for four cores, and the second client should use up the extra 10% (and shair the 90%) that not utilised by just one client.
I'm sure you've tested this and in theory e6600 users can run two smp's so a Q6600 should run 4.
How about two linux/VM and a winSMP client?
Dropping to 3 clients drops all 4 cores to about 90%. It doesn't sound like much, but it's 40% of a core when you think about it. The three clients would crunch their WU's faster, but total output would be less than that crunched by four clients.
The best thing would be for VMWare to allocate more than two cores per VM. That way i could run only one VM and gain some performance. But sadly they only allow upto two cores per VM.
And myself and winSMP don't get on. I'm waiting for the next version before tearing out my hair again.
The best thing would be for VMWare to allocate more than two cores per VM. That way i could run only one VM and gain some performance. But sadly they only allow upto two cores per VM.
And myself and winSMP don't get on. I'm waiting for the next version before tearing out my hair again.
