This was asked about in the v6.56 thread and never answered so I'll try again in more detail. Why are we not using the v6.56 application for 32bit Windows? Sure there are issues with 64bit machines but it's simple to set the BOINC server to DL different apps to 32bit and 64bit boxes.

1) v6.56 uses less than 1/100 the CPU time compared to v6.55 (at least on acemd WUs on my machine)

2) Setting the BOINC server to download v6.56 to 32bit boxes and 6.55 to 64bit boxes should be simple

3) By NOT doing this the CPU time wasted is massive, with no upside at all

4) Maybe it's time to separate the 32bit and 64bit apps anyway and not try to make one app work for everything

Can anyone think of a valid reason not to do this? Comments are warmly invited.

I did not see the full explanation as to why the 6.56 version was pulled ...

However, were I running the software world here I would have likely done the same thing. If a version is not working correctly on one platform, depending on the problem it also may suggest the results from the other platform may be compromised.

Secondly, the results from the different versions may not allow proper "batching" because the processing is so different ...

We could go on with speculation.

THAT aside, this is an early day project and is for CUDA still in serious development. Issues such as this are to be expected. In another thread a re-release of a new version is projected in about a week and to *ME* this is a reasonable timeframe especially with the holidays intervening.

These are the my thoughts ...

if it bothers you too much, I suggest you consider just pause the project for a week or so ...

I am here to test CUDA and to learn. In GENERAL, this class project is not that much of my interest. Never did like Biology. But I am madder at SaH so ... if I want to do CUDA, I need to do it here ... :)

In the mean time, take a gander at the BOINC Dev mailing list and make comments there about the issue of a project over-subscribing CPU usage to the thread Dr. Anderson is running solicing comments on work fetch policy. I say this though I know he wants to only focus on work fetch, I don't see how that can be done in isolation from Resource Share and task execution scheduling and consumption monitoring ...

I did not see the full explanation as to why the 6.56 version was pulled ...

However, were I running the software world here I would have likely done the same thing. If a version is not working correctly on one platform, depending on the problem it also may suggest the results from the other platform may be compromised.

These are the my thoughts ...

if it bothers you too much, I suggest you consider just pause the project for a week or so ...

I am here to test CUDA and to learn. In GENERAL, this class project is not that much of my interest. Never did like Biology. But I am madder at SaH so ... if I want to do CUDA, I need to do it here ... :)

Secondly, the results from the different versions may not allow proper "batching" because the processing is so different ...

Phoneman1, thanks for the analysis. At least it looks like the GTX260 is doing better CPU wise than the slower cards.
Here's the analysis for my 9600 GSO:


Version 6.56 - Total 2 WUs completed OK

WUs worth 3232.06 credits - CPU secs: 334.95 to 338.27 each


Version 6.55 - Total 25 WUs completed OK

WUs worth 3232.06 credits - CPU secs: 34,341.28 to 51,533.36 each

That's over 100 to 1 difference

I'm running Vista 64 on both my rigs and 6.56 ran flawless. I don't think I had any bad WU. So I don't know what the issue was.

Pat

Update: I had 1 WU go bad.

From the v6.56 thread:

"Every single report of this error was a machine with either XP-64 (SP1 or 2) or Server 2003."

Apparently Vista wasn't affected.

Update: I had 1 WU go bad.

Yea that's really a nice analysis Phoneman!

Would be interesting to see if there's also a difference in the total elapsed time and ms/step with the two different applications.

It's nice if 6.56 needed less CPU time, but it wouldn't be much of an improvement if the overall computation needs longer...

[edit]Also - do you run 4+1 or 3+1 tasks on your Quads?
I haven't had enough time to test it, I only saw that if 6.56 is run with 3+1 it takes the same CPU % than 6.55 therefore I believe if 6.56 is run with 4+1 it needs less CPU but the wall clock time a WU needs is longer...
____________

pixelicious.at - my little photoblog

Would be interesting to see if there's also a difference in the total elapsed time and ms/step with the two different applications.

It's nice if 6.56 needed less CPU time, but it wouldn't be much of an improvement if the overall computation needs longer...

[edit]Also - do you run 4+1 or 3+1 tasks on your Quads?

These are the my thoughts ...

if it bothers you too much, I suggest you consider just pause the project for a week or so ...

That sounds like, don't make suggestions. If you don't like it leave. I don't think that's the attitude of the developers here. They seem very responsive. I think they welcome our suggestions.

I am here to test CUDA and to learn. In GENERAL, this class project is not that much of my interest. Never did like Biology. But I am madder at SaH so ... if I want to do CUDA, I need to do it here ... :)

That's fine for you, although running a project because you're mad at another one is questionable. I like this project. I'm here because I want to help the project by donating GPU time and by helping the development of the project by providing beta feedback. That's the point of being in beta IMO. That said I'd also like to help other projects by using CPU time efficiently, not wasting it needlessly.

Not a problem Paul. Thanks for the reply!

Any news on a fixed v6.56 client or at least sending the v6.56 app to 32bit machines? Never have gotten a response concerning this issue.

Looks like the problem is fixed now with v6.62. Thanks!