FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

The most demanding Projects are only available to a small percentage of very high-end servers.

Moderators: Site Moderators, PandeGroup

Re: FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

Postby Haitch » Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:12 am

twoodc,

They changed the 3.01 build so it only support 4 vCPUs, the 3.00 build still supports 8. I've a copy of the 3.00 install that I can send to you if you have an email address that can take a 90MB attachment, or some other way I can send it to you.

H.
Haitch
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:34 pm

Re: FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

Postby twoodcc » Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:26 am

thanks Haitch, that makes sense. i'll look and see if anyone has 3.00 - if not, then maybe we can come up with something :)
Image
twoodcc
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:41 am

Re: FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

Postby Haitch » Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:28 am

Haitch
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:34 pm

Re: FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

Postby twoodcc » Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:41 am

thanks Haitch, i got it work! now after i reconfigured the client, on the client's webpage it still shows the defaults for username and stuff, but it showed my username in vmware.

also, how do i set this up in fahmon?

edit: well it's only using like 40% of my cpu, so something must be wrong
twoodcc
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:41 am

Re: FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

Postby Haitch » Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:55 am

twoodc,

I don't use the frednotfred image - couldn't get it to accept my username/team entry. I setup a Novell SLES build (download.novell.com). To get fahmon to monitor it you need to setup Samba and share your work directory. I don't bother and just keep any eye on the progress status to make sure it's doing something - folding @ leading edge is not plug and play .........
Haitch
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:34 pm

Re: FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

Postby twoodcc » Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:00 am

well i got fahmon to see it. but why is it only using 40% of my cpu? also, it's not doing a bigadv unit, but i guess it's b/c i forgot to put in that flag on first boot. not a big deal, but since it's only using 40% cpu, it's taking over 7min per frame! that''ll take over 11 hours to complete!
twoodcc
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:41 am

Re: FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

Postby Grandpa_01 » Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:07 am

twoodcc wrote:well i got fahmon to see it. but why is it only using 40% of my cpu? also, it's not doing a bigadv unit, but i guess it's b/c i forgot to put in that flag on first boot. not a big deal, but since it's only using 40% cpu, it's taking over 7min per frame! that''ll take over 11 hours to complete!


You are probably doing an a1 WU they will only use 4 threads.
Image
2 - SM H8QGi-F AMD 6xxx=112 cores @ 3.2 & 3.9Ghz
5 - SM X9QRI-f+ Intel 4650 = 320 cores @ 3.15Ghz
2 - I7 980X 4.4Ghz 2-GTX680
1 - 2700k 4.4Ghz GTX680
Total = 464 cores folding
User avatar
Grandpa_01
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:36 am

Re: FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

Postby twoodcc » Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:08 am

yeah, i think it's an a1 unit. but isn't 7min per frame kinda slow?
twoodcc
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:41 am

Re: FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

Postby Grandpa_01 » Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:10 am

a1 WU''s are slow most take 12 hrs or more
User avatar
Grandpa_01
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:36 am

Re: FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

Postby twoodcc » Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:15 am

Grandpa_01 wrote:a1 WU''s are slow most take 12 hrs or more


oh ok, thanks. well i guess i'll just have to wait this one out. hopefully i'll get a bigadv unit next.
twoodcc
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:41 am

Re: FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

Postby fredfoobar » Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:49 pm

Just a quick update, everyone:

I've been testing out a 2.6.33 kernel with the BFS scheduler patch included. I think I've been able to shake most of the bugs out of it now, and in the next couple of weeks, I'll be putting up a new version. I'm working with notfred now to merge my changes back into the main notfred image, so there won't be a need to keep my separate image around anymore. I'll keep everyone posted here as things change.
ImageImage
User avatar
fredfoobar
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:51 am
Location: Michigan

Re: FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

Postby Grandpa_01 » Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:54 pm

fredfoobar wrote:Just a quick update, everyone:

I've been testing out a 2.6.33 kernel with the BFS scheduler patch included. I think I've been able to shake most of the bugs out of it now, and in the next couple of weeks, I'll be putting up a new version. I'm working with notfred now to merge my changes back into the main notfred image, so there won't be a need to keep my separate image around anymore. I'll keep everyone posted here as things change.


So is it any better / faster than the current version. If you look at the current version's numbers it is pretty much in line with running native Linux.
User avatar
Grandpa_01
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:36 am

Re: FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

Postby fredfoobar » Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:41 pm

Grandpa_01 wrote:
fredfoobar wrote:Just a quick update, everyone:

I've been testing out a 2.6.33 kernel with the BFS scheduler patch included. I think I've been able to shake most of the bugs out of it now, and in the next couple of weeks, I'll be putting up a new version. I'm working with notfred now to merge my changes back into the main notfred image, so there won't be a need to keep my separate image around anymore. I'll keep everyone posted here as things change.


So is it any better / faster than the current version. If you look at the current version's numbers it is pretty much in line with running native Linux.


If this helps you any, I get 39:52 average TPF on project 2683 (Core i7-920 @3.2, 2 GPU clients also running in Windows). I don't have my historical data on hand, so I can't tell you how that compares to the previous kernel, but if I recall correctly, it's very slightly faster. The difference is not terribly much, though.
User avatar
fredfoobar
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:51 am
Location: Michigan

Re: FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

Postby runandfun » Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:36 pm

fredfoobar wrote:Just a quick update, everyone:

I've been testing out a 2.6.33 kernel with the BFS scheduler patch included. I think I've been able to shake most of the bugs out of it now, and in the next couple of weeks, I'll be putting up a new version. I'm working with notfred now to merge my changes back into the main notfred image, so there won't be a need to keep my separate image around anymore. I'll keep everyone posted here as things change.

Glad to hear that you teamed up with notfred.

May I suggest

- Backward compatibilty with VMWare Server 1.10, as AFAIK, it is the virtual environment with the smallest overhead for folding in a VM.
Advantages of VMWare Server 1.10:
Works on XP with 1GB RAM and 796MB "RAM" for the VM.
Automatically starts after a reboot,as it runs as a service.
"Native" VMWare Console.

- Separate switches for checkpoint and backup.

- Shutdown and reboot of the client/the VM.


I tried to run Linuxrouters FAH-VM-Package under VMWare Server 1.10, but it stopped right after initialization, as it uses the most up-todate VMX- & VMDK-specifications. Unfortunately it is not possible to have VMWare server & -player installed on the same HOST-OS.
runandfun
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:27 am

Re: FredNotFred VM for -bigadv units [beta]

Postby shdbcamping » Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:23 pm

linuxfah wrote:If you do not mind running native Linux, that would be the way to go. You can then run one instance of the bigadv client with -smp 24. Performance would be most optimal with this configuration. VMware Player 3.0 is around 3% slower than a native environment. I would recommend running a newer kernel though. I have tested many different kernel builds and have found that 2.6.31 performs well and 2.6.33 is the most optimal. 2.6.33 is still in the release candidate stage though.


Thanks for the Information. It's good to know that EL WU's will be possible on full compliment of cores in a 2 socket Server. If I were to set it up for linux, it would have to be dedicated folder.
shdbcamping
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:57 am

PreviousNext

Return to SMP with bigadv

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron