Overclock.net › Forums › Overclockers Care › Overclock.net Folding@Home Team › Folding@Home Guides and Tutorials › [Windows 7] 2500k & X6 Bigadv Folding w/ Native Linux Client
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Windows 7] 2500k & X6 Bigadv Folding w/ Native Linux Client - Page 4  

post #31 of 348
ok i just tried this. It absolutely crippled my machine. Even the task managed graph stopped updating but the unit was still folding.

Might just upgrade to a 2600k and sell this.
post #32 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyboyd View Post
ok i just tried this. It absolutely crippled my machine. Even the task managed graph stopped updating but the unit was still folding.

Might just upgrade to a 2600k and sell this.

If it were me that is what I would do. I have a feeling that when v7 comes out it will kill the walk around and the 2500's will no longer be able to fold bigadv WU's. Stanford has always said they do not want Quads doing bigadv. I do not know why though there have been sugestions before that the results they return are somehow corrupted. But I do not know if that is true or not.
Toy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 980X 4.4Ghz P6T SE ASUS ENGTX 460 Super Talent DDR3 2000 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
2-64GB SSD-0 Raid 4-Seagate 500GB (2TB) 0-Raid Ubuntu 10.10 CoolMax 1200W Thermaltake Kandalf LCS 
  hide details  
Toy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 980X 4.4Ghz P6T SE ASUS ENGTX 460 Super Talent DDR3 2000 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
2-64GB SSD-0 Raid 4-Seagate 500GB (2TB) 0-Raid Ubuntu 10.10 CoolMax 1200W Thermaltake Kandalf LCS 
  hide details  
post #33 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpa_01 View Post
If it were me that is what I would do. I have a feeling that when v7 comes out it will kill the walk around and the 2500's will no longer be able to fold bigadv WU's. Stanford has always said they do not want Quads doing bigadv. I do not know why though there have been sugestions before that the results they return are somehow corrupted. But I do not know if that is true or not.
I've seen some on the FF say that but I've not read anything from Dr. Kasson or anyone from PG to suggest that that is the case. And if that were the case then wouldn't using -smp 7 do the same thing since that veers from the original 8 core/thread requirement?

We should be finding out shortly if v7 does kill x4 & x6 doing -bigadv but then tear will probably find another work around for that one too
Jagdhund
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD MC Super Micro H8QGL-iF+  on board 32GB (2x16) Gskill DDR3 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
320GB WG water Ubuntu 10.04 64bit 21" Samsung LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
gineric 1200W Corsair bread box Razor 
Mouse Pad
na 
  hide details  
Jagdhund
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD MC Super Micro H8QGL-iF+  on board 32GB (2x16) Gskill DDR3 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
320GB WG water Ubuntu 10.04 64bit 21" Samsung LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
gineric 1200W Corsair bread box Razor 
Mouse Pad
na 
  hide details  
post #34 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutis View Post
I've seen some on the FF say that but I've not read anything from Dr. Kasson or anyone from PG to suggest that that is the case. And if that were the case then wouldn't using -smp 7 do the same thing since that veers from the original 8 core/thread requirement?

We should be finding out shortly if v7 does kill x4 & x6 doing -bigadv but then tear will probably find another work around for that one too
Yes we should find out soon. As far as the -smp 7 goes there are already some smp WU's that will not work with it. It is probably just a matter of time before there will be bigadv WU's that will not work with it. That is a core issue not a Stanford requirement.

If v7 does stop the X4 & X6 from folding bigadv then it would be v7 client or software doing it. I doubt that a work around could be made without changing the v7 client and or software which would be a EULA violation.

I do not know that this is going to happen like you said I have not heard anything official.
Toy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 980X 4.4Ghz P6T SE ASUS ENGTX 460 Super Talent DDR3 2000 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
2-64GB SSD-0 Raid 4-Seagate 500GB (2TB) 0-Raid Ubuntu 10.10 CoolMax 1200W Thermaltake Kandalf LCS 
  hide details  
Toy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 980X 4.4Ghz P6T SE ASUS ENGTX 460 Super Talent DDR3 2000 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
2-64GB SSD-0 Raid 4-Seagate 500GB (2TB) 0-Raid Ubuntu 10.10 CoolMax 1200W Thermaltake Kandalf LCS 
  hide details  
post #35 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpa_01 View Post
Yes we should find out soon. As far as the -smp 7 goes there are already some smp WU's that will not work with it. It is probably just a matter of time before there will be bigadv WU's that will not work with it. That is a core issue not a Stanford requirement.

If v7 does stop the X4 & X6 from folding bigadv then it would be v7 client or software doing it. I doubt that a work around could be made without changing the v7 client and or software which would be a EULA violation.

I do not know that this is going to happen like you said I have not heard anything official.
Yes the prime number effect.

Even now without the work around the client will stop none 8+ thread systems from folding -bigadv so it's already doing that. One thing that it might do, besides looking at how many cores the OS reports to it, is to also see what the CPU identification string is saying...just speculating.

If there is a work around for v7 someone will find it without having to hack the client and break the EULA.
Jagdhund
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD MC Super Micro H8QGL-iF+  on board 32GB (2x16) Gskill DDR3 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
320GB WG water Ubuntu 10.04 64bit 21" Samsung LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
gineric 1200W Corsair bread box Razor 
Mouse Pad
na 
  hide details  
Jagdhund
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD MC Super Micro H8QGL-iF+  on board 32GB (2x16) Gskill DDR3 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
320GB WG water Ubuntu 10.04 64bit 21" Samsung LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
gineric 1200W Corsair bread box Razor 
Mouse Pad
na 
  hide details  
post #36 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutis View Post
Yes the prime number effect.

Even now without the work around the client will stop none 8+ thread systems from folding -bigadv so it's already doing that. One thing that it might do, besides looking at how many cores the OS reports to it, is to also see what the CPU identification string is saying...just speculating.

If there is a work around for v7 someone will find it without having to hack the client and break the EULA.
That is the assignment server that is checking for 8 cores not the client. The work around is fooling the AS therefore it is not breaking the EULA. If v7 has the ability to read CPU’s it is different and any hack to the client or software would be breaking the EULA.
Toy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 980X 4.4Ghz P6T SE ASUS ENGTX 460 Super Talent DDR3 2000 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
2-64GB SSD-0 Raid 4-Seagate 500GB (2TB) 0-Raid Ubuntu 10.10 CoolMax 1200W Thermaltake Kandalf LCS 
  hide details  
Toy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 980X 4.4Ghz P6T SE ASUS ENGTX 460 Super Talent DDR3 2000 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
2-64GB SSD-0 Raid 4-Seagate 500GB (2TB) 0-Raid Ubuntu 10.10 CoolMax 1200W Thermaltake Kandalf LCS 
  hide details  
post #37 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpa_01 View Post
That is the assignment server that is checking for 8 cores not the client. The work around is fooling the AS therefore it is not breaking the EULA. If v7 has the ability to read CPU’s it is different and any hack to the client or software would be breaking the EULA.
Learn something new every day.

I always thought that when you started the client one of the first things it showed was "reporting 8 cores" or something to that effect and that it was the client that was reporting to the AS that it had 8 cores to use, then the AS would pass that off to the proper WU server.

I'm sure it's the client that reports the number of cores to the AS. Bruce and I talked about that before.
link

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce
The Assignment Server bases it's decisions on the information supplied by the client. Your discussions are centered about about a concept called performance. Performance is only indirectly related to getting the AS to assign or not assign bigadv is The client DOES NOT KNOW the performance of your system.
So the work around is fooling the client that then fools the AS which doesn't break the EULA.
Jagdhund
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD MC Super Micro H8QGL-iF+  on board 32GB (2x16) Gskill DDR3 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
320GB WG water Ubuntu 10.04 64bit 21" Samsung LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
gineric 1200W Corsair bread box Razor 
Mouse Pad
na 
  hide details  
Jagdhund
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD MC Super Micro H8QGL-iF+  on board 32GB (2x16) Gskill DDR3 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
320GB WG water Ubuntu 10.04 64bit 21" Samsung LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
gineric 1200W Corsair bread box Razor 
Mouse Pad
na 
  hide details  
post #38 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutis View Post
Learn something new every day.

I always thought that when you started the client one of the first things it showed was "reporting 8 cores" or something to that effect and that it was the client that was reporting to the AS that it had 8 cores to use, then the AS would pass that off to the proper WU server.

I'm sure it's the client that reports the number of cores to the AS. Bruce and I talked about that before.
link



So the work around is fooling the client that then fools the AS which doesn't break the EULA.
Yes the AS reads what the client detects from the OS then makes the assignment. But what if the new client or software has the ability to register how many cores are actually dedicated to running the WU and thus refuses to run with less than 8. That is where the EULA comes into play. You would have to alter the client or software.
Toy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 980X 4.4Ghz P6T SE ASUS ENGTX 460 Super Talent DDR3 2000 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
2-64GB SSD-0 Raid 4-Seagate 500GB (2TB) 0-Raid Ubuntu 10.10 CoolMax 1200W Thermaltake Kandalf LCS 
  hide details  
Toy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 980X 4.4Ghz P6T SE ASUS ENGTX 460 Super Talent DDR3 2000 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
2-64GB SSD-0 Raid 4-Seagate 500GB (2TB) 0-Raid Ubuntu 10.10 CoolMax 1200W Thermaltake Kandalf LCS 
  hide details  
post #39 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpa_01 View Post
Yes the AS reads what the client detects from the OS then makes the assignment. But what if the new client or software has the ability to register how many cores are actually dedicated to running the WU and thus refuses to run with less than 8. That is where the EULA comes into play. You would have to alter the client or software.
I agree with you if the only way is to hack the client, then yes that is breaking the EULA and should not be done. I wouldn't do it and wouldn't use any app that would. I would also warn people not to as you would too.

But...if the client still queries the OS, BIOS, CPU for that answer and a work around can be done then yes it's not breaking the EULA and I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Jagdhund
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD MC Super Micro H8QGL-iF+  on board 32GB (2x16) Gskill DDR3 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
320GB WG water Ubuntu 10.04 64bit 21" Samsung LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
gineric 1200W Corsair bread box Razor 
Mouse Pad
na 
  hide details  
Jagdhund
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD MC Super Micro H8QGL-iF+  on board 32GB (2x16) Gskill DDR3 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
320GB WG water Ubuntu 10.04 64bit 21" Samsung LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
gineric 1200W Corsair bread box Razor 
Mouse Pad
na 
  hide details  
post #40 of 348
I personally do not see any problem with Quads and 6 core machines running bigadv as long as they do not slow the project down and return usable results. Hell I ran a couple of bigadv WU's on a Q9650 in 2.5 days sneakerneting over a year ago when they said it could not be done. But it did not take Stanford long to block sneakerneting after I did it.

I do believe that if Stanford does not want Quads and 6 core machines to run bigadv they could, would or will stop it. If they do not care then it will continue. When I did it they stooped me with no problem.
Toy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 980X 4.4Ghz P6T SE ASUS ENGTX 460 Super Talent DDR3 2000 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
2-64GB SSD-0 Raid 4-Seagate 500GB (2TB) 0-Raid Ubuntu 10.10 CoolMax 1200W Thermaltake Kandalf LCS 
  hide details  
Toy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 980X 4.4Ghz P6T SE ASUS ENGTX 460 Super Talent DDR3 2000 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
2-64GB SSD-0 Raid 4-Seagate 500GB (2TB) 0-Raid Ubuntu 10.10 CoolMax 1200W Thermaltake Kandalf LCS 
  hide details  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Overclockers Care › Overclock.net Folding@Home Team › Folding@Home Guides and Tutorials › [Windows 7] 2500k & X6 Bigadv Folding w/ Native Linux Client