# Utilizing your Processor



## Mindweaver (Jun 28, 2009)

I've been working on a theory of mine after hearing a big question from WCG members, "How can I run more work units?". In essence one WU for each core.. Correct?... No... for example HT (Hyper-Threading) which consists of Virtual cores. 

 Now the bigger question, "what if my processor doesn't support HT? ". Now back to my theory.. and that is, "Run a virtual pc/server ." I started testing this on 6/25/09 with my E8400 @ 4ghz and the results are nice. 

 Don't get to excited each virtual pc/server only represents one core, but with a capable processor you can run more virtual pc/servers. So, with the fundamental nature of a processor with multiple cores you can run as many virtual pc/servers as your core number with small to medium impact." i7" users should be able to use HT cores which have the newest more efficient HT.

Now, let's see if your processor qualifies? Intel users need to have VT (Virtualization Technology) and AMD users need to have AMD-V. If you do, then verify that it is turned on in bio's. And remember we all know more RAM the better.

Next what you will need is software to run your virtual PC/server (example: Windows Virtual PC, Windows Virtual 2006/2007, and VMWare.).  Obviously, Windows Virtual PC only runs Windows OS's, but there are other software like VMWare which run Windows, Mac, and Linux. You can find others just use google or some other search engine to find them. 

Well, what are you waiting for go create your virtual server!  Hehehe... I've listed some results from my E8400 with VT below. Just realize from the results below the PC it self ran longer than the Virtual server. After doing a little math you can see the numbers are close give or take 200 or 300 points. The Virtual server returns around 420 to 460 points every 2 to 2.5 hours @ 60% CPU.

E8400 (60% to 95% CPU)



	 Total Run Time		
Statistics Date  	(y:d:h:m:s) 	Points Generated 	Results Returned
6/28/2009	0:000:06:02:52 	1,376	2
6/27/2009	0:001:10:11:17 	6,326	12
6/26/2009	0:001:04:05:47 	5,623	9
6/25/2009	0:001:00:12:57 	4,808	8

Virtual PC/server (60%)


	 Total Run Time		
Statistics Date  	(y:d:h:m:s) 	Points Generated 	Results Returned
6/28/2009	0:000:04:08:47  	648	1
6/27/2009	0:000:06:23:32 	1,009	2
6/26/2009	0:000:10:05:34 	1,738	4
6/25/2009	0:000:07:23:18 	1,260	3

I'm curious to see other members results! Please post. thanks!


----------



## PaulieG (Jun 28, 2009)

This is a great idea, though I've never set up a virtual server before, and have no idea how to do it...


----------



## Mindweaver (Jun 28, 2009)

Simple, if you have ever formated your hard drive and re-installed your OS your good to go. Just down load the software (MS Virtual PC is free) and install. Then just start the software and create new virtual PC/server. Remember it will take up space on your hard drive. I would suggest creating them no bigger than 4.7gb's with Windows virtual PC. So, you can back them up on a standard dvd.

If you use VMWare you can go bigger, because it creates them in 2gb blocks for backing up and moving.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 29, 2009)

I don't get it.  Virtual PCs allows you to run more instances of the application but it also adds a lot of overhead.  Are you not better off just running the two instances your processor supports and eliminating the overhead?

Yeah, a Virtual PC means more work units but at the end of the day, it doesn't necessarily mean more work done.  Remember, there is about a week-long deadline on all work so it is a good idea to get it done almost as fast as you receive it.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jun 29, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't get it.  Virtual PCs allows you to run more instances of the application but it also adds a lot of overhead.  Are you not better off just running the two instances your processor supports and eliminating the overhead?
> 
> Yeah, a Virtual PC means more work units but at the end of the day, it doesn't necessarily mean more work done.  Remember, there is about a week-long deadline on all work so it is a good idea to get it done almost as fast as you receive it.



Very good question. That can be said about i7's with HT enabled, but they are returning work just fine... My E8400 has been returning work just fine.. Almost as if it were a triple core. If you bought a processor with VT or AMD-V than why not use it? So far, my Virtual machine is out performing my single core processors. 

It's returning almost 2000 points (4 results) every 10 hours @ 60% CPU usage with out taking anything away from both cores.


----------



## HammerON (Jun 29, 2009)

This sounds interesting. I have a E8500 and was wondering how I could get more out of it for crunching


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 29, 2009)

VT and AMD-V are simply instructions to handle virtualization on a lower, machine level rather than being purely software.  It boosts virtualization performance (by completely virtualizing the OS) but it is still no faster than just using the core directly.

I see what you are aiming for--HT on non-HT processors but, Hyperthreading is an architectual feature.  Netburst-based processors have long pipes compared to non-Netburst processors.  Because some stages of a pipe can be used while others are busy, the route that extra work in through a logical core.  At least that was the implementation in Pentium 4.  In Core i7, the line between physical and logical is pretty much gone.  Every core is fully capable of handling two threads and which thread ends up where really makes no difference.  I mean, when my Core i7 was reset, all 8 work units finished up at about the same time demonstrating consistency across the physical/logical cores.  I'm going on a tangent here...

The point mean is that if you try to run two threads on the same core at the same time when the core can only handle one thread at a time does not provide any benefit.  In your example, 60-95% on your dual core means 100% of core 0 and 20%-90% of core 1.  60% on your virtual pc means 60% of core1 which adjusts.  Your virtual pc host software will mask the other 20%-90% that's already there and WCG will respond to the 60% workload already present meaning it will only use 0-30%.  In the end, it looks something like this...
core 0: 100% WCG
core 1: 60% Virtual PC, 0-30% WCG

There's a net loss here because of the virtual PC overhead.  Virtualization doesn't mean the core can handle more than one thread a time so there is nothing to be gained from it.


Is this computer left on 24/7?  The best way to test is to take a three, five, or seven day average with the virtual machine running and do another three, five, or seven day average with the virtual machine disabled.  Compare the results and see what averaged better. I also recommend turning it up to 100% for this test to prevent throttling (which is never good).


----------



## Mindweaver (Jun 29, 2009)

Wow I was going to bed ford..  You make a very good point. I understand the concept of HT versus VT. I was just pointing out that they both are virtual tech.

I've listed the results from my E8400 @ 4ghz with cpu 60 to 95%. From the 25th till now has the Virtual server running on it. Everything before is just the 2 cores returning work.



	 Total Run Time		
Statistics Date  	(y:d:h:m:s) 	Points Generated 	Results Returned
6/28/2009	0:000:06:02:52  	1,376	2
6/27/2009	0:001:10:11:17 	6,326	12
6/26/2009	0:001:04:05:47 	5,623	9
6/25/2009	0:001:00:12:57 	4,808	8
6/24/2009	0:000:12:40:41 	2,263	4
6/23/2009	0:000:20:00:57 	3,906	7
6/22/2009	0:001:01:57:47 	4,858	7
6/21/2009	0:000:14:30:39 	2,787	4
6/20/2009	0:001:09:52:45 	7,041	10
6/19/2009	0:001:03:14:42 	5,549	7
6/17/2009	0:000:02:56:47 	578	1
6/16/2009	0:000:12:54:08 	2,446	5
6/15/2009	0:000:11:02:40 	2,026	4
6/14/2009	0:001:00:21:30 	4,740	7

See first post for Virtual Results.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jun 29, 2009)

Don't count the 28th's results yet.. After the last update it had 8 results finished but not returned.. since then they have returned... I'll post results tomorrow. Nite all!


----------



## Mindweaver (Jun 29, 2009)

Remember, the result numbers and points need to be divided in half to compare with the Virtual PC. Now I'm going to bed..lol


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 29, 2009)

Mindweaver said:


> Remember, the result numbers and points need to be divided in half to compare with the Virtual PC. Now I'm going to bed..lol


Huh?  If these are device statistics, why would you have to divide it in half?  The Virtual PC inflates the runtime value, is that what you mean?

What I am looking at now is not consistent enough to be scientific.  Run times are all over the place yet, the points rewarded are relatively constant with the run times throughout.  Without knowing exactly how long the computer was running WCG projects on those days, it's hard to be certain of anything.

Even my server which has been running 24/7 for the past 19 days is all over the chart with runtimes...


Statistics Date | Total Run Time | Points Generated | Results Returned 
6/28/09 | 0:007:04:02:59 | 14,300 | 27 
6/27/09 | 0:006:17:34:44 | 12,526 | 25 
6/26/09 | 0:009:10:53:20 | 18,185 | 36 
6/25/09 | 0:007:23:39:32 | 15,386 | 29 
6/24/09 | 0:009:01:55:01 | 17,319 | 33 
6/23/09 | 0:008:00:55:06 | 14,831 | 29 
6/22/09 | 0:008:08:39:18 | 16,303 | 29 
6/21/09 | 0:006:16:05:54 | 12,675 | 25 
6/20/09 | 0:007:10:42:15 | 14,590 | 28 
6/19/09 | 0:007:20:26:32 | 14,722 | 30 
6/18/09 | 0:007:19:17:17 | 15,176 | 27 
6/17/09 | 0:007:09:12:30 | 14,946 | 27 
6/16/09 | 0:010:00:49:31 | 18,483 | 37 
6/15/09 | 0:007:07:49:08 | 13,821 | 24 
6/14/09 | 0:008:22:02:44 | 17,122 | 31 
6/13/09 | 0:008:21:24:51 | 16,884 | 32 
6/12/09 | 0:005:12:16:36 | 10,452 | 19 
6/11/09 | 0:008:03:46:14 | 15,137 | 27 
6/10/09 | 0:009:06:36:02 | 17,025 | 28It should be 8 days on average because it is 8 cores running all day every day.


But, let's just say (rather, stating a fact) were not going to get anything more consistent just because we are dealing with non-uniform workloads (not to mention points are rewarded on the day the work is verified good and not when it is turned in).  That said, we look at the 27/26th compared to the 20/19th.  The runtimes are similar albeit slightly in favor of the virtual PC and the subesequent scores are very close.  Going just by those data points, I'd say it isn't making any difference.


With it set at 60%, it is virtually impossible to draw any conclusions.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jun 29, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Huh?  If these are device statistics, why would you have to divide it in half?  The Virtual PC inflates the runtime value, is that what you mean?



The last table of results are from the non-virtual environment which has two cores. Since it has two cores you would divide the results in half to receive a number for each core then compare with the virtual numbers. I realize that each core works on it on result.. so if you have a dual core and the results are odd... just round up or round down.. I would round up and then divide by two.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 30, 2009)

Per core really doesn't matter.  The important thing to compare is the machine output.  All virtual machine does is make it work on three at a time instead of two.

HT isn't virtual technology, it is a second physical pipe to the core (can process two threads simutaneously instead of one).


----------



## Mindweaver (Jun 30, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Per core really doesn't matter.  The important thing to compare is the machine output.  All virtual machine does is make it work on three at a time instead of two.
> 
> HT isn't virtual technology, it is a second physical pipe to the core (can process two threads simutaneously instead of one).



So, everything that you have said so far you should turn off your HT. The fact is that your i7 only has 4 physical cores no matter how many extra pipes it has going to it. By adding the extra pipe to each core enables OS to think it has 8 logical cores. This means that only Four processor is physically present but the operating system sees eight virtual processors, and shares the workload between them.

Intel only claims 15 to 30% increase in performance using HT. And yes your i7 creates overhead with HT enabled. With the Virtual PC I never said this would speed up your processor or double your output, but i have seen an increase in results returned. 

In the end it's all about the number of results that find a cure correct? So far, I can see the increase of results returned from my E8400. Your one concern was the virtual pc returning work in time. As of right now it does not have any errors or work pushed aside, because it did not reach them in time. 

Please do  one favor for me before you post your rebuttal. Try it... Stop reading other peoples work, and test it out for yourself.  I was sceptical at first too.. but I tried it. Ford I would really like to see some results from your i7 if possible. I work with virtual OS's day in and day out. I think it's a fantastic piece of software that's able to take advantage of VT, and AMD-V technology.  

I'm just trying to find a cure.... Will you help?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 30, 2009)

I guess I'm going to have to paint a picture....






The only way to tap 100% power of a Pentium 4 or Core i7 is to use Hyper-Threading.  If you have them disabled, large portions of the core go unused (this is clearly demonstrated by how much heat Pentium 4 and Core i7 produce when Hyper-Threading is enabled).




Mindweaver said:


> Intel only claims 15 to 30% increase in performance using HT. And yes your i7 creates overhead with HT enabled. With the Virtual PC I never said this would speed up your processor or double your output, but i have seen an increase in results returned.


Overhead is near non-existant with Hyper-Threading enabled.  The biggest loss was -2.7% in World in Conflict (namely because it is single threaded).  Gains are as high as 34.1% in some synthetic benchmarks.




Mindweaver said:


> Ford I would really like to see some results from your i7 if possible. I work with virtual OS's day in and day out. I think it's a fantastic piece of software that's able to take advantage of VT, and AMD-V technology.


My Core i7 computer goes off every night so it is not a good for testing throughput; moreover, the WCG client running often has problems (failing to submit completed work, failing to work on existing tasks, failure to download new work).

I am also running Windows XP which doesn't support Intel VT.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 30, 2009)

Close, but the HT from the netburst days was a poor excuse for cache misses and a long ass pipeline made up to be a great thing. In those days AMD could say real men use cores.


However it did improve performance in multitasking with things like F@H. But fell flat when using it for other things that required CPU cycles and real time data, basicly single threaded apps took a fall.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jun 30, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I guess I'm going to have to paint a picture....
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090630/threading444.png
> 
> The only way to tap 100% power of a Pentium 4 or Core i7 is to use Hyper-Threading.  If you have them disabled, large portions of the core go unused (this is clearly demonstrated by how much heat Pentium 4 and Core i7 produce when Hyper-Threading is enabled).
> ...



Why do you insist on telling me the work on one logical core is divided using a virtual PC. I UNDERSTAND THAT.... And you don't have to paint me a picture.. Should I paint you one?...  I know HT is more efficient than using VT, but if you don't have it but want to run more work units at a time.. Then using Virtual PC/Server is your best alternative... 

I never stated that by running a virtual server it would perform as well as having HT. I said it would give you the ability to run more work units...  

Why don't you try putting more effort in returning valid work units than bantering my thread? Good day Sir! I said Good day!...


----------



## Mindweaver (Jun 30, 2009)

Windows Virtual pc 2007 will run on windows XP. See link below. This version will slow older pc's down some... but nice to have for testing.

System Requirements

    * Supported Operating Systems: Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition (32-bit x86); Windows Server 2003, Standard x64 Edition; Windows Vista Business; Windows Vista Business 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Enterprise; Windows Vista Enterprise 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Ultimate; Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit edition; Windows XP Professional Edition ; Windows XP Professional x64 Edition ; Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 

An x64-based or an x86-based computer with a 400 MHz or faster (1 GHz recommended) processor with L2 cache

Processor: AMD Athlon/Duron, Intel Celeron, Intel Pentium II, Intel Pentium III, Intel Pentium 4, Intel Core Duo, and Intel Core2 Duo

RAM: Add the RAM requirement for the host operating system that you will be using to the requirement for the guest operating system that you will be using. If you will be using multiple guest operating systems simultaneously, total the requirements for all the guest operating systems that you need to run simultaneously.

Available disk space: To determine the hard disk space required, add the requirement for each guest operating system that will be installed.

Virtual PC 2007 runs on: Windows Vista™ Business; Windows Vista™ Enterprise; Windows Vista™ Ultimate; Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition; Windows Server 2003, Standard x64 Edition; Windows XP Professional; Windows XP Professional x64 Edition; or Windows XP Tablet PC Edition


http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=04D26402-3199-48A3-AFA2-2DC0B40A73B6&displaylang=en


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 30, 2009)

Mindweaver said:


> I never stated that by running a virtual server it would perform as well as having HT. I said it would give you the ability to run more work units...


I'm stating it makes no difference.  There are two huge x-factors in your current testing: WCG isn't running 100% idle (very important) and your day to day runtime isn't constant.


----------



## Disparia (Jun 30, 2009)

I have no doubt that your output has increased from what I've read. Yyou weren't fully utilizing your CPU from the get-go (60%). You then start a VM with the WGC client, it's now sucking up those spare cycles, no?

But I do applaud you, and anyone who would take the time to research for the benefit of others. Which is why we'd all like to help your research be as scientific and precise as possible.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jun 30, 2009)

Jizzler said:


> I have no doubt that your output has increased from what I've read. Yyou weren't fully utilizing your CPU from the get-go (60%). You then start a VM with the WGC client, it's now sucking up those spare cycles, no?
> 
> But I do applaud you, and anyone who would take the time to research for the benefit of others. Which is why we'd all like to help your research be as scientific and precise as possible.



True, but when the computer is at 60% the VM ware is turned off... The E8400 is my main personal rig... When my nephew comes over to play games I turn off vm, and set wcg to 60%. When ever vm is running the physical pc is set to 95% and vm is set to 60%. I would run vm higher, but I don't want it over stating the physical pc. 

Do you think by setting WCG to 100% utilizes your processor 100%? Why does your mouse and keyboard respond? How can you open other apps? Don't tell me WCG backs off when these other task are applied.. If so, why have an option to turn off or back off when the user is present? When your pc becomes unresponsive and the little red light on the front of your case is solid, that is when your pc is being taxed at 100%.

Given the nature of Window's, the kernel only hands out 85% of your processor and holds back 15% for other duties when windows shows performance at 100%. How is your pc responsive? That's the kernel doing its job. And I'm not stating that Window's kernel is 100% efficient.. But, I still think we can harness that 15%. I'm just trying to manipulate it. 

Why put better compound between your heatsink and processor?.. Not for it to do all of your cooling but to shave a little off... If you didn't buy that better compound then your most likely not going to try this.. For me I did! Thanks Jizzler for your response! I like your approach!   Wow, my 2.734 posts a day is turning into 3.021...hehehe


----------



## Mindweaver (Jun 30, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm stating it makes no difference.  There are two huge x-factors in your current testing: WCG isn't running 100% idle (very important) and your day to day runtime isn't constant.



  Non sequitur... Carpe diem!


----------



## Disparia (Jun 30, 2009)

I think I have a clearer picture of what you're trying to accomplish.

My first thought would be to work on a little scheduled script to increase priority of the unit processes (low by default), for a longer time slice and less interrupts. It's first as I'm trying to think of solutions that don't involve a VM (overhead) and the maintenance of said VM. It's great for Folding as the Linux client stomps all over the Windows client, so overhead be damned, but in this case... having a hard time seeing a gain from it.

One of my Q6600's isn't being used by anyone, so that seems like the best place for some long-term testing without the user variable.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jun 30, 2009)

Jizzler said:


> I think I have a clearer picture of what you're trying to accomplish.
> 
> My first thought would be to work on a little scheduled script to increase priority of the unit processes (low by default), for a longer time slice and less interrupts. It's first as I'm trying to think of solutions that don't involve a VM (overhead) and the maintenance of said VM. It's great for Folding as the Linux client stomps all over the Windows client, so overhead be damned, but in this case... having a hard time seeing a gain from it.
> 
> One of my Q6600's isn't being used by anyone, so that seems like the best place for some long-term testing without the user variable.



Great Idea! Script or bat file will work great. VM does have overhead but on a dedicated cruncher should not be as big a factor. As for maintenance just install the os and wcg and keep it under a single layer DVD for backing up. If something goes wrong with VM just delete the Virtual Harddrive and restore it from the DVD. 

Yes, linux is great.. I first started using Unix years ago which later became linux. I still have the 20 book shelf boxes the last version I have of unix. That's when Instruction books where books.. hard back..lol full size..lol One HD3.5 per box..lol The last system it ran on was a RS6000 Computer.. Not Mirco-computer.. hehehe... with over 60 terminals pc's... 

I'm getting of topic... Sorry... stealing my on thread...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 1, 2009)

Mindweaver said:


> Do you think by setting WCG to 100% utilizes your processor 100%? Why does your mouse and keyboard respond? How can you open other apps? Don't tell me WCG backs off when these other task are applied.


This is hard to explain...so another picture is in order!





I play games with WCG running 100% all the time.  WCG runs at low priority which means it only uses up to 100% of idle clocks.  For instance, most games are single-threaded which means they only use 13.5% of the CPU.  WCG, therefore, will use the other 86.5%.  I can't tell it is working unless I open up task manager.

Video cards aren't so good with thread priority...


This is a huge discussion topic, really.  Your PC will come to a crawl if the the threads that are using 100% of your processor power are at normal or above.  Why does it cause problems?  Because the OS runs at normal.  Problems start arising when the OS gets bumped.  Idle/Low priority means WCG can't cause that.  The OS will beat WCG over the head if it tries. XD




Mindweaver said:


> Non sequitur... Carpe diem!


That's...not english.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jul 1, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This is hard to explain...so another picture is in order!
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090630/usage.png
> 
> I play games with WCG running 100% all the time.  WCG runs at low priority which means it only uses up to 100% of idle clocks.  For instance, most games are single-threaded which means they only use 13.5% of the CPU.  WCG, therefore, will use the other 86.5%.  I can't tell it is working unless I open up task manager.
> ...



Thanks for the pics... to bad they are not pop ups..lol j/k Thank you for your interest in the thread. You are correct that is not english...


----------



## mrsemi (Jul 1, 2009)

I'm not a tecchnie at all, but for those who say this doesn't work in theory... I wonder if when the system decides to hang on to a task and not send it in for more work if this doesn't make it more effective.

If you normally have 4 cores / threads and you turn it into 8, while one's waiting to upload you still have 7 going.  Not sure if that makes sense.


----------



## Disparia (Jul 1, 2009)

Unlike FAH which has a download -> process -> upload -> repeat cycle, finished units are held by the manager and another unit starts nearly instantly.


----------



## mike047 (Jul 1, 2009)

Jizzler said:


> Unlike FAH which has a download -> process -> upload -> repeat cycle, *finished units are held by the manager* and another unit starts nearly instantly.



You can change this to report instantly in the config.xml.

As to the use of the VT, BOINC has been used for some time now and if it was a benefit...others would have pimped it previously.  I believe somewhere that I read in threads[BOINC forum?? I'm old and don't remember] that it was considered counter productive.  This obviously doesn't include the i7 as it is new and works with the HT.

I'm sure someone will take exception to my comment but this is as I remember it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 1, 2009)

mike047 said:


> You can change this to report instantly in the config.xml.


What directory is this in?  It isn't in Program Files\BOINC...


----------



## mike047 (Jul 1, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> What directory is this in?  It isn't in Program Files\BOINC...



I will have to search for it.  Until recently, I used Ubuntu "only" and it is easier to work with and find.

Windows can also be done, I will have to find it.



It is in ;
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC

You will have to create a file "cc_config.xml" and then put this in it;

<cc_config>
    <options>
        <report_results_immediately>1</report_results_immediately>
    </options>
</cc_config>

Save it and the go to your Boinc manager under the "advanced" tab click "read config file"

Here is more info;
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3831053&postcount=3


----------



## Mindweaver (Jul 1, 2009)

mike047 said:


> You can change this to report instantly in the config.xml.
> 
> As to the use of the VT, BOINC has been used for some time now and if it was a benefit...others would have pimped it previously.  I believe somewhere that I read in threads[BOINC forum?? I'm old and don't remember] that it was considered counter productive.  This obviously doesn't include the i7 as it is new and works with the HT.
> 
> I'm sure someone will take exception to my comment but this is as I remember it.



Thanks Mike! for your knowledge on this matter. 

Yesturday I turned off VM and set WCG to 100% from 95%. Today my result are way down.. not the results I wanted to see.. I was hoping to see a small decrease around 10% in results returned from this PC, but it has almost half the out put. I waited for the work finished, and sent on my VM before shutting it down... VM has been off for over 16 hours.. I'll check the rest of my machines results. Happy Crunching! Thanks once again for everyone interest!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 2, 2009)

mike047 said:


> It is in ;
> C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC
> 
> You will have to create a file "cc_config.xml" and then put this in it...


Geez, you'd think it just be an option somewhere. XD

I enabled it and there was 3 three 100% units complete.  Hopefully that will be zero from here on.


----------



## Sonido (Jul 2, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Huh?  If these are device statistics, why would you have to divide it in half?  The Virtual PC inflates the runtime value, is that what you mean?
> ...



I knew I liked Ford for a reason; his logic is sound. While the OP makes sense in what he's trying to explain, Ford makes valid points. You are just making it a dual-single core machine (weird way to put it), while retaining the dual-core function of the original instance of WCG. Hmmm...

Where core 1 is shown to be split between the two, if you add up the numbers, would it add up to what a regular 100% utilization of the original instance would be?


----------



## Mindweaver (Jul 2, 2009)

Sonido said:


> I knew I liked Ford for a reason; his logic is sound. While the OP makes sense in what he's trying to explain, Ford makes valid points. You are just making it a dual-single core machine (weird way to put it), while retaining the dual-core function of the original instance of WCG. Hmmm...
> 
> Where core 1 is shown to be split between the two, if you add up the numbers, would it add up to what a regular 100% utilization of the original instance would be?



Yea Ford's a good guy, and his logic is sound. I've enjoyed the quid pro quo. 


FordGT90Concept said:


> Huh?  If these are device statistics, why would you have to divide it in half?  The Virtual PC inflates the runtime value, is that what you mean?



Ford's statement was a misunderstanding of my previous statement. Sorry, I didn't explain this better Ford. I was simply stating that all the results prior to the 25th where just the physical pc's results. Those results would need to be divided by 2 since it is a dual core processor. So, from the 25th and everything forward were from the physical, and VM environment. You will want to divide by 2 as well. To compare against the Virtual single core output (Task Manager only shows one core for the Virtual PC not 2 for a dual core processor). You can compare the two sets of numbers before, and after with out dividing to calculate your overhead.

I think I see where Ford is misunderstanding my Physical results, and my VM results that I've listed. At WCG your Virtual PC/Server shows up as it's on device, and the physical pc as it's on device . For example if you go to your "Device Manager" at WCG you will see the Virtual-pc as if it were a Physical pc with its on results (See Table below). While using your Virtual pc you can share folders with your physical pc as if they were two computers on the same network. 

You can even set your physical pc up as a pdc (primary domain controller) and add your Virtual PC to your domain. It's actually great stuff! Really good for testing. 



			Date Installed
Agent type	Device Name	Selected Profile	&Registered
Boinc	E8400-pc	Default	5/8/2009
Boinc	E8400-VM	Default	6/25/2009


----------



## Papahyooie (Jul 2, 2009)

Im gonna chime in here... and I guess I tend to side with Ford on things, but i promise im not teamed up with him lol. 

Ok... your processor is dual core. So lets boil things down to the simplest it can be. WCG on 1 core = 1. WCG on second core = 1. Processor time dedicated to running VM = 1. 

1+1+1=3. But you can only run 2 threads. So we have 1 thread on one core, and 2 threads running on the second core. (one of the threads is virtual obviously, because its in a VM). The second core can only run at 100% maximum (duh). So the second core is running virtual machine AND wcg. HOW can this be a good thing for wcg? 

Another way to look at it: in a normal scenerio, youre only running one instance of your OS. So thats OS+wcg+wcg. With a VM youre running OS+OS+wcg+wcg. Thats more work to be done, which has to be spread out over the processor, meaning less time for wcg. 

Even discounting the OS:

1 core= 100% wcg
2nd core = processor time divided by wcg and VM (50/50, 60/40, whatever)

as opposed to NOT running vmware when

1core = 100%wcg
2nd core = 100% wcg.

In your vmware scenerio, wcg going to lose out on processor time because of the overhead needed to run vm. Same thing with the work units. You may be able to run more work, but each work unit gets less processor time. As for HT, thats a totally different beast altogether. This has nothing to do with HT. Hypothetically replace your vmware/wcg with a game. If you play a game while crunching, the crunching will suffer, as will the game (you may not notice it due to process scheduling and priority if you have a fast processor, but its still there, and your crunching numbers will show it.) Its an interesting idea, but fundamentally flawed. As for your numbers, what Ford is saying is that they are all over the place. They are in no way conclusive, because they arent anywhere near consistant. If you want to do an experiment, do it right, and run the thing 24/7 for a week without the vm, then for a week with the vm, and make sure it isnt used otherwise, because irregular use (such as gaming, surfing, etc) will affect the numbers. The only way this experiment can be done is on a dedicated cruncher. Maybe I will perform this experiment on my own machine once I get it up. Id like to see what the numbers reveal, and I'd be willing to put money on it that it will be a detriment.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jul 2, 2009)

Papahyooie said:


> Im gonna chime in here... and I guess I tend to side with Ford on things, but i promise im not teamed up with him lol.
> 
> Ok... your processor is dual core. So lets boil things down to the simplest it can be. WCG on 1 core = 1. WCG on second core = 1. Processor time dedicated to running VM = 1.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your time.  

I understand the overhead... The core cycles shared with physical and VM (1 core = 100%, other core = 50/50).... Since no one can look past that fact, and I never said anyone was wrong with that statement... What I'm trying to do is test the VT technology... I don't want to hear people tell me that it doesn't make your processor faster and it doesn't represent a core (Look past that).. I know this.. and about the HT vs VT.. all i stated was that they both give you the abiltiy to run extra WU's... I understand HT is an extra pipe to the core, not an instruction set... On a side note.. I hope I get my new Q9550 today...


----------



## Papahyooie (Jul 2, 2009)

...then what exactly are you trying to accomplish? You wont get any more points or work out of wcg from doing this... which is what you stated in the OP. Now you say thats not it and youre just testing out VT.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jul 2, 2009)

Papahyooie said:


> ...then what exactly are you trying to accomplish? You wont get any more points or work out of wcg from doing this... which is what you stated in the OP. Now you say thats not it and youre just testing out VT.



I'm trying to find out if it will utilize the processor more efficiently. I stated in my OP that I'm trying to achieve more results... I was trying to explain in my last post... That I know the physical processor is still doing all the work.. 

Remember, the name of the thread is Utilizing your Processor.. Not "How to Utilize your processor".. I'm not saying that this will do it... but I was curious ,and liked the results, and wanted to share them with my teammates...


----------



## Papahyooie (Jul 3, 2009)

Your results are all over the map though... totally inconclusive. I guess if you like them then whatever floats your boat, but your results dont show anything (at least from what youve posted.) A real experiment needs to be done for real results. Like I said though, whatever you think is your business.

Regardless, Ford and my own's point is: No, it wont utilize the processor more efficiently, and no, it wont return more results. I fail to see what, past that, youre trying to accomplish.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jul 3, 2009)

Papahyooie said:


> Your results are all over the map though... totally inconclusive. I guess if you like them then whatever floats your boat, but your results dont show anything (at least from what youve posted.) A real experiment needs to be done for real results. Like I said though, whatever you think is your business.



Thanks I'm working on better results.. just takes time.. I'm not doing this for myself.. I've got 36 rigs crunching strong. I just want to help others. Thanks for your time.


----------



## dustyshiv (Jul 12, 2009)

mike047 said:


> I will have to search for it.  Until recently, I used Ubuntu "only" and it is easier to work with and find.
> 
> Windows can also be done, I will have to find it.
> 
> ...





Guys,

This trick worked amazing in systems runnin vista. But with systems runnin XP, there was no Bionic folder in C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data
So I put this xml file in Bionic folder in C:\Program Files.
When I did the read config file, nothin happened. Is there something I missed??


----------



## mike047 (Jul 12, 2009)

dustyshiv said:


> Guys,
> 
> This trick worked amazing in systems runnin vista. But with systems runnin XP, there was no Bionic folder in C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data
> So I put this xml file in Bionic folder in C:\Program Files.
> When I did the read config file, nothin happened. Is there something I missed??



What client are you using?? 6.6.20??


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 12, 2009)

dustyshiv said:


> Guys,
> 
> This trick worked amazing in systems runnin vista. But with systems runnin XP, there was no Bionic folder in C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data
> So I put this xml file in Bionic folder in C:\Program Files.
> When I did the read config file, nothin happened. Is there something I missed??


XP x64:
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC\cc_config.xml

Current contents (after making the change):

```
<cc_config>
    <log_flags>
    </log_flags>
    <options>
        <client_version_check_url>http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/download.php?xml=1</client_version_check_url>
        <client_download_url>http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/download.php</client_download_url>
        <network_test_url>http://www.ibm.com/</network_test_url>
        <start_delay>120</start_delay>
		<report_results_immediately>1</report_results_immediately>
    </options>
</cc_config>
```

Currently running version:
World Community Grid - BOINC Manager
Version: 6.2.28
Copyright: (C) 2003-2008 University of California, Berkeley.  All rights reserved.



My server automatically uploads them without changing anything...

Server 2003 x64:
<folder does not exist>

Currently running version:
BOINC Manager
Version: 6.1.0
Copyright: (C) 2003-2007 University of California, Berkeley.  All rights reserved.


----------



## dustyshiv (Jul 12, 2009)

mike047 said:


> What client are you using?? 6.6.20??



Mike,

Its 6.2.28

Further my XP systems are all 32-bit!!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 12, 2009)

Punch the path into My Computer and see if it opens it:

C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC\cc_config.xml


It should be the same on all XP/Server 2003 machines and version 6.2 of the client.


----------



## mike047 (Jul 12, 2009)

dustyshiv said:


> Mike,
> 
> Its 6.2.28
> 
> Further my XP systems are all 32-bit!!



Go here and try 5.10.45;

http://boinc.berkeley.edu/dl/


----------



## dustyshiv (Jul 13, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Punch the path into My Computer and see if it opens it:
> 
> C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC\cc_config.xml
> 
> ...



FordGT,

I did paste this location in the run box and whola..it did open up. About to replace the xml file!!

Thnx,
Regards,
Shiv


----------



## dhoshaw (Jul 13, 2009)

Thanks guys, that's great info!

It has been bugging me for a while; I tried playing with the "Connect about every" and "Additional work buffer" prefs but it didn't do the job. I configured by XP and Server 2003 machines this morning and will do my Vista and Win 7 machines tonight.


----------



## dhoshaw (Jul 14, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> XP x64:
> C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC\cc_config.xml
> 
> Current contents (after making the change):
> ...



For Windows 7, I found the file in c:\ProgramData\BOINC


----------

