Folding hardware question with X2s

edcentricedcentric near Milwaukee, Wisconsin Icrontian
edited October 2006 in Folding@Home
If you are folding on an X2, does each core run one instance, or is the load shared?

I have an X2 box (well it isn't in a case, but you know) that has one instance that occasionally short runs units. Always instance 1. I have erased everything except the .exe and .cfg and reloded.
Instance 2 has never barffed a unit.
The box is mildly OCed, 220x10

Any thoughts????
«1

Comments

  • vaiovaio England
    edited September 2006
    1 instance per core......with a different cpu id for each console.
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    You need to create 2 folders and put the F@H instalelr in each "non-graphical" than you need to run the installer for the first one and fill out the info as seen in attachement 1 "your username instead of mine" . When it asks you to "change advanced options" say yes when you setup your 2nd instance. Than under machine ID make sure to set it as Machine ID #2.

    hope that helps :)
  • edcentricedcentric near Milwaukee, Wisconsin Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    Does one core run a single instance?
    If I run one instance, will one core be loaded 100% and the other 0%? Or will they each run 50%?
  • OrianeOriane Turn around.
    edited September 2006
    If you only have one instance of FAH running on a dual core, the system can share it between cores if it is set up that way.

    Open Task Manager and click on the processes tab. Right-click on the "FAHxxx-Console.exe" Image Name, then left-click on the "Set Affinity..." item. It should have a processor affinity list and your two cores (identified as CPUs) itemized. If they are both checked, then the system can share between them as it wants to. You can tell it to have more affinity for one processor by unchecking one.
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    Withouit telling it to run on both cores it will only run on one core rather than both. I am not sure if setting the affinity will allow both cores to work on one instance, amybe someone else can chim in on that. But by doing what i said in my first post would allow both cores to work on different WU at the same time.
  • the_technocratthe_technocrat IC-MotY1 Indy Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    Not usre if you can have 2 CPU's/cores working on the same instance of FAH.

    Sound slike the best setup is to have two installations of FAH, set up to run as a service. One will have machine ID of 1 in the client.cfg, the other will have machine ID #2. This makes sure FAH runs OK.

    Then you can do what he said with task manager, assign the FAH install with machine ID 1 to one core, and ID 2 to the other. In this way, you'll essentially be set up the same way as a dual-core machine. (And that's what you want).

    In this setup, both cores will run at 100%, unless some process or another needs a core. then FAH will throttle back on that core, but leave the other one alone. There's a pretty good FAQ over at Stanford's site regarding dual-core systems, it appears that it would apply to dual-core systems as well.

    edit: I'm just interpreting from what i read at Stanford's site this morning. Of course, you could always do a dual-core, dual-CPU system and have 4 instances of FAH... :rarr: <- (that's the heatsink)
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    It's single threaded so it can only use 1 processor at once, so you need to run a copy of F@H per CPU as mentioned before (with a different machine ID per processor). Although theoretically that limits you to 8 processors...
  • the_technocratthe_technocrat IC-MotY1 Indy Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    Enverex wrote:
    It's single threaded so it can only use 1 processor at once, so you need to run a copy of F@H per CPU as mentioned before

    yes, but is it one instance of FAH per processor or per core? I know it's not per virtual processor, as Hyperthreaded processors see no gain...but dual-core might benefit the same as a dual-processor?
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    Cores.
  • the_technocratthe_technocrat IC-MotY1 Indy Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    Enverex wrote:
    Cores.

    sweet.
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    an Intel setup Dual Xeon "Pentium 4" can run 4 instances with HT turned on.... In his case he has a AMD X2 which can run 2 Instances... 1 per core as AMD does not have HT.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    You can run more than one instance on a single core, the point was performance increase. HT is a hack (well, in rare cases it can provide a performance increase) but Dual Core is basically two processors.
  • the_technocratthe_technocrat IC-MotY1 Indy Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    Enverex wrote:
    You can run more than one instance on a single core, the point was performance increase. HT is a hack (well, in rare cases it can provide a performance increase) but Dual Core is basically two processors.

    That was my guess, but the Stanford FAQ hasn't been updated yet to account for dual cores, it just talks about the possibilities with 2 processors, so I wasn't sure.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    Doesn't need to be. Cores, HT and multiple processors all show the same to Windows.
  • the_technocratthe_technocrat IC-MotY1 Indy Icrontian
    edited September 2006
    Enverex wrote:
    Doesn't need to be. Cores, HT and multiple processors all show the same to Windows.

    I was talking more about the benefits of multiple instances of FAH, not so much the procedure of getting them going...:fold:
  • OrianeOriane Turn around.
    edited September 2006
    Sledgehammer70 wrote:
    Withouit telling it to run on both cores it will only run on one core rather than both. I am not sure if setting the affinity will allow both cores to work on one instance, amybe someone else can chim in on that. But by doing what i said in my first post would allow both cores to work on different WU at the same time.


    Okay then- would you indulge me in a little experiment?

    Open Task Manager on your dual core and click on the Processes tab. Select one of the FAHxxx-Console.exe processes and End the process. Now click on the Performance tab- What do you see?

    On my PC I see a seemingly random distribution of the remaning FAH task between the cores. When my Affinity is set to both cores (which it is by default on mine)- this is how it behaves. If you add up the percent execution of both cores on each frame, the total execution time is at least 100%.

    Now kill your other FAH instance. Restart one and set the Affinity of this one to only whatever core you want and then click back to the Performance tab. What do you see? On mine all of the execution is on one core.

    Don't ask me all of why and how the OS (XP) distributes it like this- I assume it is to service interrupts and other processes of each one on a priority basis. It is, however, how it seems to behave on my machine.
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California Icrontian
    edited October 2006
    as I said:
    I am not sure if setting the affinity will allow both cores to work on one instance
    as I have never tried, anytime I have had a PC that can support more than 1 instance of F@H I ran 2 instances of F@H :)
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited October 2006
    With one instance running XP seems to split it over both cores but it only use 50% total Processor usage. So either XP does some stupid management or it doesn't read processor usage properly.
  • the_technocratthe_technocrat IC-MotY1 Indy Icrontian
    edited October 2006
    Enverex wrote:
    With one instance running XP seems to split it over both cores but it only use 50% total Processor usage. So either XP does some stupid management or it doesn't read processor usage properly.

    I'm seeing the same thing on a 3.08 P4 w/HT. seems odd. task manager shows FAH pegged at 50%...
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited October 2006
    With HT, 50-50 is what you'd expect. I have no idea why it would do that for dual-core though. :scratch:
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California Icrontian
    edited October 2006
    unless you just don't want more points :)
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited October 2006
    I think it's just using 100% of one of the two processors and XP is reporting the usage retardedly.
  • FoldingAddictFoldingAddict Montgomery, AL
    edited October 2006
    You could just use a temp monitor to see which core is running hotter with folding running. If they're both about the same then the work is being split. If not, then obviously one core is doing most or all of the work.

    ~FA
  • the_technocratthe_technocrat IC-MotY1 Indy Icrontian
    edited October 2006
    Enverex wrote:
    retardedly.

    ;D
  • EssoEsso Stockholm, Sweden
    edited October 2006
    The temperature differs with the WU job, some WU's runs hotter then others from time to time.

    If changing the affinity between two jobs, and one core always stays hotter then the other, I assume its because the IHS is not 100 % connected to the core.
    One core transfers heat from the other core to the IHS ?

    I also noticed that when running only one WU, the temp differs a lot when executing it on CPU 1 then on CPU 2.
    It makes no sense unless there is a bad connection between the core and the IHS.

    When I'm gonna install my Opty175, I will know if it behaves exactly like my Opty165.

    In the task manager the "CPU Usage" will display 100 % and in the "CPU Usage History" it will show maximum value for both cores.
    Then they are both working hard.

    But it makes me wonder if Quad core CPU displays 25% in the task manager processes tabulate :smiles:

    Running the Core on the HT P4 3.06 increase the ppd by ~20 %, executing two p2414 at the same time.

    Note,
    I'm using the WinLauncherXP 2.05 to setup the affinity for the work load,
    http://www.majorgeeks.com/WinLauncherXP_d870.html
  • QCHQCH Ancient Guru Chicago Area - USA Icrontian
    edited October 2006
    profdlp wrote:
    With HT, 50-50 is what you'd expect. I have no idea why it would do that for dual-core though. :scratch:

    Each core of the Dual Core reports as 50% of total CPU. It looks JUST like HT...
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited October 2006
    QCH2002 wrote:
    Each core of the Dual Core reports as 50% of total CPU. It looks JUST like HT...
    I'm not disputing that that is the reality, but why in the world wouldn't it show up the same as a dualie system. That's what it basically is.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited October 2006
    It's telling you the OVERALL CPU usage is 50% (100+0/2=50). As said above, on a quad core system it would be 25%. You can bring up the option for the usage of each processor though.

    My thoughts were why does XP split the load over both processors for a single threaded task? (I didn't think that was really possible) and thus uses both processors but only attains 50% CPU usage in total still. Wouldn't swapping processors for the same task slow things down?
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited October 2006
    yes, but is it one instance of FAH per processor or per core? I know it's not per virtual processor, as Hyperthreaded processors see no gain...but dual-core might benefit the same as a dual-processor?
    WRONG. There is a solid gain of about 25% increased production of running two instances of F@H on on a hyperthreaded P4 versus just one instance. I ran F@H that way for several years on three hyperthreaded computers. As Enverex remarked above, there are few applications where hyperthreading really accomplishes anything. (So much Intel hyped.) Folding@Home is one area where HT really does work well.

    I realize HT is not that hot of a topic anymore, but I just wanted to set the record straight. :rant:
  • the_technocratthe_technocrat IC-MotY1 Indy Icrontian
    edited October 2006
    Leonardo wrote:
    WRONG. There is a solid gain of about 25% increased production of running two instances of F@H on on a hyperthreaded P4 versus just one instance. I ran F@H that way for several years on three hyperthreaded computers. As Enverex remarked above, there are few applications where hyperthreading really accomplishes anything. (So much Intel hyped.) Folding@Home is one area where HT really does work well.

    I realize HT is not that hot of a topic anymore, but I just wanted to set the record straight. :rant:

    That's strange. I wonder why FAH says that hyperthreading 2 instances 'isn't helpful'? Seems like they should want this, if they get a 125% boost in production per processor.

    http://fahwiki.net/index.php/FAH_%26_SMP#Hyper-Threading

    EDIT: that link is why I didn't initially do 2 instances on my HT'ers...:confused2
Sign In or Register to comment.