Member discussion of optimal flag settings., Add your questions and findings here.

Got a Great Tweak to make your system Fold Faster and better? Post it here! [url=http://teammacosx.org/forumtest/viewtopic.php?f=204&t=989]Click here for recommended settings of Folding client flags - with advice for all PPC and x86 Macs, and PCs.[/url]

Member discussion of optimal flag settings., Add your questions and findings here.

Postby susato » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:23 pm

John (314159) sent this report today via email concerning his Pentium 4 rigs:  [quote] -local -forceasm -verbosity 9, with big WU (bigpackets, 5 Mb) set to on, has given me an absolutely steady stream of bonus WUs over about the last several weeks.
A hyper-threaded box running two instances of folding produces at least 12 pph on these
[color=red]Proud to be a volunteer on the premier Mac folding team!  [/color]Member: senior admins group
[color=blue]This forum is friendly, lively, thoughtful, funny and useful because your posts are. Let us know your thoughts. Contribute! [/color]
New to the forum? Please [url=http://teammacosx.org/forumtest/ucp.php?mode=register] register to post[/url]. Thanks!
User avatar
susato
Pennywhistle
Pennywhistle
 
Posts: 4701
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Upstate New York, USA

Member discussion of optimal flag settings., Add your questions and findings here.

Postby 314159 » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:59 pm

Hmmm,

Still getting them and almost exclusively.

In -configonly (advanced options), "always set -advmethods as on" response must be "no" if you wish to try this.

Did I not mention that, Jean?

This strategy could, of course, change quickly. I saw server .162 with the choice WIN WUs the other night. No "F" WUs per serverstats page but a full and active server with W "A's" available.

Added -advmethods at the appropriate time as a test and got what I was looking for immediately.  :)  
(added this to the client launch parameters and NOT the config file.)

This is making these older machines almost usable until I can swap out some Mobos and upgrade them.

The following quote from my wife:

:oo:
John in Virginia, USA

[size=100][color=red]If you are a member of this Forum, PLEASE log in when visiting. Thanks![/color][/size]
User avatar
314159
Dirty Old Man
Dirty Old Man
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 4:15 am
Location: Virginia U.S.A.

Member discussion of optimal flag settings., Add your questions and findings here.

Postby susato » Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:38 pm

Looks like it's time for another edit in the  [url=http://teammacosx.org/forumtest/viewtopic.php?f=204&t=989&start=0#p18129]Optimal Client Settings thread[/url].

Over the past 6 months we've had a lot of discussion of multiple instances of SMP folding on 4 and 8 core machines, the size of work units (small, normal or big),  the flexibility of InCrease compared to the Stanford OSX folding installer, and its user friendliness compared to the barebones console client.

The past six months has also seen the release of the version 6 software, the introduction of passkey codes, and the evolution of InCrease to handle these new features in the software. And the PS3 client upgrade.  Wow!

Please contribute your ideas for the next version of the optimal client settings recommendation post - especially if you are running a PPC Mac or a quad or octo-core computer.   Any other advice?  Bring it on!
[color=red]Proud to be a volunteer on the premier Mac folding team!  [/color]Member: senior admins group
[color=blue]This forum is friendly, lively, thoughtful, funny and useful because your posts are. Let us know your thoughts. Contribute! [/color]
New to the forum? Please [url=http://teammacosx.org/forumtest/ucp.php?mode=register] register to post[/url]. Thanks!
User avatar
susato
Pennywhistle
Pennywhistle
 
Posts: 4701
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Upstate New York, USA

Member discussion of optimal flag settings., Add your questions and findings here.

Postby iBozz » Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:59 pm

G'day!

Will there be a "preferred settings" update soon?

I'm now running a quad core 27" i7 iMac under OSX.6.2, running 24/7, with the following settings:

Use CPU count of Actual (8)
-advmethods
-forecasm
-verbosity 9
extra args:  -bigadv -smp 8

InCrease shows 1 client 8 cores.

Now I don't begin to understand what all that means (all right, I admit it, what any of that means), but is that the optimum setting right now?

I did read on the [url=http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?F@H forum here[/url] (second post, ninth Question):

[quote]Q: I have all of that but for some reason I'm still being assigned regular WUs.
A1: When you configured the client, perhaps you didn't accept big WUs. If that's not set properly, several different errors might occur.

A2: If you're using -advmethods or any other flag intended to designate a specific class of WU assignment, remove that flag becuase it can override -bigadv.


that having -advmethods can perhaps override having -bigadv and I infer, from posts earlier in this thread, that there has been some contradiction and/or confusion amongst The Great And The Good about this, so we of The Great Unwashed stand no chance!

According to a MiniUsage, the cores are around 85% to 90% dedicated to Folding and I'm getting around 250 pts/hr on Project 2671.

Incidentally, I notice that the CPU temperature leaps from around 95F to around 150F when InCrease/Folding are running - should I be concerned or can i continue to make toast on the back of the beast?   :laugh:  

Thanks.
27" quad core i7 iMac with 4GB RAM under Snow Leopard;  700Mhz PowerPC G4 eMac with 1GB RAM under Tiger;  400MHz PowerPC G4 Tower with 448MB RAM under Tiger
User avatar
iBozz
I Live For TeamMacOSX
I Live For TeamMacOSX
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: NW United Kingdom

Member discussion of optimal flag settings., Add your questions and findings here.

Postby jackrabbit » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:49 pm

Nice upgrade of your machine, maybe it's time to update your sig line :wink:

Not a clue, I'm afraid. PM Macaholic about updating the settings recommendation, he should know.
The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time.
User avatar
jackrabbit
Most Helpful Member
Most Helpful Member
 
Posts: 3385
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 3:39 pm
Location: Belgium

Member discussion of optimal flag settings., Add your questions and findings here.

Postby Macaholic » Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:34 pm

Yes.  Use -advmethods if you want regular SMP units only OR -bigadv if you want the whopper SMP units.  Don't use both.  If you use -bigadv the servers should automatically fall back to the regular SMP units (-advmethods setting) if no whopper SMP units are available.
[color=Maroon]Fold!  It does a body good!™[/color]

User avatar
Macaholic
Silicon Monkey
Silicon Monkey
 
Posts: 2840
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:42 am
Location: 1 Infinite Loop

Member discussion of optimal flag settings., Add your questions and findings here.

Postby curby.net » Mon May 24, 2010 10:29 pm

As I've mentioned I have a friend that's letting me fold on his machine. We've been tweaking the -smp parameter to give him enough of his machine to do his work and letting it fold with the rest. Question is: can the -smp parameter accept arbitrary (i.e. odd) values? We've been using 6 cores which seems to be a decent balance, but he's willing to try using 7 for folding if that would be accepted by the program. Alternately, would 7 be accepted but lead to the client rounding up or down to the next even number? Or should I not even attempt using an odd number of cores? We're doing standard (not huge) smp WUs on this machine.

Thanks!
CLI Guide  Suggestions welcome!
Make Screen Sharing easy to use again. Please help me test!
User avatar
curby.net
I Live For TeamMacOSX
I Live For TeamMacOSX
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:51 pm
Location: USA

Member discussion of optimal flag settings., Add your questions

Postby Ravage » Mon May 24, 2010 10:42 pm

-smp can be set using any number of cores (real or virtual) 2 or greater. I am currently running -smp 3 on my quad box cuz ubuntu 9.10 refuses to run smp and gpu's nicely together when smp uses all 4 cores. I have to keep a core free for the gpu's or the performance of the box drops precipitously.

Running an smp # higher than the number of cores available (real and virtual) is possible but not recommended. It just kills the performance of the box.
We can't solve our problems by using the same thinking that we used to create them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Celeron 1.8Ghz
C2D iMac 2.4ghz
Q6600 3.2Ghz w/twin 9800gt's
User avatar
Ravage
I Live For TeamMacOSX
I Live For TeamMacOSX
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: WI

Member discussion of optimal flag settings., Add your questions and findings here.

Postby curby.net » Mon May 24, 2010 10:50 pm

Thanks for the quick reply! I'll go give -smp 7 a test.
CLI Guide  Suggestions welcome!
Make Screen Sharing easy to use again. Please help me test!
User avatar
curby.net
I Live For TeamMacOSX
I Live For TeamMacOSX
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:51 pm
Location: USA

Member discussion of optimal flag settings., Add your questions

Postby Aardvark » Wed May 26, 2010 1:51 am

Somewhere in the ff.org Forums, recently, kasson warned against using 'high" prime numbers as smp flags. As I recall, there was no defining as to when high begins. Perhaps someone can educate us further on the dark mysteries of multi-core folding..... :)
What is past is prolog.
User avatar
Aardvark
I Live For TeamMacOSX
I Live For TeamMacOSX
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: Woodbury, MN

Previous

Return to Tips and Tricks

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron