Which RAC do the 4 systems have?

Which RAC do the 4 systems have?

2 core 477.29 http://yafu.myfirewall.org/yafu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=9435
4 core 1,548.79 http://yafu.myfirewall.org/yafu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=9417
8 core 2,146.12 http://yafu.myfirewall.org/yafu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=9420
16 core (not running as many days) 2,045.32 http://yafu.myfirewall.org/yafu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=9418

---

Todays numbers:

2 core: 1 point ~ every 143 seconds RAC: 491.60
4 core: 1 point ~ every 65 seconds RAC: 1,527.82
8 core: 1 point ~ every 38 seconds RAC: 2,127.60
16 core: 1 point ~ every 151 seconds RAC: 1,942.50

---

Todays numbers:

VM's were down all night. No update.

---

Todays numbers:

2 core: 1 point ~ every 115-120 seconds RAC: 525.30
4 core: 1 point ~ every 43-44 seconds RAC: 1,561.98
8 core: 1 point ~ every 23-24 seconds RAC: 2,143.19
16 core: 1 point ~ every 143-146 seconds RAC: 1,723.84

---

Todays numbers:

2 core: 1 point ~ every 95-99 seconds RAC: 579.23
4 core: 1 point ~ every 40 seconds RAC: 1,612.81
8 core: 1 point ~ every 24 seconds RAC: 2,433.22
16 core: 1 point ~ every 38-39 seconds RAC: 1,370.22

---

Todays numbers:

2 core: 1 point ~ every 91-95 seconds RAC: 623.78
4 core: 1 point ~ every 39-40 seconds RAC: 1,687.23
8 core: 1 point ~ every 22 seconds RAC: 2,534.79
16 core: 1 point ~ every 38 seconds RAC: 1,462.75

---

For the 2,4,8 core systems it looks fine for me.

2 core: 1 point ~ every 89-91 seconds RAC: 645.93
4 core: 1 point ~ every 38-39 seconds RAC: 1,724.71
8 core: 1 point ~ every 23 seconds RAC: 2,666.55
16 core: 1 point ~ every 36-37 seconds RAC: 1,531.51

Quad core looking to be the sweet spot at this point. I wont be running this test much longer as we have a team challenge elsewhere. I just thought these numbers would be helpful to the efforts.

---

2 core: 1 point ~ every 96-99 seconds RAC: 676.60
4 core: 1 point ~ every 45-46 seconds RAC: 1,734.23
8 core: 1 point ~ every 33-35 seconds RAC: 2,733.29
16 core: 1 point ~ every 41-42 seconds RAC: 1,603.03

---

2 core: 1 point ~ every 91-93 seconds RAC: 720.49
4 core: 1 point ~ every 38-40 seconds RAC: 1,805.00
8 core: 1 point ~ every 29 seconds RAC: 2,753.78
16 core: 1 point ~ every 71-72 seconds RAC: 1,520.98

Well...I'm going to wind down my testing. 18 days of crunching and the numbers still have not leveled even close to consistent. I would not recommend anyone to run anything past a quad core at this time on these apps. This is just my opinion, but Credit New certainly does not do MT apps justice and should be reconsidered here.

---

After leaving my computer to run 24/7 this week the 3-core results are returning only 13-14 credits per hour per core. This well below what I would call acceptable on this computer. Last month the 3-core results were a consistent 21-21 credits per hour per core. CreditNew maybe, but I think it is something else.

Last test units are in.

2 core: 1 point ~ every 93 seconds RAC: 712.19
4 core: 1 point ~ every 39 seconds RAC: 1,774.69
8 core: 1 point ~ every 28 seconds RAC: 2,713.55
16 core: 1 point ~ every 68-71 seconds RAC: 1,477.31

---

Looks good for me. Seems that creditnew scales the credits also with number of cores. Only 16 cores do not get enough credits. But this might be caused by to small workunits.

yoyo

Wait, you think that going from 4 cores to 8 cores scales good?

2 x 4 cores = 2 points in 39 seconds
1 x 8 cores = 1 point in 28 seconds

What I would expect is 2 x 4 cores to = 1 x 8 cores.
However what we are seeing is that 8 cores is scoring less points. Then the 16 core gets really stupid. The same logic could be applied to the 2 core.
2 x 2 cores should = 4 cores but it does not. And we aren't talking a minor difference. This adds up. Look at it this way.

At 39 seconds per point, the quad core earns 2215.38 points per day. At 38 seconds per point, the octacore only makes 3085.71. Now, if you were to take that octacore and chop it into 2 virtual machines, then your 3085.71 would magically transform into 4430.76 points. That is almost a 44% increase in points for the same cores on the same rig.

So, I ask again, how is this scaling " looking good". I will concede that other factors may be involved but as the numbers have shifted over the last few weeks, I think the facts point to a disparity.

---

Wait, you think that going from 4 cores to 8 cores scales good?

2 x 4 cores = 2 points in 39 seconds
1 x 8 cores = 1 point in 28 seconds

What I would expect is 2 x 4 cores to = 1 x 8 cores.
However what we are seeing is that 8 cores is scoring less points. Then the 16 core gets really stupid. The same logic could be applied to the 2 core.
2 x 2 cores should = 4 cores but it does not. And we aren't talking a minor difference. This adds up. Look at it this way.

At 39 seconds per point, the quad core earns 2215.38 points per day. At 38 seconds per point, the octacore only makes 3085.71. Now, if you were to take that octacore and chop it into 2 virtual machines, then your 3085.71 would magically transform into 4430.76 points. That is almost a 44% increase in points for the same cores on the same rig.

So, I ask again, how is this scaling " looking good". I will concede that other factors may be involved but as the numbers have shifted over the last few weeks, I think the facts point to a disparity.

Too late to edit, but the octacore at 28 seconds per point not 38 seconds per point was intended.

---

The rac is still converging over time. As you can see the rac is still going down over different days. Only the 2-core rac increased.
I don't know how long it will take until the rac is nearly stable.

yoyo

The rac is still converging over time. As you can see the rac is still going down over different days. Only the 2-core rac increased.
I don't know how long it will take until the rac is nearly stable.

yoyo

Well, looking at the RAC as I have broken it down, it looks like the 16 core also went back up. Don't look at the RAC number I posted because that is from this site. You need to look at how many seconds it was taking to earn each point. The 4 and 8 were the only ones really lowering over time while the 2 and 16 jumped around. I don't see this being "stable" at all after over 2 weeks of processing work. Maybe you are more relaxed on the issue, but I prefer something a lot more consistent.

2 core: 54, 60, 60, 107, 160, 137, 143, 115, 95, 91, 89, 96, 91, 93
4 core: 10, 30, 32, 30, 29, 52, 58, 65, 43, 40, 39, 38, 45, 38, 39
8 core: 2, 17, 17, 16, 17, 31, 39, 38, 23, 24, 22, 23, 33, 29, 28
16 core: 3, 13, 16, 18, 117, 137, 151, 143, 38, 38, 36, 41, 71, 68

You would also think that the scoring would be closer. The 8 core should logically be closer to half the time needed to get the same points as a 4 core. But it isn't. It is still off quite a bit. As noted above, I could get a 40%+ increase in points by running two 4 core VM's instead of an 8 core.

---

I don't know how creditnew is really working, but it might be a problem for credit new, that there are phases in a yafu run where only 1 core is used.

I don't know how creditnew is really working, but it might be a problem for credit new, that there are phases in a yafu run where only 1 core is used.

Yes, I am assuming it is CreditNew that is the problem. It is just good for people to know this issue before they get discouraged by comparing numbers later and seeing heavy hitting machines not get rewarded accordingly.

---