Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, farmpuma, just brew it!
Ragnar Dan wrote:But I still don't see any reason to run the Windows SMP client except if you're on a machine that can't run virtualization software.
Damage wrote:
One possibility, which I'm checking out, is the basic Win32 GPU2 client. I just installed it on my Vista x64 system, and it was dead simple. Run the installer, give it your nick and team number, and it runs in the system tray. My Radeon HD 4850 is pegged, and my Core 2 Quad Penryn is at ~33% CPU utilization.
Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:Damage wrote:
One possibility, which I'm checking out, is the basic Win32 GPU2 client. I just installed it on my Vista x64 system, and it was dead simple. Run the installer, give it your nick and team number, and it runs in the system tray. My Radeon HD 4850 is pegged, and my Core 2 Quad Penryn is at ~33% CPU utilization.
I agree this approach would net the most points with the least hassle. If all our members with decent video cards ran this simple program we'd be demolishing our current production.
Anyone else see a fault with Damage's idea?
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:Damage wrote:
One possibility, which I'm checking out, is the basic Win32 GPU2 client. I just installed it on my Vista x64 system, and it was dead simple. Run the installer, give it your nick and team number, and it runs in the system tray. My Radeon HD 4850 is pegged, and my Core 2 Quad Penryn is at ~33% CPU utilization.
I agree this approach would net the most points with the least hassle. If all our members with decent video cards ran this simple program we'd be demolishing our current production.
Anyone else see a fault with Damage's idea?
The whole "running as a service does not work in Vista" part is fairly difficult.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:Damage wrote:
One possibility, which I'm checking out, is the basic Win32 GPU2 client. I just installed it on my Vista x64 system, and it was dead simple. Run the installer, give it your nick and team number, and it runs in the system tray. My Radeon HD 4850 is pegged, and my Core 2 Quad Penryn is at ~33% CPU utilization.
I agree this approach would net the most points with the least hassle. If all our members with decent video cards ran this simple program we'd be demolishing our current production.
Anyone else see a fault with Damage's idea?
The whole "running as a service does not work in Vista" part is fairly difficult.
khands wrote:Slightly off-topic.
Considering asking my boss (I report directly to the owner of the company actually) if I can install a F@H client on all our PC's, most are low-end C2D's, and we've got 57 of them. How would yall go about it?
Usacomp2k3 wrote:khands wrote:... I would personally wait for a good, stable, service-controlled SMP client before going forth...
emkubed wrote:Usacomp2k3 wrote:That was my issue; I wanted there to be a stable SMP Windows client, and I guess when I posted earlier I thought that after 18 months or so they would have gotten that right (or better).khands wrote:... I would personally wait for a good, stable, service-controlled SMP client before going forth...
Damage wrote:...and a few hours into my little experiment, GPU2 crashes. Didn't take down the rest of the system; that's the best I can say for it.
This was with a bone-stock 4850 and the latest Cat 9.2 drivers. Nothing special.
emkubed wrote:That was my issue; I wanted there to be a stable SMP Windows client, and I guess when I posted earlier I thought that after 18 months or so they would have gotten that right (or better).
Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:ya know, the PS3 client is the easiest, most painless client to run. Why not do a PS3 client drive?
Also, I have another idea in mind that I think may be helpful. Details soon to follow in the UGN thread.
Flying Fox wrote:Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:ya know, the PS3 client is the easiest, most painless client to run. Why not do a PS3 client drive?
Also, I have another idea in mind that I think may be helpful. Details soon to follow in the UGN thread.
The problem is the PS3 is not very power efficient. ~200W for 900ppd? My E2160@3GHz is doing 1000-1500ppd+ at 122W. Say if you have a decent GPU your system will most likely be slightly above 200W at the wall, but that does what, 2500-4000ppd? But yes, the PS3 client is probably the closest to set-and-forget apart from the single core client.
Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:My 2nd gen 80GB model is still drawing 200W. I don't know about the new 40GB ones though. And I did admit the PS3 is the easier of the rest save for the single core client, so I was not disagreeing with you being a good beginner's recommendation.Flying Fox wrote:Gerbil Jedidiah wrote:ya know, the PS3 client is the easiest, most painless client to run. Why not do a PS3 client drive?
Also, I have another idea in mind that I think may be helpful. Details soon to follow in the UGN thread.
The problem is the PS3 is not very power efficient. ~200W for 900ppd? My E2160@3GHz is doing 1000-1500ppd+ at 122W. Say if you have a decent GPU your system will most likely be slightly above 200W at the wall, but that does what, 2500-4000ppd? But yes, the PS3 client is probably the closest to set-and-forget apart from the single core client.
200W is also worst case. The newer PS3s are more energy efficient. I think the PS3 is worth looking into because it's so easy, and a lot of people have them. It's a quick way to get started.
I got started on a PS3. I don't fold on it anymore because of the very reason you mention, but if it gets people interested in the project, and they move on to more difficult and PPD beneficial clients at a later date, then I think it is well worth recommending people try out the PS3 client as a way to get started. Especially for people who have computers that can only run the single core client.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Ragnar Dan wrote:But I still don't see any reason to run the Windows SMP client except if you're on a machine that can't run virtualization software.
Because it will use alot more RAM and HDD space and is much less transparent and is harder to setup, and is more likely to break. Need I go on?
Ragnar Dan wrote:Usacomp2k3 wrote:Ragnar Dan wrote:But I still don't see any reason to run the Windows SMP client except if you're on a machine that can't run virtualization software.
Because it will use alot more RAM and HDD space and is much less transparent and is harder to setup, and is more likely to break. Need I go on?
Perhaps fewer comments on subjects about which you have little knowledge along with less attitude would serve you better.
A properly set up VM uses inconsequentially more RAM. Maybe an extra 20 MB or less. HDD usage is slightly greater to hold the VM software, config file, and the ISO, but with HD's being upwards of hundreds of GBs in size, now, and it still being possible to have a total disk usage well under 50 MB if you're using notfred's virtual appliance, that too is insignificant (though I believe a file approximately the size of the memory available to the VM will be stored on HD when it is suspended). Setting up a VM with a full guest OS is simple enough that Tarx's stickied thread in this forum is one of the more read forum threads around, by people from this team and others. As for it being more likely to break, there is no evidence for that assertion. Indeed, everything we've seen on Team 2630 and others posting in threads about notfred's software indicates the opposite to be true.
As for the "transparency" question, it depends on how you mean it. If you mean an ignorant user can see it and screw it up, indeed another OS running through a VM is less likely to be broken than the Windows SMP client dependent on a command prompt window is. Most people in charge of large numbers of machines are likely to be happy about that fact.
Ragnar Dan wrote:That should be addressed to Meadows.Perhaps fewer comments on subjects about which you have little knowledge along with less attitude would serve you better.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Assuming you have enough RAM, putting say 530MiB for the VM isn't too big of a deal, is it? If you are constantly running Photoshop and other memory hogging applications you are probably not supposed to be running a Folding client anyway?The amount of RAM usage varies quite a bit between WU's. If you allocate enough RAM for the most-demanding WU's they you are using more than a non-VM'd one would since a native client would only use as much as that current WU needs.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:This point is somewhat debatable and is actually an interesting exercise for one that would like to try. Let's take VMware, the vmware-vmx.exe is one process with multiple threads, where 2+ threads inside the process are CPU heavy. Compare that to WinSMP where you have fah6*.exe, 4x FahCore_*.exe, plus the mpiexec/deino stuff running as a system service. Considerably far more memory and threads that are required for the OS to juggle. Add to the fact that the LinuxSMP client is better points wise. You could argue that the default priority of the VM is not low so it may interfere with other apps, but it is relatively easy to set the priority of the VM to idle. I have it set on mine and it seems to be ok so far.Also, with a native client, the OS can have more fine-tuning of the threading because an OS's scheduler would be able to decide what is best by knowing the process directly, instead of just taking what the VM software tells you.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Once you set it to either bridged or NAT, you almost never have to touch it again. How is that so much of a hassle than you make it out to be? Actually WinSMP is worse networking wise. My machine was once on a wireless connection and at one point it loses connection very often. Once Windows senses that the network is unavailable, mpiexec goes amok and basically trashed what it was working on. Technically before 100% it does not really need to talk to the internet, intermittently losing the network connection is not cool. A VM would hide that fact especially if you are on NAT.For the configuration side of things, I've had problems with networking in the past for usage on my network. I go between many different networks and VM's and such, and a native client never has to deal with things like bridged networks or NAT. As long as the computer had internet, the client works.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:We never really say we like the current client either?I never said I liked the current client. If you could read, you'd have noticed that by now. That's what I say that there is no good client to use that is worth it from the points perspective.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:There are always tradeoffs, even single core clients. It is a choice made by the donor. Everyone has their reasons why they want or do not want to run Folding. No need to impose your values by trashing others?There are trade-offs, being it inefficient usage of resources, configuration, etc.