Personal computing discussed

Moderators: renee, farmpuma, just brew it!

 
leor
Maximum Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 4878
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:34 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

2 instances of folding on 4 cores

Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:26 pm

I noticed with this screenshot that the 2 instances of folding aren't each cleanly taking a core.
<img src="http://www.leor.com/stuff/task-manager.gif">
when i have one instance going on a dual core CPU (like when the other core is downloaidng a new WU) one is running full tilt. This one seems a bit spread out over the 4, and I've notised the usage going as high as 29 in the CPu usage in the proceese tab when is technically should never go above 25.

interesting . . .
 
Shintai
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2369
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:43 am
Location: Denmark

Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:32 pm

Try set CPU affinity to each process. Maybe run 4 instances instead.

You can do this automatic by the commandline aswell using the "start /affinity"
 
Buub
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4876
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 11:59 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:32 pm

Stop worrying about it. It's not a big deal. If the OS needed to keep it on a single core all the time, it would. Keep in mind that those are snapshots every three seconds, and within three seconds the context switching mechanism has run hundreds of times. It's possible that the OS could find a reason every so often to change cores.

If it was split close to 50/50 all the time, then I'd be concerned. As it is, I wouldn't worry about it.

I wouldn't recommend messing with affinity unless there's a really good reason to do so. Setting affinity really is intended for big servers where you want to exclude a large server process from dominating all the CPUs. Even then, it's used very sparingly.

Is this causing some sort of problem?
 
mattsteg
Gerbil God
Posts: 15781
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Applauding the new/old variable width forums
Contact:

Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:41 pm

Buub wrote:
Stop worrying about it. It's not a big deal. If the OS needed to keep it on a single core all the time, it would. Keep in mind that those are snapshots every three seconds, and within three seconds the context switching mechanism has run hundreds of times.
3 seconds? If that were the case the graphs would update more slowly. I certainly agree with the bulk of your point, but that time interval isn't right. Just pulling up a taskmanager here I see updates maybe every second and a bit, that's significantly different than every 3 seconds.
...
 
Usacomp2k3
Gerbil God
Posts: 23043
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:46 pm

mattsteg wrote:
Buub wrote:
Stop worrying about it. It's not a big deal. If the OS needed to keep it on a single core all the time, it would. Keep in mind that those are snapshots every three seconds, and within three seconds the context switching mechanism has run hundreds of times.
3 seconds? If that were the case the graphs would update more slowly. I certainly agree with the bulk of your point, but that time interval isn't right. Just pulling up a taskmanager here I see updates maybe every second and a bit, that's significantly different than every 3 seconds.

It kinda depends on what you have the 'update speed' set to. Normal is supposed to be 1 second, I think (more like 1.8 for me)
 
leor
Maximum Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 4878
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:34 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:47 pm

Buub wrote:
Stop worrying about it. It's not a big deal. If the OS needed to keep it on a single core all the time, it would. Keep in mind that those are snapshots every three seconds, and within three seconds the context switching mechanism has run hundreds of times. It's possible that the OS could find a reason every so often to change cores.

i'm nto worried about it, i just thought it was interesting, i never saw F@H do anything like that before
 
Buub
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4876
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 11:59 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:51 pm

Usacomp2k3 wrote:
mattsteg wrote:
Buub wrote:
Stop worrying about it. It's not a big deal. If the OS needed to keep it on a single core all the time, it would. Keep in mind that those are snapshots every three seconds, and within three seconds the context switching mechanism has run hundreds of times.
3 seconds? If that were the case the graphs would update more slowly. I certainly agree with the bulk of your point, but that time interval isn't right. Just pulling up a taskmanager here I see updates maybe every second and a bit, that's significantly different than every 3 seconds.

It kinda depends on what you have the 'update speed' set to. Normal is supposed to be 1 second, I think (more like 1.8 for me)


LOL I brain farted. 3 seconds is what I set "top" to update on my FreeBSD box. Yes, TaskManager default is 1.5~2 seconds.
 
Logan[TeamX]
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 10:28 am
Location: Sitting here, making sure you don't crash
Contact:

Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:08 am

You can use the ImageCFG utility to force affinity for each distinct executable. I've done this for both instances on my Opteron 170... it's smooth as glass.

http://forums.amd.com/index.php?showtopic=64774
Systems Admin for an international mining contractor.

Specialties: network security and monitoring, network design - VLANs, BOVPNs and WAN networking, AD / DNS / AD-aware services, Exchange 2003/2007, email archiving, many hats indeed.
 
Buub
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4876
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 11:59 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:40 pm

Logan[TeamX] wrote:
You can use the ImageCFG utility to force affinity for each distinct executable. I've done this for both instances on my Opteron 170... it's smooth as glass.

http://forums.amd.com/index.php?showtopic=64774


Yes, but the question is begged: what's the point? Is it any more smooth than if you just left the affinity alone? I'll bet you'd get better overall system responsiveness and performance by letting the OS do its job rather than assigning explicit affinity to a whole bunch of executables.

For example, what if the OS decides it needs to process an interrupt on the processor you have assigned affinity to? You now have both tasks running on one processor and another processor doing nothing (in the case where you have less than two full-running processes).

Granted, this probably isn't a big issue if you have two executables. But the OS is going to do the same thing you're already taking extra effort to do: run each process on a single processor.
 
Logan[TeamX]
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 10:28 am
Location: Sitting here, making sure you don't crash
Contact:

Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:10 pm

Have you actually SEEN the difference between not forcing affinity and after enforcing affinity?

I'm not talking about the half-assed "set affinity" on running processes with Task Manager, I'm talking about F@H's Machine ID identifier and after a properly-set imagecfg pass.

It's night and day. The Machine ID lets two or more processes play nicely together, but that's it. It doesn't force all the work of each instance to be completed on one processor / core.

I also like it for the explicit fact that I can force affinity for a game, shut down one service, and let one service run with the knowledge that aside from minor memory access contention, it's slick.

Actually, I tend to leave both services running and let process priority determine what happens. EVE, CS:S, NFS:MW and my favourite addiction Silent Hunter III all run flawlessly. And, I might add, much better than with everything the way it was before setting affinity.
Systems Admin for an international mining contractor.

Specialties: network security and monitoring, network design - VLANs, BOVPNs and WAN networking, AD / DNS / AD-aware services, Exchange 2003/2007, email archiving, many hats indeed.
 
mattsteg
Gerbil God
Posts: 15781
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Applauding the new/old variable width forums
Contact:

Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:34 pm

Logan[TeamX] wrote:
I'm not talking about the half-assed "set affinity" on running processes with Task Manager, I'm talking about F@H's Machine ID identifier and after a properly-set imagecfg pass.
What's half-assed about "set affinity", other than it being repetitive to implement on a regular basis?

Buub: for certain situations setting affinity has a very noticable positive effect. Yes, most of the time it's useless, but sometimes it really carries the day. A quick example from my experience would be running a BF1942 dedicated server and joining it from the same machine back when the game was released. Running a nondedicated server and playing == choppy and unplayable. Running a dedicated server and a separate process to join it == choppy any unplayable. Running both processes and setting their respective affinities to different processes == smooth and very playable. If you have a couple of compute-intensive processes that you don't want stepping on each other's toes, setting affinity can yield tremendous gains.
...
 
Logan[TeamX]
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 10:28 am
Location: Sitting here, making sure you don't crash
Contact:

Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:44 pm

It's repetitive because each time you launch an affinity-sensitive or multi-core-sensitive app, you have to go and set the affinity!

After 3-4 times, it gets a tad annyoing.
Systems Admin for an international mining contractor.

Specialties: network security and monitoring, network design - VLANs, BOVPNs and WAN networking, AD / DNS / AD-aware services, Exchange 2003/2007, email archiving, many hats indeed.
 
KingFish
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 693
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:20 am
Location: Soggy Bottom, Lousyana
Contact:

Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:35 pm

Can a script/bat file cover that? I've never messed around with affinity so don't slam me too hard if I'm not even close to the ballpark on this one....
<a href=http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=25646>My Heatware</a>
<img src="http://chronos.dynup.net/Sigs/sig1.php?designer=Sparrow&sigid=3&user=KingFish">
AMD 3500+ | Asus A8V | 1 Gig Patriot TCCD Ram | Nvidia 6800 GT
 
leor
Maximum Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 4878
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:34 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:10 pm

well it seems like i'm getting spillover into a 3rd core if the process spikes up to 29 every now and then.

isn't that more valuable than running at a solid 25?
 
computron9000
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:21 pm

Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:33 pm

there are freeware infinity setting programs for Windows. try ROPE.
 
Logan[TeamX]
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 10:28 am
Location: Sitting here, making sure you don't crash
Contact:

Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:23 pm

The link I posted to in my first reply was the how-to I wrote for the AMD Forums. The ImageCFG.exe tool is actually a NT4 CLI tool that was written by MS but never "offiically" acknowledged or supported.

It works like a champ, and between my article and the primary author's website, you can't really mess it up.
Systems Admin for an international mining contractor.

Specialties: network security and monitoring, network design - VLANs, BOVPNs and WAN networking, AD / DNS / AD-aware services, Exchange 2003/2007, email archiving, many hats indeed.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
GZIP: On