mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > New To GIMPS? Start Here! > Information & Answers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-01-03, 09:08   #1
lorgix
 
lorgix's Avatar
 
Sep 2010
Scandinavia

3×5×41 Posts
Default Workers, Threads, Helper Threads, Cores, Affinity.

Hello,


This is a jungle.

I'm confused to say the least.

I'm now running prime95 in 64bit Windows 7 on an i3 540.

That means two cores, with two logical processors on each.

Could someone explain what settings I should use?

How many workers? How many threads? Well the title says most of it...


I've done some experimenting, but I'm not satisfied.
lorgix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-03, 14:33   #2
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

17×263 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lorgix View Post
Hello,


This is a jungle.

I'm confused to say the least.

I'm now running prime95 in 64bit Windows 7 on an i3 540.

That means two cores, with two logical processors on each.

Could someone explain what settings I should use?

How many workers? How many threads? Well the title says most of it...


I've done some experimenting, but I'm not satisfied.
There are others that can give you more complete answers but the most important point is to run no more workers than you have PHYSICAL cores.

You can experiment with 1 or 2 threads per worker. I have found that in some cases the helper "helps" a bit but in other cases it makes it slightly worse. Even on the same PC some work types might benefit from a helper and some might be worse.
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-03, 16:37   #3
Commaster
 
Jun 2010
Kiev, Ukraine

718 Posts
Default

In my opinion, TF works fine with all LOGICAL cores running. (tested for a looong time on my i7) So, it depends on the worktype you're running. For TF that makes 4 workers, 1 thread each, and set affinity for each worker on his own core.

Last fiddled with by Commaster on 2011-01-03 at 16:47
Commaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-11, 11:20   #4
lorgix
 
lorgix's Avatar
 
Sep 2010
Scandinavia

3·5·41 Posts
Default

Thanks for responding.

It's obviously complicated....

Would it be crazy to turn off HT? I mean I like to multi-task, but Windows doesn't appear to be doing a very good job of it...
lorgix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-11, 22:58   #5
Commaster
 
Jun 2010
Kiev, Ukraine

3×19 Posts
Default

I tried turning HT off. So much more lags came up that I hated it and turned HT on asap. IMO, Windows 7 is mature enough to handle this much of multitasking.
HT is not bad. You just would better ignore it on heavy workunits and use it on some easy ones, like TF or very low ECM.

Last fiddled with by Commaster on 2011-01-11 at 22:59
Commaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-12, 07:46   #6
lorgix
 
lorgix's Avatar
 
Sep 2010
Scandinavia

3·5·41 Posts
Default

I occasionally run an admittedly high number of computing sessions. That could include PFGW, Prime95, MultiSieve, YAFU..

And frankly I'm a little disappointed that I can't get them to get along.

Too many tasks and suddenly one of them may get like zero ( 0 ) CPU time.

Is there a trick to this? I've tried playing with priority & affinity.


I'm pretty tempted by AMD Phenom II X6 1055T... Not for this machine obv, but for an entirely new one. Just hope that thing doesn't feel the need to pretend to have more processors than it actually has cores....
lorgix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-12, 16:59   #7
lavalamp
 
lavalamp's Avatar
 
Oct 2007
London, UK

101001001012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lorgix View Post
I occasionally run an admittedly high number of computing sessions. That could include PFGW, Prime95, MultiSieve, YAFU..

And frankly I'm a little disappointed that I can't get them to get along.

Too many tasks and suddenly one of them may get like zero ( 0 ) CPU time.

Is there a trick to this? I've tried playing with priority & affinity.
Personally I just set the CPU affinity and things run fine. Be aware though that if a program closes, and then runs again later, you'll need to set the affinity again. You can get programs to automatically do this for you, I have one called Core Affinity Resident, works on XP, Vista and 7, and it's free. Of course, if you run 5 programs when you only have 4 logical cores, you can't expect them not to fight.

I don't like leaving it up to Windows to decide what cores things run on, it has a tenancy to bound threads around cores for no apparent reason and that means programs don't get to take full advantage of the L1 and L2 caches, constantly having to wait for the slower L3 cache. For most things this doesn't matter, I don't care if Firefox could be 5% faster, but I do care if ECM could be 5% faster if I plan on running curves that will take a week.

Note that I haven't actually measured the performance benefit (if any) for setting CPU affinity vs. leaving it up to windows, but since I have the process all automated and therefore takes zero time for me to do, I don't plan on measuring it either.

Hyperthreading is very handy, I have 4 physical cores, but 8 logical cores, that means I can run 8 threads. I can choose to run things on all 8 threads, and I get a nice bonus for some of them. For example when sieving or trial factoring I get a 25% boost in overall throughput by using 8 threads. It's like having a 5 core CPU! However, the cost is that the PC becomes sluggish and less responsive. If however I decide to run just 4 threads, the PC is still very productive, and I can actually use it to do things, and even play games.
lavalamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-13, 07:38   #8
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

186916 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lorgix View Post
I'm pretty tempted by AMD Phenom II X6 1055T... Not for this machine obv, but for an entirely new one. Just hope that thing doesn't feel the need to pretend to have more processors than it actually has cores....
Not to worry, no AMDs have hyperthreading at this time. An X6 has six real cores, which appear to the OS as six processors. (Ditto for an X4, X3, X2, etc...)
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-13, 07:49   #9
lorgix
 
lorgix's Avatar
 
Sep 2010
Scandinavia

10011001112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdettweiler View Post
Not to worry, no AMDs have hyperthreading at this time. An X6 has six real cores, which appear to the OS as six processors. (Ditto for an X4, X3, X2, etc...)
And they are doing just fine without it as far as I can tell.

I'm also very much tempted by Phenom II X4 955 Black. A lot of operations for the money...

Could I possibly fit two of those (X4 955) on one motherboard?
lorgix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-13, 21:06   #10
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

11000011010012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lorgix View Post
And they are doing just fine without it as far as I can tell.

I'm also very much tempted by Phenom II X4 955 Black. A lot of operations for the money...

Could I possibly fit two of those (X4 955) on one motherboard?
To put two CPUs on the same motherboard you usually need a server motherboard, which is generally very expensive. It would probably be cheaper to build two separate single-CPU machines.

AFAICT, the best "bang for the buck" in crunching CPUs right now are the Phenom II X6's. For just $30 more than the X4 955, you can get an X6 1055T (which, I believe, should be able to use most of the same motherboards as the X4), i.e. one and a half X4's in terms of crunching power.

Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2011-01-13 at 21:09
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-01-13, 21:25   #11
lorgix
 
lorgix's Avatar
 
Sep 2010
Scandinavia

3·5·41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdettweiler View Post
To put two CPUs on the same motherboard you usually need a server motherboard, which is generally very expensive. It would probably be cheaper to build two separate single-CPU machines.

AFAICT, the best "bang for the buck" in crunching CPUs right now are the Phenom II X6's. For just $30 more than the X4 955, you can get an X6 1055T (which, I believe, should be able to use most of the same motherboards as the X4), i.e. one and a half X4's in terms of crunching power.
I've heard that about X6 before, but I'm not sure it's true. At least where I live, yet.

I was hoping I could save on other equipment because I'm mostly interested in CPU cycles. But what you're saying is essentially that 2*X4 955 is too little for that reasoning to add up?

Are there any particular OS problems associated with using multiple CPUs?
lorgix is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to use more threads? physicist PrimeNet 2 2018-01-10 17:07
"Master" and "helper" threads Madpoo Software 0 2016-09-08 01:27
How to use all threads (i7-920) petsoukos Software 2 2013-06-04 20:33
Helper Thread Affinity TObject Software 3 2012-07-20 19:21
How to assign helper threads affinity? Meikel Software 3 2008-11-22 14:36

All times are UTC. The time now is 20:46.

Thu Dec 3 20:46:43 UTC 2020 up 16:58, 1 user, load averages: 2.14, 2.15, 1.90

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.