Enjoy the triple speed of them :)
Windows 64bit is still a bit tricky but I think will follow soon, next week or so.

I agree with that. Thanks Hendrik
____________

Makes me want to hurry up and start running 64bit lol. Maybe when i finally get my Quad core machine built. I don't want to take the C2D offline until i know 64bit works for me lol.
Any word if and official BOINC 64bit will become available?

I haven't even seen an official 64b Boinc being discussed. I run other projects, and so won't run any 64b Boinc which has "altered" benchmarks, but that seems to be the only source available so far. That means I won't be doing any 64b with windows.

I haven't even seen an official 64b Boinc being discussed. I run other projects, and so won't run any 64b Boinc which has "altered" benchmarks, but that seems to be the only source available so far. That means I won't be doing any 64b with windows.

I can't find a Linux 64 bit BOINC client to run on my Core 2 Duo. Seen one somewhere which appeared to be for AMD64 but that's all. Perhaps it would work on a Core 2 Duo, but it's not obvious as that is not an AMD processor...

I saw a link to another one on a message board (may have been ABC Beta) but it was a dead link :(

Link from Augustine in beta forum works correct. You can find it also there http://abcathome.com/forum_thread.php?id=47&nowrap=true#2054

I haven't even seen an official 64b Boinc being discussed. I run other projects, and so won't run any 64b Boinc which has "altered" benchmarks, but that seems to be the only source available so far. That means I won't be doing any 64b with windows.

So, with the 64 bit app - will we need to run a 64 bit BOINC client as well ?



EDIT: Never mind - I found the answer - DOH!

I haven't even seen an official 64b Boinc being discussed. I run other projects, and so won't run any 64b Boinc which has "altered" benchmarks, but that seems to be the only source available so far. That means I won't be doing any 64b with windows.

I haven't even seen an official 64b Boinc being discussed. I run other projects, and so won't run any 64b Boinc which has "altered" benchmarks, but that seems to be the only source available so far. That means I won't be doing any 64b with windows.

Gee, notice the three negative responses are all from team Seti.USA(same team as Crunch3r), interesting.

Logan5, until Crunch3r stops destroying/trying to destroy the boinc credit system I will continue to inform possible users that his products have in the past (including 5.9.0-32 and 5.9.0.64) produce benchmark optimizations that OVERCLAIM. (note: 5.9.0.64 on my AMD64 5200 weren't nearly as high as his 32b versions, yet still 50% higher, 2621/4824official vs his 2567/6630) He lacks any sense of responsibility for his actions including modification and distribution. The use of these products were falsely justified by others when they came out at Seti, because they offset the gain in speed his optimized applications produced. I say "falsely justified", because the claims were 33% higher than they should have been even then. Now however there are NO optimized apps made by him that might justify the use of a modified "Altered" Boinc Core Client.

Crunch3r, What's the justification for the altered benchmarks NOW???? I've ran a few of them on my AMD64 2800.

5.9.0.32-32bit 30.867 credits/hour
2/15/2007 7:45:04 PM||BOINC 5.9.0.32 - 32 bit Windows Edition by Crunch3r
2/15/2007 7:45:04 PM||enabled features:
2/15/2007 7:45:04 PM||-cpu_affinity
2/15/2007 7:45:04 PM||-return_results_immediately
2/15/2007 7:45:04 PM||Processor: 1 x AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 2800+
2/15/2007 7:45:04 PM||Version change (5.8.11 -> 5.9.0.32); NOT running CPU benchmarks
2/15/2007 7:46:19 PM|| 4624 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/15/2007 7:46:19 PM|| 10192 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU

5.2.13 SSE 17.327 credits/hour
2/15/2007 10:28:58 PM||Starting BOINC client version 5.2.13 for windows_intelx86
2/15/2007 10:28:58 PM||Processor: 1 AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 2800+
2/15/2007 10:30:00 PM|| 1988 double precision MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/15/2007 10:30:00 PM|| 6329 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU

5.2.13 SSE2 20.896 credits/hour
2/15/2007 10:31:25 PM||Starting BOINC client version 5.2.13 for windows_intelx86
2/15/2007 10:31:25 PM||Processor: 1 AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 2800+
2/15/2007 10:33:12 PM||Benchmark results:
2/15/2007 10:33:12 PM|| 2469 double precision MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/15/2007 10:33:12 PM|| 7561 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU

5.5.0 SSE2 27.063 credits/hour
2/15/2007 10:34:58 PM||Starting BOINC client version 5.5.0 for windows_intelx86
2/15/2007 10:34:58 PM||Processor: 1 AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 2800+
2/15/2007 10:34:58 PM||Version change (5.2.13 -> 5.5.0); running CPU benchmarks
2/15/2007 10:35:59 PM|| 3057 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/15/2007 10:35:59 PM|| 9933 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU

5.5.0SSE 25.915 credits/hour
2/15/2007 10:38:15 PM||Starting BOINC client version 5.5.0 for windows_intelx86
2/15/2007 10:38:15 PM||Processor: 1 AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 2800+
2/15/2007 10:40:18 PM|| 2550 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/15/2007 10:40:18 PM|| 9889 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU

5.8.12 Original Boinc 10.125 credits/hour
2/15/2007 10:44:03 PM||Starting BOINC client version 5.8.12 for windows_intelx86
2/15/2007 10:44:03 PM||Processor: 1 AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 2800+ [x86 Family 15 Model 4 Stepping 10] [fpu tsc pae nx sse sse2 3dnow mmx]
2/15/2007 10:45:18 PM|| 1704 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/15/2007 10:45:18 PM|| 3156 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU

Note: these are displayed in order run, and all were run yesteday. Compare ANY of them to the very bottom one which is the latest Official Boinc Client.

Again, I will continue to warn people about his optimized Boinc Core Clients, because he continually refuses to be responsible and do so himself. TMR had speedy67 post a warning, he even asked him to remove his products when they were affecting seti beta. Where's Crunch3r's warning??? Has never been on on his site.

I don't follow crunch3r. Look at the ABCbeta site My userid is lower than his. His first post was 34 days ago, mine was 86 days ago. Might wanna check some facts before jumping in feet first. It seems you got tricked by your fellow team members to jump into the water without checking the depth first. (I.E gathering your facts)

There IS one version produced by him that doesn't alter the benchmarks as far as I can tell and that's 5.4.11 for AMD64. To me that makes it even worse for him, since he can't claim it's not his fault for all the others with "altered" benchmarks. (I.E this proves he knows how NOT to alter them), so why does he alter them?????

I didn't start any credit war, if he'd never made the altered versions, then they would never have happened on any project. Bringing these facts to light doesn't mean I started them. He was asked to include a disclaimer in December 2005, he was asked to intall a mechanism that would prevent their use on other projects, he was even questioned about his benchmark methodology by Paul D Buck (creator of the wiki), and was told by Crunch3r to "stick to your wiki".

Seti has a validation process which will weed out errant claims, and it works as long as the percentage of users is low. As that percentage grew there were ever increasing instances of two resultids claiming falsely and being granted. (I.E read destruction of the integrity of the credit process)

Let's look at what has happened since;
Dr. Anderson and Seti spent good time and precious money creating the Fpops credit system to stop the overclaiming and bring credit back into equalization. This removed credit calculation from Boinc and placed it in the science application. What does Crunch3r do? He starts optimizing the seti application at seti beta. He made version 5.11 which had a "load store adjustment" equal to the earlier version by Eric K(7-9 when the release seti version was 3.35). No harm there, however he left it available on his site for more than 3 weeks after knowing it was an improper value. If it was available, you know people would download and use it, especially since it requested more than twice the normal credit. After some time it would have also been used by enough users to once again destroy the credit system. Yet again, not a very responsible act. Then he made a version which contained a "load store adjustment of 3.36" (3.35 is the official loadstore adjustment today at seti). He had to go for that little bit extra.

It was at this point I asked him "crunch3r? are you trying to cheat". I mean for cripes sake, seti had just implemented a system to create fair credit for all, and here he was offering products that could destroy all their hard work.

In December 05 he was asked about the overclaiming at Rosetta that his versions were causing. He responded "It's Rosetta's fault for not being open source". This was causing credit/flame wars at Rosetta before I had even crunched my first wu for them, or posted there.

His Boinc optimizations have caused Einstein to invest the time and money to implement a fixed credit system. Caused flamewars at Rosetta, and caused them to implement a "rolling average" credit system. Look across the boards and see WHO's name is attached to all the credit wars. You know who it is..the creator of 5.5.0 that's who. Ask Hendrik if he hasn't spent time/money working on this issue.

So, is the person responsible for the credit wars the person who made the code or the person who tries to lesten the damage to boinc caused by them? I wonder how many man hours have been spent trying to correct this??

He has been repeatedly advised that RRI (return result immediately) is hard on the project servers, but continues to include it in his code. Rom Walton (boinc developer with Berkeley) has written BOINC Client: The evils of 'Returning Results Immediately' and FOLLOW-UP: The evils of 'Returning Results Immediately'. Yet he continues his irresponsible actions by keeping this in his newer clients. (see 5.9.0.32 log above).

On the brighter side, I see cpu affinity is the lone brightspot in his builds. If he won't be responsible and inform users of the downside of his builds, and preferably stop altering the benchmarks, then someone has to.


[edit]Of course I won't say anything negative about Simon Zadra, he doesn't do anything to hurt boinc or destroy the credit process. Silly[/edit]

I see this is one of those threads thats going to give me a headache if I keep reading it!!!

@ Tony:

It's clear now that you are biased so I will say this as clearly as I can:

*IF* you can find one project Developer or Scientist that agrees with you that Crunch3r's optimized application for abc@home is somehow harming the project or the integrity of the data collected, then I will be the FIRST to convert and become your disciple and go with you from project to project telling/warning people that Crunch3r is doing more harm then good..

Now, if you can't find anyone who agrees with you then you should probably move on as there will be about as much support for you then as there would be now which is close to zero.

I am not deluded by my fellow team mates like you tried to imply, rather the opposite as I do see thing and people for what they are which is why I chose to respond to your initial "altered" slander in the manner I did.

The burden of proof's squarely with you now so you better get to emailing those devs and scientists.... :/ LOL

Logan5, It appears you don't dispute anything I've previously presented. You haven't disputed any of them. Instead, you intend to shift the conversation to a different issue. I'd agree that the altered benchmarks won't affect ABC, the RRI will increasingly have negative affects after the project grows.

What happens when/if Hendrik endorses the use of a third party Boinc CC which alters the benchmark code???? I'll tell you, others will use it and most will attach to other projects. This would further the degradation of the credit system. I have NO issue with ones that don't alter benchmarks and don't have RRI.

When "third party Boinc CC's" first came out noone wanted the negative affects discussed. Discussing/mentioning them was somehow an attack. And through ignorance(lack of anyone telling them they overclaim) and greed for credit their use spread. Now you don't want anyone to inform others of potential hazards with 64b boinc CC's? It's almost like you don't want anyone to make an informed decision for themselves.

Going with 64b makes sense for ABC given their use of 64b numbers. Unfortunately, this places him on the "bleeding edge" of Boincs capabilities, so he's "leading" the show. He'll be setting precedence. He needs to make informed decisions.

If I were to be quiet, who'd give him the other side of the story????? It'd be the same as the 32b early Third party boinc clients "Man, you gotta get X", "you need to try this", all with NO warnings applied. Keeping secret the facts. Kinda like the note included with the Team Xtremesystems version of 5.5.0.

"XTREMESYSTEMS.ORG CONFIDENTIAL

Keep these updates & optimizations secret. We don't want other teams finding out, hint hint =D."

Also, you may have missed my post about not finding Crunch3r's 5.4.11_AMD64 to alter the benchmarks. I also notice it has "cpu affinity" (a bonus), AND I don't see any text in the message log that indicates RRI is used, so guess what? I might actually use it. If I find no hidden "gotcha's", I might even endorse it. Due to the "dual core benchmark bug" (dhrystone varying from 1/2, 3/4 and full value on a seeming random basis) I ran 25-30 benchmarks with it and never saw a value with exceeds what it should have. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, that's what I mean by more testing and looking to see if RRI is working but not listed.

There is a lot I could say on this topic, but I'll restrict myself to this:

The benchmark system has been so thoroughly rorted that the credit in projects that still rely on boinc client benchmarks for the allocation of credit has become completely debased and I rarely crunch them anymore. QMC is a good example here. It became a total joke.

Much, although not all, of the blame for this lies with the use (Not just the creation and distribution) of boinc clients that produce ridiculously inflated benchmarks. The only reason for using these clients is to get more credit for doing less crunching. There is no ethical or reasonable justification.


____________
--miw

Dang, I just ran Crunch3r's 5.8.11.64-64b and got the following:

2/16/2007 2:27:52 PM||Starting BOINC client version 5.8.11.64 for windows_amd64
2/16/2007 2:27:52 PM||BOINC 5.8.11.64 - 64 bit Windows Edition by Crunch3r
2/16/2007 2:27:52 PM||enabled features:
2/16/2007 2:27:52 PM||-cpu_affinity
2/16/2007 2:27:52 PM||Processor: 2 AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5200+ [AMD64 Family 15 Model 67 Stepping 2] [fpu tsc pae nx sse sse2]
2/16/2007 2:27:52 PM||Version change (5.8.12 -> 5.8.11); running CPU benchmarks
2/16/2007 2:28:54 PM|| 2484 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:28:54 PM|| 4170 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:32:41 PM|| 2489 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:32:41 PM|| 4174 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:33:56 PM|| 2488 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:33:56 PM|| 4179 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:35:17 PM|| 2487 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:35:17 PM|| 6362 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:38:14 PM|| 2485 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:38:14 PM|| 4175 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:39:22 PM|| 2474 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:39:22 PM|| 4038 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:46:24 PM|| 2485 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:46:24 PM|| 4168 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:47:30 PM|| 2488 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:47:30 PM|| 4178 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:54:29 PM|| 2482 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:54:29 PM|| 4174 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:55:37 PM|| 2480 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:55:37 PM|| 4020 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:56:46 PM|| 2477 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:56:46 PM|| 4109 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:58:43 PM|| 2472 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 2:58:43 PM|| 4063 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 3:05:40 PM|| 2487 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 3:05:40 PM|| 3207 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 3:06:58 PM|| 2485 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 3:06:58 PM|| 3194 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 3:08:17 PM|| 2489 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 3:08:17 PM|| 3215 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 3:09:29 PM|| 2485 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 3:09:29 PM|| 3174 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 3:10:45 PM|| 2489 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 3:10:45 PM|| 3190 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/16/2007 3:11:58 PM|| 2485 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/16/2007 3:11:58 PM|| 3174 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU

As you can see only cpu affinity is listed, so I'd actually have to get work to know if RRI is enabled. Below are the 32b windows benchmarks across different versions. Note: this was used to confirm the existence of the "dual benchmark bug" As you can see both versions have wildly varying Dhrystone measurements. This is due to Boinc, not Crunch3r. The max 32B Dhrystone was 4800+, the max Dhrystone on Crunch3r's version was 6300+. Given the number of available SSE registers are doubled in 64b, I think the benchmarks for 5.8.11.64 appear normal.

5.8.4
2632/2468
2631/2618
2627/2472
2624/2475

Being curious I installed 5.8.3 and got
2633/3146
and
2632/3146

I reverted to 5.7.5
2635/4867
2634/3348
2636/3271

Then to 5.4.9
2640/4859
2638/4846
2636/4858

Then to 4.72
2629/4842
2633/3280
2634/3286

Then to 4.43
2620/4845
2627/2483
2627/4862

Then to 4.20
2622/4845
2623/4856
2662/3284

Then back to 5.8.4
2630/4613
2634/4674
2636/4686

I hope this trend continues and I can eventually stop commenting upon "third party boinc clients" with altered benchmarks. It will take time for all of them to filter through the system(I.E become dropped , unuseable via age, or obsolete).

I apologize to Crunch3r for automatically assuming these versions contained altered benchmarks and will be following future developments with interest to ensure my accuracy. This marks a departure which I view favorably. I'll even be rerunning 5.9.0.64 with more samples.

tony

People people people, well at least all your postings out of frustration at least gave me a headeache, so I skipped some of them if they looked repetorious. About the credit, I think of course 25+/credit an hour for a pc normally doing 10±(10-20%) credit an hour, sounds a bit to much for me, but all lets remember that it really doesn't matter about the credit, but about the results we produce while crunching. And if the credit is based on the amount of hits, well then the credit will be fair, because then the 64bit app will yield more triplets than the 32bit, and of course then everyone doing 64bit should be granted more credit, on the other hand if the credit isn't based on the findings, then there needs to be done some sort of adjustement, so the credit is more suited for the speed of the computer, rather than for what app it crunches with :)

Now finally let me remind you americans and none americans, that this is a European funded project, and up untill now I haven't seen any bigger flaming wars, and frankly I don't wish to see it now or in the future, so even though I'm no moderator, I'll gently earch all of you to reach out for each other, and make peace in stead of flaming your opponents, because in the end no one wins on doing this ;) So respect your next and his or shes oppinion, and then defend your right to free speach, if you aren't met with respect :)

Regards!

KEP

After quite some efforts I could get the client 5.4.11 amd64 running under Linux Ubuntu 6.10 (kernel 2.6.17.11 / client 5.8.11 not apparently, other people did?)
on my C2D T7200 compatible EM64T/amd64

And got thoses errors "code 131", is it normal? or Intel again lagging behind Amd !? ;-)
Sat 17 Feb 2007 12:29:10 AM CET|ABC@home|Unrecoverable error for result abc_wu_38382310000_100000_1 (process exited with code 131 (0x83))
Sat 17 Feb 2007 12:29:10 AM CET|ABC@home|Deferring scheduler requests for 1 minutes and 0 seconds
Sat 17 Feb 2007 12:29:10 AM CET||Rescheduling CPU: application exited
Sat 17 Feb 2007 12:29:10 AM CET|ABC@home|Computation for task abc_wu_38382310000_100000_1 finished
Sat 17 Feb 2007 12:29:11 AM CET|ABC@home|Unrecoverable error for result abc_wu_38382510000_100000_0 (process exited with code 131 (0x83))

(maybe that's just when I activated "Run based on preferences" and he halted the current WUs? they are lost in that case!?... I remember some mention to that in the forum I think...)

I apologize to Crunch3r for automatically assuming these versions contained altered benchmarks and will be following future developments with interest to ensure my accuracy.

After quite some efforts I could get the client 5.4.11 amd64 running under Linux Ubuntu 6.10 (kernel 2.6.17.11 / client 5.8.11 not apparently, other people did?)
on my C2D T7200 compatible EM64T/amd64

(maybe that's just when I activated "Run based on preferences" and he halted the current WUs? they are lost in that case!?... I remember some mention to that in the forum I think...)

I apologize to Crunch3r for automatically assuming these versions contained altered benchmarks and will be following future developments with interest to ensure my accuracy.

We're all glad that this development meets with your seal of approval.

Thanks for being man enough to admit you have been wrong about this, as that takes a lot of courage to state in open forum and for that I do commend you for your willingness to end the war between yourself and Crunch3r.

You've taken the 1st steps today to repair the rift the prior & current accusations of cheating have caused in the community.

Why thank you Logan5, you have always seemed to want to play the moderator. You continue to ask people to "take a different tack" or "tone down messages". To play the moderator,you need to moderate between two parties or there's nothing to moderate.

Your post leaves me feeling a little empty. Shouldn't you be posting words encouraging Crunch3rs continued recent behavior in this regard? That would be moderation, without it, it's a little one sided, don't you think?

Why thank you Logan5, you have always seemed to want to play the moderator. You continue to ask people to "take a different tack" or "tone down messages". To play the moderator,you need to moderate between two parties or there's nothing to moderate.

Your post leaves me feeling a little empty. Shouldn't you be posting words encouraging Crunch3rs continued recent behavior in this regard? That would be moderation, without it, it's a little one sided, don't you think?

This whole thread is one sided after YOU took it WAY OFF TOPIC. You accused someome of cheating the claimed credit and then when you actually bothered to try his latest optimized application you discovered that you were wrong.....

I gave you a sincere compliment for admitting publicly that you were wrong about an erroneous conclusion you had reached but you are either too stubborn or too ignorant to see it for what it really was....After reading your comments above I wonder why I even bothered to think you are a decent human being. You just proved once again what a complete and totallly insincere person you are... I regret my prior comments and wish I hadn't thought that you were actually sorry for what you had said before about Crunch3r because you have just shown that you could care less...

@KEP:

I appreciate your position and respect it but you do not understand that Tony has a rather bad history at the seti@home message boards for making the same types of slanderous accusations against Crunch3r where he was accusing him of writing optimized applications that 'cheated' by artifically inflating the claimed credit.

He is doing the same thing here once again and he needs to be reminded that this behavior should and will not be tolerated in the Distributed Computing Community.

Tony's claims were proven ultimately false at the seti boards only AFTER he caused a HUGE rift in the membership by forcing people to take sides....

This is the history of the person who you think I am picking on, but if you really understood that history you would maybe not be so quick to come to his defense..

You are right KEP that this needs to end, but what needs to end is Tonys witch hunt of Crunch3r which I *thought* had ended when he publicly apologized..

[quote]Error code 131 reads:

ERR_FILE_TOO_BIG -131 file size too big an output file was bigger than max_nbytes

If you're trying to run it under linux then you need to install the normal linux boinc.sh from Berkeley (5.4.11_i686-pc-linux-gnu.sh, for example), then download and extract one of Augustines boincs. Untar it, then rename the boinc executable in the boinc folder to something else, and replace it with the untarred Augustine version. restart boinc, and you should be done.

@KEP:
I appreciate your position and respect it but you do not understand that Tony has a rather bad history at the seti@home message boards for making the same types of slanderous accusations against Crunch3r where he was accusing him of writing optimized applications that 'cheated' by artifically inflating the claimed credit.

He is doing the same thing here once again and he needs to be reminded that this behavior should and will not be tolerated in the Distributed Computing Community.

Tony's claims were proven ultimately false at the seti boards only AFTER he caused a HUGE rift in the membership by forcing people to take sides....

This is the history of the person who you think I am picking on, but if you really understood that history you would maybe not be so quick to come to his defense..

You are right KEP that this needs to end, but what needs to end is Tonys witch hunt of Crunch3r which I *thought* had ended when he publicly apologized..

Logan5, I think you might need a trip to the optometrists office as seem to have trouble reading with comprehension. So, I'll respond with an outline form to allow you to take in bits at a time without losing your place, and it's a handy for you to respond to points without quoting the entire thread.

1) I didn't take this thread off topic. Crunch3r did when he attacked me.

My post My post was an answer to the question of Clownius. That was on topic and directly answered his question. NOTE: Crunch3r was not named.

then

crunch3r started the attack in this post

2) If anything you are the one following me, not I following him. I proved I'm not following him in this post. You stated it was unfortunate your "first post" to these boards had to be the way it is. Well, here's your stats:
Logan5@SETI.USA
Joined: Nov 23, 2006
Posts: 5
ID: 272
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
You have been a member for months, but haven't contributed ONE wu, and you haven't posted to help people either. Until Crunch3r attacked me that is, then you posted like you always do, and that's to defend your team mate without the use of facts. The facts sure make it look like you're following me, or atleast not really sorry you posted until now.

3) Read my apology again. You seem to think it's "broad based", or all encompassing. I apologized for "assuming" all his clients had altered benchmarks. NOTHING more than that. Heck, let's face it when someone does something a dozen times in a row, you kind of have to assume he'll do it the 13th time. In my previous posts to this thread. I never stated "they are all overclaiming". read my comments again and see. However, in my mind I assumed they were and was apologizing for that and that alone. I do hope he continues this trend, and if so, It will abate my comments about how his cc's have destroyed the credibility of the boinc credit system. It won't happen overnite, as his "third party clients" are still in use and affecting projects, but as I said, they will lessen and eventually stop after all his clients are not used for one reason or another. I truly do hope this trend continues.

4) In the seti 'incident', I never stated "crunch3r IS cheatiing", I called the thread "crunch3r, are you trying to cheat?". Not the same thing, and throughout that thread (and it's secondaries) I presented facts to support my belief that he was and let the people choose. You seem to think there wasn't enough meat to my presentation. Others would disagree. The main purpose of the thread to was bring to light the fact that he "crunch3r" was once again attempting to destroy the brand spanking new credit system which was "in part" designed to stop the overclaiming of his previous boinc CC's.

Fact A) Crunch3r built 5.11 for use on seti beta and even did testing there with it, so he knew what "load store adjustment" was in it.

Fact B) I waited and watched his account from day one when seti "enhanced" was released, and he was using 5.11 on the main seti project on his own computers, even though it was known that the "load store adjustment" of the release official app was 3.35, not the 7.00 or 9.00 that was in 5.11.

Fact C) I watched his website to see if he'd pulled 5.11 from the download page, as any responsible compiler would.

Fact D) After 3 weeks 5.11 was still available for download and still being used on atleast one of his puters. So that's when I started the thread.

I will spare the audience the full bit and stop here. He used 5.11 on his own computers even knowing that they claimed high. Nuff said. Case closed, point proven.

The really important bit is that OTHERs were using his 5.11, and as prevously stated, that would once again destroy the boinc credit system as it's use grew. Luckily, he took all his toys and went home, pulling his site down, and effectively "saving" the credit system. ironic huh?

5) all this is much to familiar. I present 'FACTS' and back them with proof. You an others make claims, distort the truth, and just plain make stuff up, without evidence. You never answer anything and just make more claims, ask question, or change the subject.

6) Noone's answered my questions:
a) why doesn't he optimized the benchmark code on ALL his Boinc CC's (here's the new improved part)except his 64b boinc clients 5.9.0.64, released Jan 8 2007, 5.4.11_AMD64 released Feb 11 2007, and 5.8.11_AMD64 released Feb 16 2007??? What's the reasoning/rational for them??

PS all proof can be found in the old thread and the links within them. If you want them and don't wanna look, I'll present them for you. Some threads were deleted, but they were saved to computer beforehand, so they are still available.

On a side note, which is more on topic, Rom Walton has informed me that a 64b Boinc for windows IS in the works. yeah No timeframe was asked for or given though.

I dont do alot of posting but decided I wanted to make a comment or two...my personal opinion is that this whole conversation is getting a bit on the silly side....if this project isn't using those benchmarks to calculate the credits why should whether otr not they are inflated matter?....if Hendrick approved the use of Crunch3r's client then that should be the end of itshouldn't it?...I will be using it for testing in beta and then when it is all ready in the stable....I think it is a good thing that Crunch3r gave us the opportunity to be able to help advance the work being done and should be thanked for it...if anyone disagrees with me I don't really care but none of the argument said in this thread are going to change my opinion ...and on a side note I think some people here should act more there age...thank you very much and have a nice day!!!!!

On a side note, which is more on topic, Rom Walton has informed me that a 64b Boinc for windows IS in the works. yeah No timeframe was asked for or given though.

On a side note, which is more on topic, Rom Walton has informed me that a 64b Boinc for windows IS in the works. yeah No timeframe was asked for or given though.

Is there anything wrong with using Crunch3r's 64-bit BOINC for Windows? Apparently it neither alters benchmarks nor returns results immediately so it seems to be compliant with existing standards.

I'm pretty sure Chess960 sends a 64-bit science app though I must admit I've never tried it. I did try RieselSieve a week ago but could not get it to work, maybe later when I have more time and they offer a 64-bit app. Anyway, it sounds like you have RieselSieve working. Malaria also sends a 32-bit app to 64-bit systems, automatically like Riesel. If Riesel gives you more trouble later then maybe try Malaria.

{/snip} if this project isn't using those benchmarks to calculate the credits why should whether otr not they are inflated matter?....if Hendrick approved the use of Crunch3r's client then that should be the end of itshouldn't it?...I will be using it for testing in beta and then when it is all ready in the stable....I think it is a good thing that Crunch3r gave us the opportunity to be able to help advance the work being done and should be thanked for it...if anyone disagrees with me I don't really care but none of the argument said in this thread are going to change my opinion ...and on a side note I think some people here should act more there age...thank you very much and have a nice day!!!!!

Thank you for this, it is nice to see support for Crunch3rs work to better the community. He volunteers his time & spends great amounts of his monies for the compilers & software to make his apps and he asks for nothing in return.

I dont do alot of posting but decided I wanted to make a comment or two...my personal opinion is that this whole conversation is getting a bit on the silly side....if this project isn't using those benchmarks to calculate the credits why should whether otr not they are inflated matter?

....if Hendrick approved the use of Crunch3r's client then that should be the end of itshouldn't it?

...I will be using it for testing in beta and then when it is all ready in the stable....I think it is a good thing that Crunch3r gave us the opportunity to be able to help advance the work being done and should be thanked for it...

if anyone disagrees with me I don't really care but none of the argument said in this thread are going to change my opinion ...

and on a side note I think some people here should act more there age...

I think you didnt read it correctly It clearly stated IF Hendrick approved it. IF being the key word. So you might need to be the one to open your eyes and read before responding.

I think you didnt read it correctly It clearly stated IF Hendrick approved it. IF being the key word. So you might need to be the one to open your eyes and read before responding.

This Thread reminds me of the Good Old Days over @ in the Seti Forum's ... NOT

I stopped running Seti a couple of years ago just because of this sort of 3 Ring Circus Atmosphere, I guess I can add ABC to the Circus List now that things seem to be degrading to the same level as Seti ... Cheer's

This Thread reminds me of the Good Old Days over @ in the Seti Forum's ... NOT

I stopped running Seti a couple of years ago just because of this sort of 3 Ring Circus Atmosphere, I guess I can add ABC to the Circus List now that things seem to be degrading to the same level as Seti ... Cheer's

The problem here, today, in this thread, is that people have made false accusations. One has apologised, one has not. And a third has attempted to jump aboard a bandwagon that left town yesterday spoiling for an argument, thinking he too can march out of oblivion and into the dream with mugwump word tricks.

The problem here, today, in this thread, is that people have made false accusations. One has apologised, one has not. And a third has attempted to jump aboard a bandwagon that left town yesterday spoiling for an argument, thinking he too can march out of oblivion and into the dream with mugwump word tricks.

you seem like you are the one who wants an argument and also seem to be very negative about anything anyone has an opinion about ....on that note im done dealing with your responses as it is giving me a headache!!!

If you want to run ABC@home's 64 bit client, you will have to use one of the third party BOINC clients, as Berkeley do not (yet) have a 64 bit client. Period.

Yes, the 64bit client I use now (installed for use at AB@home) does appear to inflate benchmarks but the work is done much faster too and I still get more than claimed. When all is said and done, benchmarks are irrelevant on this project.

Let's stop this endless, nonsensical, off-topic bickering.

If you want to run ABC@home's 64 bit client, you will have to use one of the third party BOINC clients, as Berkeley do not (yet) have a 64 bit client. Period.

Yes, the 64bit client I use now (installed for use at AB@home) does appear to inflate benchmarks but the work is done much faster too and I still get more than claimed. When all is said and done, benchmarks are irrelevant on this project.

Let's stop this endless, nonsensical, off-topic bickering.

What I am seeing is benchmarks that are inflated by a factor of about two. I don't care what causes it, as there is no official 64 bit BOINC client. I don't care whether it's Augustine's or Crunch3r's or anyone else's 64 bit client. There is no official 64 bit BOINC client

And as I said, it does not matter here. Nothing to argue about. Let it rest! it only matters if you use it on projects that rely on the benchmarks for granting credit (which I don't with this computer)

My computers are not hidden so if you want to see what I'm seeing, look them up. Host 6446 is overclocked by almost 50% and uses one of the 64 bit clients. It used to be host 5822 with 32bit Linux and official 32bit BOINC client 5.4.11
____________


Join the #1 Aussie Alliance on ABC@Home

My Dhrystone went from a max of 4800 with standard boinc for windows, Crunch3r's 5.8.11_amd64 maxed out at 6300 and change. It looks to be very similar in proportions. 64b has twice the SSE registers and I'm thinking that it simply works faster (IE completes more loops in the run time). There IS a way to tell. (NOTE: this only works with 5.8.10 and above, so you'd have to have the latest boinc official, the latest Crunch3r, and Augustine)

By creating a cc_config.xml file and placing it in the boinc folder, then starting boinc and running the benchmarks (advanced-run benchmarks).

the cc_config.xml should contain the following:

<cc_config>
<log_flags>
<benchmark_debug />
</log_flags>
</cc_config>

It will output something similar to this:

2/17/2007 5:19:02 PM||Running CPU benchmarks
2/17/2007 5:19:02 PM||Suspending computation - running CPU benchmarks
2/17/2007 5:19:04 PM||[benchmark_debug] Starting floating-point benchmark
2/17/2007 5:19:24 PM||[benchmark_debug] Ended floating-point benchmark
2/17/2007 5:19:39 PM||[benchmark_debug] Starting integer benchmark
2/17/2007 5:19:59 PM||[benchmark_debug] Ended integer benchmark
2/17/2007 5:20:02 PM||[benchmark_debug] Ended benchmark
2/17/2007 5:20:03 PM||[benchmark_debug] CPU 0 has finished
2/17/2007 5:20:03 PM||[benchmark_debug] CPU 1 has finished
2/17/2007 5:20:03 PM||[benchmark_debug] 2 out of 2 CPUs done
2/17/2007 5:20:03 PM||[benchmark_debug] CPU 0: fp 2604068857.589984 int 3145259831.507770 intloops 109920000.000000 inttime 19.890625
2/17/2007 5:20:03 PM||[benchmark_debug] CPU 1: fp 2637636080.870917 int 3186892757.171830 intloops 111200000.000000 inttime 19.859375
2/17/2007 5:20:03 PM||Benchmark results:
2/17/2007 5:20:03 PM|| Number of CPUs: 2
2/17/2007 5:20:03 PM|| 2621 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/17/2007 5:20:03 PM|| 3166 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/17/2007 5:20:04 PM||Resuming computation

It shows the runtime and loops. The avg of fp and int for cpu0+cpu1 is used in the displayed output everyone normally sees.

The problem for me is that the dual core benchmark bug makes it to unreliable for me to use, however someone with a single core could test it. I could test 32b linux vs 32b win vs 64b linux.

The question would probably still remain as to what caused it to do more intloops/second. But even this is speculation without testing

What I am seeing is benchmarks that are inflated by a factor of two. I don't care what causes it, as there is no official 64 bit BOINC client. I don't care whether it's Augustine's or Crunch3r's or anyone else's 64 bit client. There is no official 64 bit BOINC client

And as I said, it does not matter here. Nothing to argue about. Let it rest!

Quick note: if you run winme or win98 don't bother with 5.8.12 or 5.8.13, it won't install and gives an error. 5.8.14 does work however.

on my AMD Athlon 64 3400+ OC'd to 2.36

32 bit 5.4.11

2/17/2005 9:27:35 AM||Running CPU benchmarks
2/17/2005 9:28:34 AM||Benchmark results:
2/17/2005 9:28:34 AM|| Number of CPUs: 1
2/17/2005 9:28:34 AM|| 2148 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/17/2005 9:28:34 AM|| 3939 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/17/2005 9:28:34 AM||Finished CPU benchmarks

Crunch3r's 64 bit 5.8.11


2/17/2005 9:31:00 AM||Running CPU benchmarks
2/17/2005 9:32:01 AM||Benchmark results:
2/17/2005 9:32:01 AM|| Number of CPUs: 1
2/17/2005 9:32:01 AM|| 2050 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2/17/2005 9:32:01 AM|| 5435 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2/17/2005 9:32:02 AM||Resuming computation

By creating a cc_config.xml file and placing it in the boinc folder, then starting boinc and running the benchmarks (advanced-run benchmarks).

OK, Astro, here's what I have so far. First is Augustine's BOINC, second is standard 5.8.11. The 2 log excerpts are from twin machines (same mobo, same CPU, same video, same RAM, same everything, no OC). Both have the cc_config.xml in BOINC dir as per your request.

Note Augustine's client doesn't report the loop count like Crunch3r's does. I don't know if these tests tell you what you want to know. If not then let me know if you have other ideas, because I can try other tests too. I don't really want to but I could put WinXP 64bit on a spare drive and test Crunch3r's client too.

Also, the difference in int ops is even greater than I said a few posts up. I was working from memory then and recalled the standard int ops incorrectly.

************************************************
2007-02-16 19:16:56 [---] Starting BOINC client version 5.8.11 for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
2007-02-16 19:16:57 [---] Processor: 1 AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3300+ [fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx mmxext lm 3dnowext 3dnow]
2007-02-16 19:16:57 [---] Memory: 875.53 MB physical, 1.72 GB virtual

2007-02-17 21:11:07 [---] [benchmark_debug] Starting floating-point benchmark
2007-02-17 21:11:27 [---] [benchmark_debug] Ended floating-point benchmark
2007-02-17 21:11:43 [---] [benchmark_debug] Starting integer benchmark
2007-02-17 21:11:05 [---] Running CPU benchmarks
2007-02-17 21:12:02 [---] [benchmark_debug] Ended integer benchmark
2007-02-17 21:12:05 [---] [benchmark_debug] Ended benchmark
2007-02-17 21:12:06 [---] [benchmark_debug] CPU 0 has finished
2007-02-17 21:12:06 [---] [benchmark_debug] 1 out of 1 CPUs done
2007-02-17 21:12:06 [---] [benchmark_debug] CPU 0: fp 2253916518.037568 int 6276753887.305083
2007-02-17 21:12:06 [---] Benchmark results:
2007-02-17 21:12:06 [---] Number of CPUs: 1
2007-02-17 21:12:06 [---] 2254 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2007-02-17 21:12:06 [---] 6277 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2007-02-17 21:12:07 [---] Resuming computation

************************************************

2007-02-17 18:23:22 [---] Starting BOINC client version 5.8.11 for windows_intelx86
2007-02-17 18:23:22 [---] Processor: 1 AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3300+ [x86 Family 15 Model 12 Stepping 0] [fpu tsc pae nx sse sse2 3dnow mmx]
2007-02-17 18:23:22 [---] Memory: 895.48 MB physical, 2.76 GB virtual

2007-02-17 22:20:02 [---] Running CPU benchmarks
2007-02-17 22:20:03 [---] Suspending computation - running CPU benchmarks
2007-02-17 22:20:05 [---] [benchmark_debug] Starting floating-point benchmark
2007-02-17 22:20:25 [---] [benchmark_debug] Ended floating-point benchmark
2007-02-17 22:20:40 [---] [benchmark_debug] Starting integer benchmark
2007-02-17 22:21:00 [---] [benchmark_debug] Ended integer benchmark
2007-02-17 22:21:03 [---] [benchmark_debug] Ended benchmark
2007-02-17 22:21:04 [---] [benchmark_debug] CPU 0 has finished
2007-02-17 22:21:04 [---] [benchmark_debug] 1 out of 1 CPUs done
2007-02-17 22:21:04 [---] [benchmark_debug] CPU 0: fp 2278481012.658228 int 4194962692.401509
2007-02-17 22:21:04 [---] Benchmark results:
2007-02-17 22:21:04 [---] Number of CPUs: 1
2007-02-17 22:21:04 [---] 2278 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2007-02-17 22:21:04 [---] 4195 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
2007-02-17 22:21:05 [---] Resuming computation
************************************************

Do i need to compile my own is that the only way?

Do i need to compile my own is that the only way?

Probably the only way. I too have noticed that integer benchmark is alot higher (Augustine's client) but I'm not worried. My favourite projects are fixed credit anyway.

fubared and Clownius, you've missed the point. Perhaps the benchmarks are higher because the benchmark calculations run faster in 64-bit, not because Augustine and Crunch3r are trying to cheat. Perhaps Augustine's and Crunch3r's benchmarks are exactly what a 64-bit BOINC from Berkely would produce. Think about it.

Hmmm, I'm looking at the reading Dagorath presented. I don't see the "intloops and inttime". It must be that they only work with 5.8.13 and above. The <benchmark_debug/> was created in 5.8.10 so they might be able to track down the "dual core benchmark bug". They don't have any dual cores with winxp so they can't find it themselves. I see in the changelog for 5.8.13 that he made additions to the benchmark debug capabilities.

Change Log:

- core client: don't print misleading error messages when
reference
site access succeeds on initial startup.
- core client: a few more messages for <benchmark_debug>
- core client: fix bug where if a task is aborted
(e.g. because it exceeds CPU limit)
it's restarted on the next enforce_schedule().
The problem: we're deleting the ACTIVE_TASK,
but the result is still in the ordered_scheduled_results list.
The solution: call request_schedule_cpus() in
handle_finished_apps() when an ACTIVE_TASK is deleted.
- WININSTALL: Use the Unicode version of ShutdownBOINCManager on
NT based
platforms and use the ANSI version on 9X based platforms.


So the extra info comes from the version, not the benchmark debug.

According to the message log both ran fp for 20 seconds, but augustines int ran 22 seconds, as opposed to 20 seconds for the original. Since the loops are counted in CPU time, NOT wall clock this is meaningless without the extra info in 5.8.13, specifically "inttime" and "intloops". It's probable, but unproveable, that Augustines did run for 20 seconds cpu time, and some other process got the other two seconds.

FP is supposed to run 20 seconds, then pause 15 seconds, then INT run for 20 seconds.

I think anyone else running this is useless ATM (until comparable versions over 5.8.13 are available). Not to mention that we'd still most likely be left wondering why the higher "intloops/time"

I think anyone else running this is useless ATM (until comparable versions over 5.8.13 are available). Not to mention that we'd still most likely be left wondering why the higher "intloops/time"

I run other projects, and so won't run any 64b Boinc which has "altered" benchmarks, but that seems to be the only source available so far. That means I won't be doing any 64b with windows.