Message boards :
Wish list :
WU size option
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 7 Sep 24 Posts: 14 Credit: 118,560 RAC: 11 |
In the project settings, please add the 4 WU options "tiny, small, normal, and huge", and allow the user to check/uncheck what size WU they wanna do. Most other projects with multiple applications/WU sizes have this, and it would be really benefitial to low end devices, so they can crunch smaller WU's instead of big ones. Or even just for powerful CPU's like my M4 in my base M4 Mac Mini, It's a lot more satisfying crunching a lot of small WU's than waiting many hours for big ones. |
![]() Send message Joined: 11 Feb 14 Posts: 138 Credit: 7,649,163 RAC: 0 |
Your Mac is getting the "tiny" WUs with just 12 blocks (used to be 9 in the past), there are no smaller WUs here. "Tiny" is 12 blocks, "small" is 32 blocks (IIRC sometimes up to around 36-38, my HD 3850 always got them), "normal" is 256+ blocks and "huge" is 768+ blocks. The automatic selection works actually pretty well here. ![]() |
Send message Joined: 7 Sep 24 Posts: 14 Credit: 118,560 RAC: 11 |
Fair enough, but I would still really like to be able to manually choose between these WU sizes, and since this is the "wish list" category, I'm just providing this feedback here, and then eventually, something or nothing comes of it, that's up to the project to decide :) Not to mention that my Mac is running these WU's through Rosetta 2, which will be discontinued in a few years, besides for Mac gaming, they're currently not running natively, which hurts performance. So with native support, I might very well be able to do bigger tasks in a resonable amount of time, and especially more powerful Apple Silicon Macs like the Mac Studio with Max and Ultra chips. |
![]() Send message Joined: 11 Feb 14 Posts: 138 Credit: 7,649,163 RAC: 0 |
My point was, that you won't get smaller WUs even if you choose manually the tiny ones since you already get them, so your feature request might not solve your "issue". However I have another hint for you: run the benchmark integrated in the dnet client, it detects your CPU as "Intel Xeon 56xx processor" and since you obviously don't have it, it's likely not choosing the optimal "core". Set than the fastest core in your Moo! Wrapper preferences. ![]() |
Send message Joined: 7 Sep 24 Posts: 14 Credit: 118,560 RAC: 11 |
How do I do this exactly? |
![]() Send message Joined: 11 Feb 14 Posts: 138 Credit: 7,649,163 RAC: 0 |
I have no idea how you do that exactly on a Mac, but in general you go to your Moo! project dir and run the client from command line with the -bench command attached, so in your case it will be something like "dnetc518-macosx-amd64 -bench". To get correct values you need to limit Moo! crunching in BOINC to one core less than usual, but do not stop it completely. Eventually you might want to try how fast it is with different amount of cores in use, after all it's running in emulated environment. ![]() |
Send message Joined: 7 Sep 24 Posts: 14 Credit: 118,560 RAC: 11 |
Ok, this sounds really complicated, but thanks for writing this, for other to stumble upon, if they should be interested. |