Math turns benchmark: y-cruncher meets HWBOT

[Mysticial]

Alright... Someone in China was kind enough to give me remote access to a dual Xeon E5-2696 v4 (Broadwell-EP)

 

It's got 44 cores/88 threads and 768 GB of ram. And after playing around with it for a few hours, I have some benchmarks for it.

 

Does anyone mind if I lay waste to the leaderboards?

I feel very guilty just thinking about it since I wrote the benchmark.

 

Btw, getting the program to run efficiently on these high-end boxes is actually quite difficult. At this level, the program is very sensitive to a lot of things. Combine that with a half-dozen knobs to turn within the program and it's a very large search space to play with.

[Massman]

Can't wait to see the results

[Mysticial]

Can't wait to see the results

 

Fine... I hope I don't get yelled at.

 

• http://hwbot.org/submission/3207669_mysticial_y_cruncher_pi_25m_2x_xeon_e5_2696_v4_0sec_780ms
  
• http://hwbot.org/submission/3207633_mysticial_y_cruncher_pi_1b_2x_xeon_e5_2696_v4_37sec_624ms
  
• http://hwbot.org/submission/3207722_mysticial_y_cruncher_pi_10b_2x_xeon_e5_2696_v4_7min_23sec_945ms/
  

Edited May 7, 2016 by Mysticial

[Guest Ximi]

Hello ,

 

On Win 7 , R5E , 5960X , show launcher Error on create data file , unable to create ... what happens ??

 

How can i solved it ?

 

Thanks !!

 

PD : On Win 7 , 2600k , not problem.

[Mysticial]

Hello ,

 

On Win 7 , R5E , 5960X , show launcher Error on create data file , unable to create ... what happens ??

 

How can i solved it ?

 

Thanks !!

 

PD : On Win 7 , 2600k , not problem.

 

Just to make sure I know which error message you're getting. The exact text reads, "Unable to create datefile." right?

 

Do you see a file named, "datafile.hwbot" in the path where you are running the app? This error message will show up if the submitter app is unable to write to the directory that it's running from.

[Guest Ximi]

Just to make sure I know which error message you're getting. The exact text reads, "Unable to create datefile." right?

 

Do you see a file named, "datafile.hwbot" in the path where you are running the app? This error message will show up if the submitter app is unable to write to the directory that it's running from.

 

Yes , the data file is missing ....

 

I download the benchmark and unrar file at HDD USB after I copied the directory to another PC on R5E and 5960k.

 

Posible is blocked from permissions ? How can I solved it ?

 

The JAVA version its for x64 but not the last 9.JRE its 8.JRE.

[Mysticial]

Yes , the data file is missing ....

 

I download the benchmark and unrar file at HDD USB after I copied the directory to another PC on R5E and 5960k.

 

Posible is blocked from permissions ? How can I solved it ?

 

The JAVA version its for x64 but not the last 9.JRE its 8.JRE.

 

While I'm not 100% sure this is the case, I do agree that it sounds like the submitter can't write to disk at all. Where did you put the y-cruncher folder? If you copied directly into "c:/" there's a chance that it won't have permissions to write there.

 

Try copying it somewhere else on that system. If the problem persists, then I'll have to push out a new version with some additional logging to pinpoint the error.

[Guest Ximi]

While I'm not 100% sure this is the case, I do agree that it sounds like the submitter can't write to disk at all. Where did you put the y-cruncher folder? If you copied directly into "c:/" there's a chance that it won't have permissions to write there.

 

Try copying it somewhere else on that system. If the problem persists, then I'll have to push out a new version with some additional logging to pinpoint the error.

 

Solved , copied at C:\ , and dismark only read at directory.

[Mysticial]

Solved , copied at C:\ , and dismark only read at directory.

 

Excellent. I'll make the error-message more specific for the next version. You probably won't be the last one to hit this.

 

It just occurred to me that not being able to write to disk will also prevent the submitter from running y-cruncher at all since it uses scripts.

[Guest Ximi]

Excellent. I'll make the error-message more specific for the next version. You probably won't be the last one to hit this.

 

It just occurred to me that not being able to write to disk will also prevent the submitter from running y-cruncher at all since it uses scripts.

 

Thanks for support , is a good one benchmark ....

[Mysticial]

The beta competition has been winding down for the past couple weeks and it officially ends in two days. So I thought I'd shed some light on what's potentially coming next.

 

y-cruncher v0.7.1 has been in feature freeze for the past 3 weeks and I've started handing out a release candidate to a handful of people. In other words, it's almost ready. If any staff members are interested, PM me or shoot me an email.

 

The new version has a bunch of changes. The ones that are relevant to HWBOT are:

1. Admin is no longer required to run. But turning it on anyway may give a small speedup. Admin is still required for swap mode.
   
2. Detection of the operating system.
   
3. Detection of more hardware components. (HT, # of sockets, motherboard, memory)
   
4. Detection of the reference clock. Version 0.7.1 will now recognize the TSC, HPET, and ACPI reference clocks. The submitter will refuse to submit benchmarks that are run Windows 8 or later if the reference clock is not HPET or ACPI.
   
5. Performance improvements for most processors. And a new binary aimed at Broadwell and Skylake desktop chips.
   

 

This version adds a lot of environment detection mostly for validation and to streamline the submission process. At the very least, the motherboard and # of processors will now auto-fill themselves (if HWBOT recognizes it). On Windows, it will also detect the individual memory modules, but HWBOT currently doesn't take this information. (I couldn't figure out how to do this on Linux.)

 

OS and reference clock detection is obviously for validation and to lift the Windows 8 and later restriction. However, I found out today that this might not be 100% reliable. Apparently my laptop's platform clock is neither HPET nor ACPI. y-cruncher doesn't recognize it and the submitter blocks me from submitting anything run on my laptop. After a bunch of Googling I still couldn't figure out what the hell it is. In any case, this is something that can probably be fixed on the submitter side. So I'm fine with rolling out y-cruncher as is.

 

Last are the performance improvements. They aren't massive speedups. (Mostly around the 1 - 5% range.) Last time I checked, Sandy/Ivy Bridge with AVX had the biggest improvement. But still nowhere near enough to be competitive with Haswell/AVX2. Those with Broadwell and Skylake will be able to run the new "x64 ADX ~ Kurumi" binary that utilizes the ADX instruction set.

 

Unfortunately, this means that v0.7.1 will not be speed consistent with v0.6.9 and older versions. So if y-cruncher is here to stay on HWBOT, this is something we'll have to live with since y-cruncher probably continue to get incrementally faster with major release. With respect to that, I have AVX512 binaries lined up and good to go. So expect a potentially "unfair" advantage for Skylake-EP and Cannonlake whenever I can get my hands on them. (Knights Landing also has AVX512, but that's still uncertain since the architecture is so drastically different.)

 

----------------

 

In any case, there are some open questions:

 

There's a new version of the submitter that will be released simultaneously with y-cruncher v0.7.1. Right now, that submitter is set to block all v0.7.1 submissions on Windows 8 or later if they aren't using HPET or ACPI. Should I extend this to block earlier versions of y-cruncher that cannot detect the clock? This means that the current version of y-cruncher will no longer be usable for HWBOT.

 

What about Linux? I have no idea how easy it is to tamper with the clocks in Linux. (I've never tried.) But it's certainly possible since Linux is open-sourced. So a capable kernel hacker can modify it in a way to trick y-cruncher's timings.

 

When should I actually release v0.7.1? Should I do it immediately after the competition ends? Or should I wait around a bit. (I'm not sure what usually follows a beta competition.)

[havli]

Will the new version support saving data file (for later manual submission via hwbot site) like some other hwbot-integrated benchmarks?

[Mysticial]

Will the new version support saving data file (for later manual submission via hwbot site) like some other hwbot-integrated benchmarks?

 

No, but you can (almost) already do that by saving the validation file. I can't allow manual submissions until I have a mechanism to block submissions into the wrong category. (i.e. submitting a 25m into the 1b.)

[Matsglobetrotter]

Hi, I keep getting this error on my Asus X99e-WS with my 5960X anyone know what it relates to?

 

 

Modular Redundancy Check Failed

 

Exception Encountered: generic Exception

Error Code: 2

 

 

 

Regards,

[Mysticial]

Hi, I keep getting this error on my Asus X99e-WS with my 5960X anyone know what it relates to?

 

 

Modular Redundancy Check Failed

 

Exception Encountered: generic Exception

Error Code: 2

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Are you AVX-stable? Can you run Prime95 Small FFTs (version 28.x) for any amount of time?

[Matsglobetrotter]

Are you AVX-stable? Can you run Prime95 Small FFTs (version 28.x) for any amount of time?

 

Hi Mysticial,

 

Well I could not at the 4.75 Ghz I was on right now but on standard bios setup non turbo clocked anything the Prime 95 will run smooth it uses about 87% of the CPU usage . But there is exactly the same error on Y-cruncher. For some reason I can neither run GPUPI CPU mode. Meanwhile Geekbench will run as a charm with up to 99% CPU usage.

 

Regards,

 

Matsglobetrotter

[Mysticial]

Hi Mysticial,

 

Well I could not at the 4.75 Ghz I was on right now but on standard bios setup non turbo clocked anything the Prime 95 will run smooth it uses about 87% of the CPU usage . But there is exactly the same error on Y-cruncher. For some reason I can neither run GPUPI CPU mode. Meanwhile Geekbench will run as a charm with up to 99% CPU usage.

 

Regards,

 

Matsglobetrotter

 

Just to clarify that I'm understanding your response correctly:

 

• At 4.75 GHz, neither y-cruncher nor Prime95 will run.
  
• At stock, Prime95 will run, but only at 87% CPU usage. Neither GPUPi nor y-cruncher will run.
  
• Geekbench runs with no problems with 99% CPU usage.
  

If this is the case, then I have no clue. It sounds like something is very wrong with the system. Stuff not working at 4.75 GHz is reasonable. A lot of Haswell-e overclocks at 4.75 GHz are not AVX-stable and will instantly fail on anything that uses AVX (such as y-cruncher or Prime95 28.x).

 

But if things are failing at stock, then something is messed up. The 87% CPU usage thing is usually an indication that you have background programs running.

[Matsglobetrotter]

Just to clarify that I'm understanding your response correctly:

 

• At 4.75 GHz, neither y-cruncher nor Prime95 will run.
  
• At stock, Prime95 will run, but only at 87% CPU usage. Neither GPUPi nor y-cruncher will run.
  
• Geekbench runs with no problems with 99% CPU usage.
  

If this is the case, then I have no clue. It sounds like something is very wrong with the system. Stuff not working at 4.75 GHz is reasonable. A lot of Haswell-e overclocks at 4.75 GHz are not AVX-stable and will instantly fail on anything that uses AVX (such as y-cruncher or Prime95 28.x).

 

But if things are failing at stock, then something is messed up. The 87% CPU usage thing is usually an indication that you have background programs running.

 

 

All correctly understood. Yes on the 87% i had not necessarily closed down everything just checking that it would be stable. Even had realtemp on just to see if there was unusual heatpatterns but looks normal. Anyway too bad, have given up on those Benchmarks on this setup.

[Oj0]

I'm struggling with 25M scaling with scaling to 24 threads getting sub 39.85 % multi-core efficiency; with 1B it's better but I'm still only getting 75.56 %. Is there something more to it?

[Mysticial]

I'm struggling with 25M scaling with scaling to 24 threads getting sub 39.85 % multi-core efficiency; with 1B it's better but I'm still only getting 75.56 %. Is there something more to it?

 

Not really. The 25M is so small that the amount of overhead needed to manage that many threads is significant compared to the amount of computation itself.

 

In other words, you're not benchmarking how fast you can compute Pi, you're benchmarking how quickly you can create and synchronize threads. Some OS'es do better than others - namely Win8 and Win10 are better at this than Win7 or Linux.

[Oj0]

Not really. The 25M is so small that the amount of overhead needed to manage that many threads is significant compared to the amount of computation itself.

 

In other words, you're not benchmarking how fast you can compute Pi, you're benchmarking how quickly you can create and synchronize threads. Some OS'es do better than others - namely Win8 and Win10 are better at this than Win7 or Linux.

 

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction, I had at some high thread-count scores and I see that Windows 10 sits at around 60+ % efficiency while Windows 7 is generally a touch under 40 %,

[havli]

I was trying to get my first score... but it wasn't as easy as I thought. All I get is this error message after pressing the submit button. Other HWBOT-integrated benchmarks works fine on this PC, so internet connection is not the issue.

 

[Mysticial]

I was trying to get my first score... but it wasn't as easy as I thought. All I get is this error message after pressing the submit button. Other HWBOT-integrated benchmarks works fine on this PC, so internet connection is not the issue.

 

 

I didn't actually see this until Massman sent me an email. I thought I get email updates to my own threads...

 

Anyways. What happened was that the benchmark got renamed when it was promoted out of beta. The when program tries to submit using the old name, the server rejects it.

 

I just pushed out a quick update to fix this issue. But it looks like there's more work to be done on my side of things.

[Massman]

I was trying to get my first score... but it wasn't as easy as I thought. All I get is this error message after pressing the submit button. Other HWBOT-integrated benchmarks works fine on this PC, so internet connection is not the issue.

 

 

I didn't actually see this until Massman sent me an email. I thought I get email updates to my own threads...

 

Anyways. What happened was that the benchmark got renamed when it was promoted out of beta. The when program tries to submit using the old name, the server rejects it.

 

I just pushed out a quick update to fix this issue. But it looks like there's more work to be done on my side of things.

 

You both have mail.

 

I'm trying to set up a redirect for legacy URL support

[havli]

I didn't actually see this until Massman sent me an email. I thought I get email updates to my own threads...

 

Anyways. What happened was that the benchmark got renamed when it was promoted out of beta. The when program tries to submit using the old name, the server rejects it.

 

I just pushed out a quick update to fix this issue. But it looks like there's more work to be done on my side of things.

 

Thank you, it is working now.