I was trying to figure out a cheap way to get multiple processors to bear on R@H, and collected components on NewEgg to build very cheap Athlon X2 2.5GHz machines. The idea is to use USB keys to boot from (Linux?), 45W processors to save power, small size cases, inexpensive, etc. Here's what I've come up with:

> Motherboard (BIOSTAR mATX)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138111

> Athlon X2 2.5GHz processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103255

> 2Gb Kingston RAM (800)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134488

> Apex Slim Case w/275W PS
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811154087

> Kingston 2Gb USB (2.0) Key
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134611

Total Price for Hardware Before Shipping: $210.25/Machine

There are few problems I'm anticipating but haven't come up with solutions for yet:

1) After the initial setup/OS install, can you set a machine to boot without keyboard attached?
2) I'm unclear on exactly how the USB boot works - is this enough RAM?
3) How do I make sure these motherboards support USB boot?
4) I would just hook these to a router via Ethernet, but what would the cheapest 802.11b/g solution be? (dongles/cards?)
5) Here is the ballpark I'm thinking for the OS: http://www.pendrivelinux.com/ - Good/bad?
6) Since these would be running full-bore 24/7/365, I was concerned about heat buildup. Surely the 45W processor helps, but I'm not sure.
7) How do I find out if Linux drivers are available for the motherboard components?
8) What do I not know enough to ask?

Because with brief research I figured out that cluster-computing is beyond my ability, I was thinking these would run as individual machines, not connected in any way except they'll be in the same place and on the same LAN. What do you think?

In general, you can count on all of the power that goes in to a machine to come out as heat. So, if you are comparing a 45W CPU with another that uses twice that, your heat output is going to be proportional, and roughly 45W. Obviously some power (and heat) is used for other components of the system. Such as the power supply, and the USB, and NIC. But these will be the same on another system as well.

You will probably want to use something like squidproxy to cache the files you download from Rosetta. That way you only pull any given file once for all of your machines.

You could also consider using a LiveCD for your Linux load if the memory key gives you any problem.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

i'd expect you'd get a much higher return using cheap intel quads, or even cheap pentiums (core2 based - i.e. Intel E2180).

You can work it out from the RAC vs Price. I'd expect a quad to use a lot less power than two x2's though, and you only need to fork out for one set of RAM, motherboard, PSU, usb key etc.

Undervolting will reduce the power consumption dramatically too.

---

I would tend to agree with dcdc. Get as many cores per machine as you can. It would take me a lot of Athlon X2s to crunch as much as my 8-core Mac Pro, producing a lot more heat, and probably not even that cheaper (esp. if you factor in electricity bills).

---

I have a Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 (it was not to pricey) and before I took one core off to another project I was giving both of bad penguin's current online machines a run for their money.
I am a bit OC'd on this machine but it runs very nicely at 3.6 ghz vs the stock 3 ghz. This cpu was recomended by one of the national computer stores, who said that quadcores had a overheating issue and that this was just as good as a quad. true you can run only 2 projects at a time or 2 tasks, but it does keep up with some quads quite nicely on RAC if you run both cores on the same project.

I just looked at Geeks.com and they have some refirbs with Athlon X2 4600+ @ $220 without an OS. If you can get a free copy of Linux running, it might be an inexpensive solution.

The refirb Intel Core Duo systems start at $290.

If you were going to by a few systems, the $70 difference might allow you to purchase one more computer.

I really like my Q6600s and I want to build a new Q9450 based system but my wife has put the breaks on any new systems for a while. I have been accepting donated computers from local colleges, businesses and other organizations. I need about 100 more of these P4 systems to get much work done with R@H.

Good Luck!

---

Thx!

Paul

paul-
14 computers and you want more? wow!
your going to have to get a second electric line run to your house to service all those beasts. I would think your not going to have to do much heating of the house with all those systems blowing out hot air.

forgot to say, if you're booting from flash you won't have a swap file so you'll need to make sure you don't run out of RAM. 1.5GB is fine for a dual core, and i'd expect 2GB to be enough for a dual core if it's just crunching on XP or Linux, but I would probably go to 2.5GB+ for a quad to make sure you don't run out.

---

i've put a quick and dirty excel file up here:

http://www.filefactory.com/file/a945a8/n/CPUComparison_xls

It needs some of the figures filling in, but allows you to see what RAC you'll get for your money.

HTH
Danny

---

Nice Work! I'm not sure why my computer isn't getting RAC similar to those you listed, though... you can check out the stats, but it's a 64 X2 2.8GHz running R@H all the time on 32-bit XP Prof, and my RAC is just above 200, far less than the numbers you were using. I wonder if I'm doing something wrong...

i've put a quick and dirty excel file up here:

http://www.filefactory.com/file/a945a8/n/CPUComparison_xls

It needs some of the figures filling in, but allows you to see what RAC you'll get for your money.

HTH
Danny

So you're thinking something more like this?

MSI MBOX http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16856167031 $79.99

2Gb Crucial RAM http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146526 $33.99

Core2Quad Kentsfield 2.4GHz http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017 $189.99

or this?

HEC Case http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811121063 $42.99

Biostar MB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138119 $59.99

Phenom 9550 Agena 2.2GHz http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103251 $139.99

2Gb GSKILL RAM http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231144 $49.99

I really like my Q6600s and I want to build a new Q9450 based system but my wife has put the breaks on any new systems for a while.

Any more computers and you will be migrating to the doghouse.

---

Nice Work! I'm not sure why my computer isn't getting RAC similar to those you listed, though... you can check out the stats, but it's a 64 X2 2.8GHz running R@H all the time on 32-bit XP Prof, and my RAC is just above 200, far less than the numbers you were using. I wonder if I'm doing something wrong...

It takes a while for the RAC to build up and yours is still climbing quickly:
http://boincstats.com/stats/user_graph.php?pr=rosetta&id=212679

As for the CPU, as much as i'd like to see the underdog winning, i'd go for the Q6600. You can dramatically drop the voltage on most of the G0 stepping ones to reduce power consumption (and heat and noise as an effect), or overclock them to 3-3.5GHz.

If you're running them somewhere out of the way then you don't need cases for them either - saves some cash and helps with cooling.
Here's BitSpit's setup (from my XPC team): http://splicedcollective.org/images/Armada-TwoRows.jpg

Don't forget though, if you want to run from USB then you need to make sure you're not going to run out of RAM, even for a second, or threads will crash... For a quad I'd go for 3GB. I run my media centre (single core Athlon 3700+) without a swapfile because it runs from compactflash and it never had a problem running Rosetta on XP. It had 1.5GB RAM but it was a fully working media center. I swapped to Vista Media Centre and moved it up to 2GB to be on the safe side. If they're dedicated crunchers then they can run linux in a couple of hundred MB, and I have an image of XP (using nlite and xplite) that takes around 300MB once installed. Obviously BOINC/Rosetta needs a few hundred MB too, but 1GB should be enough, and a vnc program takes up next to no room.

Danny

---

It appears that others are thinking in the same vein, see this thread over at the Seti@home forums:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=49285#806872

To paraphrase it, the OP took an old P4 chassis and stuffed a new MB and Q6600 into it. Only put 1x1GB DIMM into it, which I'm sure it holding it back... but still, it's a nice proof-of-concept.

Apparently it draws around 78 watts with all 4 cores at 100%. How much lower could this number get? I know using an IDE->CF adaptor instead of a HD and running with no page file would lower it some (maybe 5W-8W?)... He also hadn't under-volted the processor yet - how much of a difference would that make?

It appears that others are thinking in the same vein, see this thread over at the Seti@home forums:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=49285#806872

To paraphrase it, the OP took an old P4 chassis and stuffed a new MB and Q6600 into it. Only put 1x1GB DIMM into it, which I'm sure it holding it back... but still, it's a nice proof-of-concept.

Apparently it draws around 78 watts with all 4 cores at 100%. How much lower could this number get? I know using an IDE->CF adaptor instead of a HD and running with no page file would lower it some (maybe 5W-8W?)... He also hadn't under-volted the processor yet - how much of a difference would that make?

power consumption rises with the square of the voltage, but linearly with clock speed, so a CPU at 1V uses around half the electricity of a CPU at 1.4V at the same clock speed, so it can make a very big difference. Then you have less heat to remove so the fans don't work as hard and as the computer will be cooler you'll get less thermal resistance so they'll all be more efficient. I use RMClock on my machines if they don't let me change the voltage in the BIOS - it makes my laptop a lot cooler and the battery lasts a lot longer.

I run my media center from a compactflash card using an ide adapter too - i've used loads of them in the past. I've run XP and rosetta from a 512MB card, but space was pretty tight on that, and for the price these days you might as well get a fast 1GB card.

A good quality PSU can make a big difference too. I like the seasonic S12s - you wouldn't need more than the 330W one, although I've bought a few Antec Earthwatts (made by seasonic I believe) and they're very good too.

Also, RAM in dual channel is better than single, but there's very little in it these days. Even so, if it's going to get you an extra 3% it's probably worth it as the cost difference is minimal.

HTH
Danny

---

Nice Work! I'm not sure why my computer isn't getting RAC similar to those you listed, though... you can check out the stats, but it's a 64 X2 2.8GHz running R@H all the time on 32-bit XP Prof, and my RAC is just above 200, far less than the numbers you were using. I wonder if I'm doing something wrong...

A X2 2.8ghz AMD only has a 2mb processor cache, the E8400 has a 6 mb processor cache. The bigger the processor cache, the more credit you are granted, especially for work units that are cache sensitive, like the Rosetta mini. The Intel core 2 Duo's are the way to go for building a crunching machine, and they use much less power and electricity than an AMD.

---

A X2 2.8ghz AMD only has a 2mb processor cache, the E8400 has a 6 mb processor cache. The bigger the processor cache, the more credit you are granted, especially for work units that are cache sensitive, like the Rosetta mini. The Intel core 2 Duo's are the way to go for building a crunching machine, and they use much less power and electricity than an AMD.

Though this theory works for Intel CPU's which use a memory controller on the motherboard, which introduces high latency for main memory accesses. AMD CPU's have an integrated memory controller which means memory accesses are much faster than Intel chips. Therefore reducing the need for a large cache, which
a) introduces latency itself if it is not neccesary, and
b) bumps up the cost of the CPU as cache memory is manufactured using SRAM which is very expensive.

Intel are moving away from this problem with their next gen Nehalam chips with the Quickpath design

---

A X2 2.8ghz AMD only has a 2mb processor cache, the E8400 has a 6 mb processor cache. The bigger the processor cache, the more credit you are granted, especially for work units that are cache sensitive, like the Rosetta mini. The Intel core 2 Duo's are the way to go for building a crunching machine, and they use much less power and electricity than an AMD.

Though this theory works for Intel CPU's which use a memory controller on the motherboard, which introduces high latency for main memory accesses. AMD CPU's have an integrated memory controller which means memory accesses are much faster than Intel chips. Therefore reducing the need for a large cache, which
a) introduces latency itself if it is not neccesary, and
b) bumps up the cost of the CPU as cache memory is manufactured using SRAM which is very expensive.

Intel are moving away from this problem with their next gen Nehalam chips with the Quickpath design

Thats right.

On topic I have to say: If you plan buliding a system with the purpose of only running Rosetta, then dont use AMD CPUs. For some reason, any AMD is disadvantaged in Rosetta. I pretty much stopped it cuz its just too dissapoiting. And this for sure has nothing to do with missing computation power, in projects like SIMAP my old K8 AMD 4000+ runs head to head with highend Intel Q9550 and smokes any Q6600 - looking core per core and on default clocks.

---

http://www.MIAteam.eu

A X2 2.8ghz AMD only has a 2mb processor cache, the E8400 has a 6 mb processor cache. The bigger the processor cache, the more credit you are granted, especially for work units that are cache sensitive, like the Rosetta mini. The Intel core 2 Duo's are the way to go for building a crunching machine, and they use much less power and electricity than an AMD.

Though this theory works for Intel CPU's which use a memory controller on the motherboard, which introduces high latency for main memory accesses. AMD CPU's have an integrated memory controller which means memory accesses are much faster than Intel chips. Therefore reducing the need for a large cache, which
a) introduces latency itself if it is not neccesary, and
b) bumps up the cost of the CPU as cache memory is manufactured using SRAM which is very expensive.

Intel are moving away from this problem with their next gen Nehalam chips with the Quickpath design

Thats right.

On topic I have to say: If you plan buliding a system with the purpose of only running Rosetta, then dont use AMD CPUs. For some reason, any AMD is disadvantaged in Rosetta. I pretty much stopped it cuz its just too dissapoiting. And this for sure has nothing to do with missing computation power, in projects like SIMAP my old K8 AMD 4000+ runs head to head with highend Intel Q9550 and smokes any Q6600 - looking core per core and on default clocks.

so in theory, you need a Intel machine running XP (as a safe bet) in order to get good RAC on Rosetta? I see powermac's are out, some linux machines are crashing and Vista machine have trouble as well. (as a general statement)

In general work is running well. However there are some extreme exceptions where people are reporting machine hangs. These reports seem only to come in from v6 BOINC clients.

The AMD vs Intel issue generally seems to relate to the amount of L2 cache on the CPU. Rosetta's application is much larger then many other BOINC projects. This means much of it is stored in L2 cache and so systems with small L2 caches are constantly running out to memory to get subroutines. This slows overall efficiency.

I haven't seen any comments about Mini on AMD as vs. Intel. But we had a thread going for a long time comparing the two and there were some AMDs with larger L2 caches, and they were granted credit similar to Intel with similar L2 cache.

So, it's not the instruction set, or the raw processor speed, nor any project bias or sponsorship. It is simply a matter of the scale of the application Rosetta is running, and the hardware environment needed to run such an application efficiently. The memory footprint is also the main factor that prevents it from running on GPUs and CELLs.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

This is all very helpful stuff! As much as I'd love to use my GPU to crush Rosetta, it's nice to know that there are very good reasons like the one you mentioned which keep it from being a priority.

In general work is running well. However there are some extreme exceptions where people are reporting machine hangs. These reports seem only to come in from v6 BOINC clients.

The AMD vs Intel issue generally seems to relate to the amount of L2 cache on the CPU. Rosetta's application is much larger then many other BOINC projects. This means much of it is stored in L2 cache and so systems with small L2 caches are constantly running out to memory to get subroutines. This slows overall efficiency.

I haven't seen any comments about Mini on AMD as vs. Intel. But we had a thread going for a long time comparing the two and there were some AMDs with larger L2 caches, and they were granted credit similar to Intel with similar L2 cache.

So, it's not the instruction set, or the raw processor speed, nor any project bias or sponsorship. It is simply a matter of the scale of the application Rosetta is running, and the hardware environment needed to run such an application efficiently. The memory footprint is also the main factor that prevents it from running on GPUs and CELLs.