system performance impact of Folding

[Brian the Fist]

For those of you who didn't see this yet:

http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2002q4/foldingimpact/

Here's a thorough set of benchmarks showing running F@H on a Windows PC has little or no impact (at most 1% slowdown) on operation, since it runs at IDLE_PRIORITY. Though for F@H, the exact same rules should apply to DFP since it runs at the same priority, in the same way. So the results should translate directly to this project as well (but if anyone would like to run a battery of benchmarks to prove me wrong, please do..

[MAD-ness]

I was under the impression that DF had a lower priority, i.e. it doesn't interfere with the MS office office apps that have poorly coded priorities (specifically the Outlook scheduler thing).

I haven't heard complaints about DF causing problems with those troublesome apps like I do with other DC clients (F@H included) but I could be wrong (I usually am) :)

[lemonsqzz]

My only worries here have been the impact of people actually trying to get work related stuff done on my crunch systems.. Kinda slows my DF progress down.. I'm always killin off stray processes... How dare they!!

:cool:

[runestar]

Howard,

There is one main difference between you and F@H though, the extra memory options. I don't advise running with the extra memory option if you are planning to use the system for a lot of other stuff as there will be occassional lags with memory gets swapped out from DF for other apps being loaded.

If people are planning on or currently running the client on work machines, I highly advise not to use the extra RAM option or you are going to see people complaining about slowdowns.

Other than that, I haven't noticed much problems with it. For your own system you have to tweak it to find the right balance between DF's priority and your general apps priority.


One thing I did notice though, Brian. It seems like the range for priorities really doesn't make that much difference in Windows. Windows has essentially 5 different priority levels: Low, Below Normal, Normal, Above Normal, High, and Realtime. Yes that is 6 there, but your system is essentially uselesson RealTime for anything else if you put a high CPU utilization task like D.C. on it.

I was experimenting with seeing if I could balance out the priorities of other D.C. projects with DF and it does not seem to make a difference unless you cross that threshold in the noted Windows priority levels.

Best,

RuneStar½

[KWSN_Millennium2001Guy]

Because of DF's intensive disk I/O, programs that scan files on access (such as Nortons Antivirus) hammer the system very hard if they aren't set to ignore the directories that DF uses. Howard has DF read the environment variable DFPTEMP and use that value for DF's temp files, otherwise it uses the default TEMP directory. So there is a work-around available if NAV or Symantec AntiVirus has to run on your system.

If NAV is running and DF is running there is a VERY NOTICEABLE slowdown of an Windows 2000 based machine.

Ni! :D

[Tyrfang]

[i]If NAV is running and DF is running there is a VERY NOTICEABLE slowdown of an Windows 2000 based machine.

Ni! :D [/B]

Cheers!

That hadn't occured to me. Made the changes and performance has increased. Maybe I'll catch you now. :P

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by KWSN_Millennium2001Guy
Howard has DF read the environment variable DFPTEMP and use that value for DF's temp files, otherwise it uses the default TEMP directory.

what is the default TEMP directory on W2K and WinXP?
how do you set this DFPTEMP environment variable?

[Tyrfang]

Originally posted by FoBoT


what is the default TEMP directory on W2K and WinXP?
how do you set this DFPTEMP environment variable?

For W2K I believe it's WINNT/Temp

[Brian the Fist]

Environment variables on NT/2000/XP are set under the System Properties control panel option. Yes, good old NAV, what can I say... Well Im running NAV on my machine with DF but not sure if it is scanning my TEMP dir or not, havent really noticed.
Anyways, I use the lowest priority possible by default, and I assume F@H does too, but I could be mistaken.

[runestar]

I'm looking at Task Manager and NAV has less then 5 seconds of CPU time having been used. I don't why NAV is eating your system performance so badly. I remember watching this before not only with DF but with SETI and F@H too. I never noticed a problem.

How are you figuring out this system hit?

RS½

[KWSN_Millennium2001Guy]

NAV doesn't hit the cpu performance. It KILLS disk I/O performance. DF does several thousand disk I/Os per second writing to the temp files, all of which invoke NAV filtering. It seems to be much worse if you have Symantec's Enterprise Virus scan versions.

Ni!

[Gunslinger]

NAI AntiVirus caused the same problems on my machines until Howard provided the DFPTEMP variable. :thumbs:

Some systems showed over 30% improvement when the AV was excluded. :cool:

Ni!

[runestar]

Originally posted by KWSN_Millennium2001Guy
NAV doesn't hit the cpu performance. It KILLS disk I/O performance. DF does several thousand disk I/Os per second writing to the temp files, all of which invoke NAV filtering. It seems to be much worse if you have Symantec's Enterprise Virus scan versions.

Ni!

Hmm... well, I didn't say CPU performance, I'm talking about application time. That's independent of the amount of CPU used. If its doing that much scanning, it SHOULD show up on Task Manager.

I'm giving it a shot at any rate. Last time I picked up a virus was when I cleaned the neighbors machine. I ended reimaging the machine since WinME was so cluttered anyways between what they put on and all the garbage HP put on it.

TTFN,

RuneStar½