Hi,

I've posted a while back about availability issues of older Betas, and I'd like
to bring it up again.

I run www.realworldtech.com and I like to use POVRay to benchmark workstation
and server systems.  I currently have a 2 socket Nehalem system that I'd like
to compare with the prior generation and then publish the results *soon*
(before April).  Here are some examples of prior work:

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT110907063310&p=4

To do a reasonable comparison, I need a multithreaded version of POV-Ray, since
it's a 2P/8-core/16-thread system.

Unfortunately as a prior poster noted, 3.7 beta 31 is not available for win64.
That's fine - I certainly understand that as volunteers, there is a limit to
what you can do in your spare time.

However, I cannot wait till beta 32 comes out (since that will probably be the
middle of April), so I'd like to get my hands on beta 30 for win64.  I don't
want support, since I'm sure the benchmark test will run without crashing.
Could Chris or someone email me the needed files?

I'd really like to continue using POVRay to benchmark, as I think it adds value
for my readers, and it certainly is valuable for POV Ray users.

Also - I tried emailing several of the TAG group folks, and the emails mostly
bounced (2/3).  It might be helpful for users if in-active TAG emails were
removed from the website.

David

Post a reply to this message

If all you want is a consistent build, you might consider downloading 
the source for the beta and building it yourself.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> If all you want is a consistent build, you might consider downloading
> the source for the beta and building it yourself.
>
> --
> ...Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com

While I appreciate that you are trying to be helpful, this suggestion is not
actually constructive.

I'm benchmarking a system and if I use some custom compiled results, not only
does that add a lot of work to my plate (since I have no clue what condition
the source code is in), but it also makes my results much more difficult to
reproduce (and I'd need to install yet another set of tools on the test system).

I have enough problems with the system as it is, biting off more complexity can
only make things worse.

Now, if you happen to have the files needed for 3.7 beta 30, that would be quite
helpful and constructive.

DK

Post a reply to this message

On 3/15/2009 5:37 PM, dkanter wrote:
> I'm benchmarking a system and if I use some custom compiled results, not only
> does that add a lot of work to my plate (since I have no clue what condition
> the source code is in), but it also makes my results much more difficult to
> reproduce (and I'd need to install yet another set of tools on the test system).

Fair enough.  Just out of curiosity, is there a reason you can't use the 
32 bit builds?  They run just fine under Vista x64, and should be OK 
under XP if that's what you're using.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"dkanter" <dka### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > If all you want is a consistent build, you might consider downloading
> > the source for the beta and building it yourself.
....
> I'm benchmarking a system and if I use some custom compiled results, not only
> does that add a lot of work to my plate (since I have no clue what condition
> the source code is in), but it also makes my results much more difficult to
> reproduce (and I'd need to install yet another set of tools on the test system).

- Nothing requires you to compile the whole smash on the target system.

- If using a "home-grown" build would make you somewhat uneasy regarding
reproducability of results, any non-official build should just the same.

- Regardless of the condition the code is in: Whoever does the compiling, the
effort stays the same. (Unless some of the development team does it; but if
they had the time and opportunity to do it, we'd already have a 64-bit binary
release.)

So maybe instead of asking others to compile a 64-bit version for you, you may
want to ask people whether someone already did it for themselves and might be
willing to share the build results.

Note however that, strictly speaking, POVs beta license terms *require* you to
build it yourself as long as there's no official binary, as they explicitly
disallow "home-brewn" binaries to be redistributed. Not that I'd personally
care in such a case, and exceptions could probably be granted by the POV team,
but this might help you understand why people may not be as constructive as
you'd like them to be.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Fair enough.  Just out of curiosity, is there a reason you can't use the
> 32 bit builds?  They run just fine under Vista x64, and should be OK
> under XP if that's what you're using.

Hum... benchmarking 64-bit systems with a 32-bit app? Doesn't seem to make much
sense to me. Sure, they will run, but will the results say anything about
64-bit performace?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:37:35 -0400, dkanter wrote:

> I'm benchmarking a system and if I use some custom compiled results, not
> only does that add a lot of work to my plate

What, so you'd rather offload the work from your plate to the developers 
who volunteer their efforts to develop the software?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 3/16/2009 7:37 AM, clipka wrote:
> Chambers<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>  wrote:
>> Fair enough.  Just out of curiosity, is there a reason you can't use the
>> 32 bit builds?  They run just fine under Vista x64, and should be OK
>> under XP if that's what you're using.
>
> Hum... benchmarking 64-bit systems with a 32-bit app? Doesn't seem to make much
> sense to me. Sure, they will run, but will the results say anything about
> 64-bit performace?

If what you want to do is compare different 64 bit systems to each 
other, then it's possible that this will suit your needs completely. 
Especially considering that the major bottleneck in POV is the double 
precision FPU, which is the same either in 32 or 64 bit mode.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 3/16/2009 9:50 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> What, so you'd rather offload the work from your plate to the developers
> who volunteer their efforts to develop the software?
>
> Jim

That's not exactly fair; he's not asking anyone to do the work for him, 
he's asking if the work's already been done.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> On 3/15/2009 5:37 PM, dkanter wrote:
> > I'm benchmarking a system and if I use some custom compiled results, not only
> > does that add a lot of work to my plate (since I have no clue what condition
> > the source code is in), but it also makes my results much more difficult to
> > reproduce (and I'd need to install yet another set of tools on the test system).
>
> Fair enough.  Just out of curiosity, is there a reason you can't use the
> 32 bit builds?  They run just fine under Vista x64, and should be OK
> under XP if that's what you're using.
>
> --
> ...Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com

There seem to be quite a few questions, and I'll respond to them all at once.

RE: 32b v. 64b from Chambers

I'll be using Windows Server 2008 (64).  The problem with 32 bit binaries is
that they are fairly different than 32 bit ones (e.g. registers) and tend to
de-emphasize the pressure on the caches and TLBs.  When you use a 64 bit app,
you get 2x the registers, but all your pointers are 64 bits instead of 32b...so
your caches are effectively smaller.  It's just part and parcel of using x86 and
I

Good question though.

RE: Compiling from Clipka and Jim Henderson

I'm assuming that the 3.7 beta 30 was available online at some point (i.e. there
was an official beta) but taken down at the beginning of March.  If there was no
official beta 30, then that is, as you pointed out an entirely different can of
worms.  The whole goal of this exercise is for me to get a *modern* and
*official* beta for 64 bit Windows (and an older official beta counts, as long
as it's not *too old*).

That's the main reason why I don't want to try and compile the source code.  I
like things to be readily reproducible.  It's quite enough to be running with
pre-release hardware, there's no need for more uncertainty and complexity.

And yes Jim, I'm not afraid to admit that some small part of this is that I'd
rather not get my hands dirty with the POV-Ray codebase.  That's really a 2nd
or 3rd order motivation next to the issue of reproducibility, but I'm not
afraid to admit I'm lazy.

My goal is not to work on POV-Ray.  I currently use POV-Ray to measure
performance for systems and I think that it serves POV-Ray users both by
setting performance expectations and publicity of POV-Ray.

So if someone can help me that'd be great.  Has anyone perhaps downloaded 3.7
beta 30 for Win64?  Could you share the files or email them to me?  Or maybe
one of the contributors can go back through and grab beta 30 for me.

David

Post a reply to this message