Weird rumble scores

Jump to navigation Jump to search

That can only be Xor_Sily, that is the only one that has run battles in after you uploaded version 0.15

Did you manually set the CPU constant in your robocode install ? Maybe Xor has to recalculate the CPU constant for Xor_Sily, if the machine it is running on has become heavier loaded.

GrubbmGait (talk)22:16, 12 July 2021

No, I just used the auto-computed constant.

--Kev (talk)23:31, 12 July 2021
 

The cpu constants of Xor_Sily is computed when all cores are used, and currently I’m using only half of the cores as suggested by Rednaxela. So maybe the cpu constant is a little bit loose, making skipped turns happen LESS. If a bot isn’t skipping turns in ordinary configuration, it shouldn’t skip turns on Xor_Sily.

If anyone is logging data, I could help by sending the files.

Xor (talk)09:23, 13 July 2021

Isn't using half of the cores also half the performance, so taking twice the time, so ideally twice the cpu constant ?

GrubbmGait (talk)21:38, 13 July 2021

cpu constant is always single core. by all cores / half cores I’m describing number of clients running concurrently, since GC is also requiring some cores.

Xor (talk)03:56, 14 July 2021
 
 

I know the difference now, Xor_Sily has no turbo boost support, so cpu constant is accurate. On most computers, cpu constant is actually much loose, because actual battles are run with turbo boost, but cpu constant, not. This is making skipped turns happening LESS.

Xor (talk)05:34, 14 July 2021

I'm not sure I follow: what you are saying suggests that skipped turns should happen more on Xor_Sily right? I assume the reason for BeepBoop's low scores is it skipping lots of turns.

--Kev (talk)17:59, 14 July 2021

As an aside, I've also noticed that DrussGT 3.1.7 has also dropped 0.3 APS compared to 3.1.6, maybe it is also getting bad battles with lots of skipped turns?

--Kev (talk)18:01, 14 July 2021

I think it’s some change to energy management. Skipped turns hurt results against weak bots as well, but the decrease seems to be focused near 60+

Xor (talk)03:38, 15 July 2021
 

I mean if you run battles on computers without turbo boost, you should get identical results as Xor_Sily.

Xor (talk)03:36, 15 July 2021

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You must confirm your email address before editing pages. Please set and validate your email address through your user preferences.

You can view and copy the source of this page.

Return to Thread:Talk:BeepBoop/Weird rumble scores/reply (33).

Edited by author.
Last edit: 17:39, 15 July 2021

I stopped Xor_Sily. It's some high performance server that costs $40 a week. Maybe we need some test set to verify rumble clients before entry, making it easier to serve a client.

Btw, could you re-submit a version and run rumbles on your machine, and see if we can get the correct result now?

Xor (talk)16:56, 15 July 2021

I think the problem is that Xor_Sily is running 7/24, for months. If memory leak happens, GC will get worse and worse. Maybe I should add some auto restart script later and try again.

Xor (talk)17:10, 15 July 2021

You can set the max iterations in the client and run it in a bash loop.

Skilgannon (talk)22:44, 15 July 2021

Great suggestion. I will try after BeepBoop get some stable result.

Xor (talk)04:41, 16 July 2021
 

What sort of high performance server is this? If it's virtualized rather than true dedicated, it wouldn't surprise me if the exact amount of available CPU varies dramatically from moment-to-moment even if the provider is guaranteeing some number of cores worth of overall performance.

Could be interesting to some time make a tool for measuring the stability of available CPU, based on running rapidly running a series of identical micro-benchmarks and looking at the variations in how long it takes.

Rednaxela (talk)09:54, 16 July 2021