Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #450944 > unrolled thread

LTspice Loafing?

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  LTspice Loafing? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 03:29 -0500
    Re: LTspice Loafing? Johann Klammer <klammerj@NOSPAM.a1.net> - 2017-03-09 11:37 +0100
      Re: LTspice Loafing? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-09 09:53 -0500
        Re: LTspice Loafing? makolber@yahoo.com - 2017-03-09 07:03 -0800
          Re: LTspice Loafing? Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-03-11 01:01 +0000
          Re: LTspice Loafing? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-04-17 08:59 -0700
        Re: LTspice Loafing? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-09 09:34 -0800
          Re: LTspice Loafing? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 18:11 -0500
        Re: LTspice Loafing? John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-09 11:33 -0800
          Re: LTspice Loafing? John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-03-09 14:53 -0600
            Re: LTspice Loafing? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-03-09 13:42 -0800
              Re: LTspice Loafing? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-03-09 16:49 -0700
                Re: LTspice Loafing? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-10 10:25 +0000
              Re: LTspice Loafing? Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2017-03-10 04:51 +0100
                Re: LTspice Loafing? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-10 08:20 -0800
                  Re: LTspice Loafing? Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2017-03-10 19:06 +0100
                    Re: LTspice Loafing? John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-10 10:42 -0800
                      Re: LTspice Loafing? John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-03-10 20:29 -0600
                        Re: LTspice Loafing? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 08:55 +0000
                          Re: LTspice Loafing? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-11 08:46 -0800
                        Re: LTspice Loafing? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-11 08:45 -0800
                          Re: LTspice Loafing? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 17:11 +0000
                            Re: LTspice Loafing? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-11 09:39 -0800
                              Re: LTspice Loafing? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 18:16 +0000
                                Re: LTspice Loafing? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-11 11:04 -0800
                    Re: LTspice Loafing? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-10 22:56 +0000
                      Re: LTspice Loafing? Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2017-03-13 06:54 +0100
          Re: LTspice Loafing? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 17:39 -0500
          Re: LTspice Loafing? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-09 18:01 -0500
            Re: LTspice Loafing? John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-09 15:49 -0800
              Re: LTspice Loafing? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-09 19:07 -0500
                Re: LTspice Loafing? John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-09 16:13 -0800
                  Re: LTspice Loafing? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-09 20:25 -0500
                    Re: LTspice Loafing? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-09 19:11 -0800
                      Re: LTspice Loafing? Bill Martin <wwm@wwmartin.net> - 2017-03-10 10:24 -0800
              Re: LTspice Loafing? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-12 23:32 -0400
          Re: LTspice Loafing? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2017-03-10 00:03 -0500
            Re: LTspice Loafing? mhx@iae.nl - 2017-04-17 01:02 -0700
              Re: LTspice Loafing? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-17 16:14 +0100
                Re: LTspice Loafing? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-17 17:38 +0100
                  Re: LTspice Loafing? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-04-17 09:54 -0700
                  Re: LTspice Loafing? mhx@iae.nl - 2017-04-17 11:55 -0700
                    Re: LTspice Loafing? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-17 21:20 +0100
                      Re: LTspice Loafing? mhx@iae.nl - 2017-04-17 14:22 -0700
                        Re: LTspice Loafing? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-18 19:16 +0100
                Re: LTspice Loafing? mhx@iae.nl - 2017-04-17 12:09 -0700
                  Re: LTspice Loafing? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-17 21:19 +0100
                    Re: LTspice Loafing? mhx@iae.nl - 2017-04-17 14:14 -0700
                      Re: LTspice Loafing? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-18 19:14 +0100
                        Re: LTspice Loafing? mhx@iae.nl - 2017-04-18 14:04 -0700
                          Re: LTspice Loafing? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-19 08:45 +0100
                    Re: LTspice Loafing? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-04-19 00:35 -0500
                      Re: LTspice Loafing? mhx@iae.nl - 2017-04-19 05:28 -0700
                        Re: LTspice Loafing? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-19 14:00 +0100
                          Re: LTspice Loafing? mhx@iae.nl - 2017-04-19 10:35 -0700
                            Re: LTspice Loafing? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-19 20:29 +0100
          Re: LTspice Loafing? John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-03-10 07:19 +0000
      Re: LTspice Loafing? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 13:23 -0500
    Re: LTspice Loafing? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-09 03:15 -0800
      Re: LTspice Loafing? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-09 20:12 +0000
        Re: LTspice Loafing? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 17:47 -0500
        Re: LTspice Loafing? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-09 18:09 -0500
          Re: LTspice Loafing? Johann Klammer <klammerj@NOSPAM.a1.net> - 2017-03-10 01:00 +0100
            Re: LTspice Loafing? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 19:52 -0500
    Re: LTspice Loafing? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-09 18:23 -0500

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#450944 — LTspice Loafing?

I was running some simulations on LTspice and it is not even using 5% of 
my CPU.  Nothing else is topping it and the entire computer is pretty 
much at idle.  What could be limiting the speed?

One of the main reasons I bought a laptop with an i7 processor was to 
speed simulations.  Is this wasted on LTspice or am I doing something 
wrong?

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#450949

On 03/09/2017 09:29 AM, rickman wrote:
> I was running some simulations on LTspice and it is not even using 5% of my CPU.  Nothing else is topping it and the entire computer is pretty much at idle.  What could be limiting the speed?
> 
> One of the main reasons I bought a laptop with an i7 processor was to speed simulations.  Is this wasted on LTspice or am I doing something wrong?
> 
I think it saves the waveforms to a file as it goes along simulating.
Where you the one who complained about your hdd being slow in an earlier thread? 
maybe try running the sim from an ext usb stick. if that helps it's definitely the hdd. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450971

On 03/09/2017 05:37 AM, Johann Klammer wrote:
> On 03/09/2017 09:29 AM, rickman wrote:
>> I was running some simulations on LTspice and it is not even using
>> 5% of my CPU.  Nothing else is topping it and the entire computer
>> is pretty much at idle.  What could be limiting the speed?
>> 
>> One of the main reasons I bought a laptop with an i7 processor was
>> to speed simulations.  Is this wasted on LTspice or am I doing
>> something wrong?
>> 
> I think it saves the waveforms to a file as it goes along
> simulating. Where you the one who complained about your hdd being
> slow in an earlier thread? maybe try running the sim from an ext usb
> stick. if that helps it's definitely the hdd.
> 

I'd start with a ramdisk and see then.  USB sticks are glacial compared
with real flash drives.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450972

> >> I was running some simulations on LTspice and it is not even using
> >> 5% of my CPU.  Nothing else is topping it and the entire computer
> >> is pretty much at idle.  What could be limiting the speed?

Make sure the hard  drives are running in DMA mode not PIO mode.

They automatically and permanently  fall back to PIO mode  if there are hardware errors.

mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451244

makolber@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> >> I was running some simulations on LTspice and it is not even using
>> >> 5% of my CPU.  Nothing else is topping it and the entire computer
>> >> is pretty much at idle.  What could be limiting the speed?
>
> Make sure the hard  drives are running in DMA mode not PIO mode.
>
> They automatically and permanently  fall back to PIO mode  if there
> are hardware errors.

Now that's some mighty fine information to know. FWIW Larkin's
simulation takes ~ 80s when run from a Remote Desktop session and a
mapped Samba share on my ancient 32-bit Pentium 4, 4 GB, W2003 server
with LTSpice v4.20.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it."

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456695

On Thursday, 9 March 2017 15:03:49 UTC, mako...@yahoo.com  wrote:
> > >> I was running some simulations on LTspice and it is not even using
> > >> 5% of my CPU.  Nothing else is topping it and the entire computer
> > >> is pretty much at idle.  What could be limiting the speed?
> 
> Make sure the hard  drives are running in DMA mode not PIO mode.
> 
> They automatically and permanently  fall back to PIO mode  if there are hardware errors.
> 
> mark

Win98 was the last OS AFAIK to default to PIO. So yes it's possible but not very likely.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451001

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:53:26 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>On 03/09/2017 05:37 AM, Johann Klammer wrote:
>> On 03/09/2017 09:29 AM, rickman wrote:
>>> I was running some simulations on LTspice and it is not even using
>>> 5% of my CPU.  Nothing else is topping it and the entire computer
>>> is pretty much at idle.  What could be limiting the speed?
>>> 
>>> One of the main reasons I bought a laptop with an i7 processor was
>>> to speed simulations.  Is this wasted on LTspice or am I doing
>>> something wrong?
>>> 
>> I think it saves the waveforms to a file as it goes along
>> simulating. Where you the one who complained about your hdd being
>> slow in an earlier thread? maybe try running the sim from an ext usb
>> stick. if that helps it's definitely the hdd.
>> 
>
>I'd start with a ramdisk and see then.  USB sticks are glacial compared
>with real flash drives.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

Isn't there a way to save fewer nodes?


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451069

On 3/9/2017 12:34 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:53:26 -0500, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>> On 03/09/2017 05:37 AM, Johann Klammer wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2017 09:29 AM, rickman wrote:
>>>> I was running some simulations on LTspice and it is not even using
>>>> 5% of my CPU.  Nothing else is topping it and the entire computer
>>>> is pretty much at idle.  What could be limiting the speed?
>>>>
>>>> One of the main reasons I bought a laptop with an i7 processor was
>>>> to speed simulations.  Is this wasted on LTspice or am I doing
>>>> something wrong?
>>>>
>>> I think it saves the waveforms to a file as it goes along
>>> simulating. Where you the one who complained about your hdd being
>>> slow in an earlier thread? maybe try running the sim from an ext usb
>>> stick. if that helps it's definitely the hdd.
>>>
>>
>> I'd start with a ramdisk and see then.  USB sticks are glacial compared
>> with real flash drives.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> Isn't there a way to save fewer nodes?

I found this in my travels.

Alternately, if you are only interested in a few node voltages and 
device currents, you can restrict the quantity of saved data by using 
the .save directive to save only those specific node voltages and device 
currents. In the directive, add the “dialogbox” option to display all 
available nodes and currents so you can choose to save additional data 
of interest.

.save V(out) I(L1) V(in) dialogbox

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451021

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:53:26 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>On 03/09/2017 05:37 AM, Johann Klammer wrote:
>> On 03/09/2017 09:29 AM, rickman wrote:
>>> I was running some simulations on LTspice and it is not even using
>>> 5% of my CPU.  Nothing else is topping it and the entire computer
>>> is pretty much at idle.  What could be limiting the speed?
>>> 
>>> One of the main reasons I bought a laptop with an i7 processor was
>>> to speed simulations.  Is this wasted on LTspice or am I doing
>>> something wrong?
>>> 
>> I think it saves the waveforms to a file as it goes along
>> simulating. Where you the one who complained about your hdd being
>> slow in an earlier thread? maybe try running the sim from an ext usb
>> stick. if that helps it's definitely the hdd.
>> 
>
>I'd start with a ramdisk and see then.  USB sticks are glacial compared
>with real flash drives.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

Try this one. 32 seconds on my new Dell. Runs about 25% CPU.


Version 4
SHEET 1 880 680
WIRE 16 -16 -160 -16
WIRE 208 -16 16 -16
WIRE 336 -16 208 -16
WIRE 208 48 208 -16
WIRE 336 48 336 -16
WIRE -160 144 -160 -16
WIRE 16 144 16 -16
WIRE 208 192 208 128
WIRE 336 192 336 112
WIRE 336 192 208 192
WIRE 208 256 208 192
WIRE 16 304 16 224
WIRE 144 304 16 304
WIRE -160 352 -160 224
WIRE 16 400 16 304
WIRE 208 400 208 352
WIRE 16 544 16 464
WIRE 208 544 208 480
FLAG 208 544 0
FLAG 16 544 0
FLAG -160 352 0
SYMBOL ind2 192 32 R0
WINDOW 0 -50 31 Left 2
WINDOW 3 -54 69 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName L1
SYMATTR Value 1m
SYMATTR Type ind
SYMBOL ind2 224 496 R180
WINDOW 0 -54 75 Left 2
WINDOW 3 -63 38 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName L2
SYMATTR Value 20µ
SYMATTR Type ind
SYMBOL cap 320 48 R0
WINDOW 0 63 12 Left 2
WINDOW 3 59 51 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value 50n
SYMBOL cap 0 400 R0
WINDOW 0 61 10 Left 2
WINDOW 3 64 46 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName C2
SYMATTR Value 1µ
SYMBOL npn 144 256 R0
WINDOW 0 116 42 Left 2
WINDOW 3 92 77 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName Q1
SYMATTR Value BC847B
SYMBOL res 0 128 R0
WINDOW 0 52 39 Left 2
WINDOW 3 49 75 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 20K
SYMBOL voltage -160 128 R0
WINDOW 0 51 41 Left 2
WINDOW 3 50 75 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value 10
TEXT 240 232 Left 2 !K L1 L2 0.98
TEXT -240 480 Left 2 !.tran 0 20m 0 10n uic
TEXT 424 272 Left 2 ;LC Oscillator from C5A
TEXT 416 312 Left 2 ;Boresight Alignment Kit
TEXT 448 376 Left 2 ;JL  roughly 1975























-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451037

On 3/9/2017 1:33 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:53:26 -0500, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>> On 03/09/2017 05:37 AM, Johann Klammer wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2017 09:29 AM, rickman wrote:
>>>> I was running some simulations on LTspice and it is not even using
>>>> 5% of my CPU.  Nothing else is topping it and the entire computer
>>>> is pretty much at idle.  What could be limiting the speed?
>>>>
>>>> One of the main reasons I bought a laptop with an i7 processor was
>>>> to speed simulations.  Is this wasted on LTspice or am I doing
>>>> something wrong?
>>>>
>>> I think it saves the waveforms to a file as it goes along
>>> simulating. Where you the one who complained about your hdd being
>>> slow in an earlier thread? maybe try running the sim from an ext usb
>>> stick. if that helps it's definitely the hdd.
>>>
>>
>> I'd start with a ramdisk and see then.  USB sticks are glacial compared
>> with real flash drives.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> Try this one. 32 seconds on my new Dell. Runs about 25% CPU.

Mine is an i7 and runs about 25% (only one core, apparently) and takes 
about 53 seconds. The computer is about 5 years old.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451049

Den torsdag den 9. marts 2017 kl. 21.53.17 UTC+1 skrev John S:
> On 3/9/2017 1:33 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:53:26 -0500, Phil Hobbs
> > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/09/2017 05:37 AM, Johann Klammer wrote:
> >>> On 03/09/2017 09:29 AM, rickman wrote:
> >>>> I was running some simulations on LTspice and it is not even using
> >>>> 5% of my CPU.  Nothing else is topping it and the entire computer
> >>>> is pretty much at idle.  What could be limiting the speed?
> >>>>
> >>>> One of the main reasons I bought a laptop with an i7 processor was
> >>>> to speed simulations.  Is this wasted on LTspice or am I doing
> >>>> something wrong?
> >>>>
> >>> I think it saves the waveforms to a file as it goes along
> >>> simulating. Where you the one who complained about your hdd being
> >>> slow in an earlier thread? maybe try running the sim from an ext usb
> >>> stick. if that helps it's definitely the hdd.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'd start with a ramdisk and see then.  USB sticks are glacial compared
> >> with real flash drives.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Phil Hobbs
> >
> > Try this one. 32 seconds on my new Dell. Runs about 25% CPU.
> 
> Mine is an i7 and runs about 25% (only one core, apparently) and takes 
> about 53 seconds. The computer is about 5 years old.

64bit ltspice under wine in ubuntu on ancient i7-965 

20 seconds using 12% (1 core out of 8)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451078

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 13:42:49 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

>Den torsdag den 9. marts 2017 kl. 21.53.17 UTC+1 skrev John S:
>> On 3/9/2017 1:33 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>> > On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:53:26 -0500, Phil Hobbs
>> > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 03/09/2017 05:37 AM, Johann Klammer wrote:
>> >>> On 03/09/2017 09:29 AM, rickman wrote:
>> >>>> I was running some simulations on LTspice and it is not even using
>> >>>> 5% of my CPU.  Nothing else is topping it and the entire computer
>> >>>> is pretty much at idle.  What could be limiting the speed?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> One of the main reasons I bought a laptop with an i7 processor was
>> >>>> to speed simulations.  Is this wasted on LTspice or am I doing
>> >>>> something wrong?
>> >>>>
>> >>> I think it saves the waveforms to a file as it goes along
>> >>> simulating. Where you the one who complained about your hdd being
>> >>> slow in an earlier thread? maybe try running the sim from an ext usb
>> >>> stick. if that helps it's definitely the hdd.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I'd start with a ramdisk and see then.  USB sticks are glacial compared
>> >> with real flash drives.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >>
>> >> Phil Hobbs
>> >
>> > Try this one. 32 seconds on my new Dell. Runs about 25% CPU.
>> 
>> Mine is an i7 and runs about 25% (only one core, apparently) and takes 
>> about 53 seconds. The computer is about 5 years old.
>
>64bit ltspice under wine in ubuntu on ancient i7-965 
>
>20 seconds using 12% (1 core out of 8)

Put LTspice to a test, load a device-level circuit, select
Solver=Alternate and the proper tight solution limits and watch it
crawl, or more likely... hang.
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451145

"Jim Thompson"  wrote in message 
news:3eq3ccdrdovi1gthst100761vq3bmi0o9j@4ax.com...

>> >
>> > Try this one. 32 seconds on my new Dell. Runs about 25% CPU.
>>
>> Mine is an i7 and runs about 25% (only one core, apparently) and takes
>> about 53 seconds. The computer is about 5 years old.
>
>64bit ltspice under wine in ubuntu on ancient i7-965
>
>20 seconds using 12% (1 core out of 8)

>Put LTspice to a test, load a device-level circuit, select
>Solver=Alternate and the proper tight solution limits and watch it
>crawl, or more likely... hang.

What I will say, is that I have a behavioural modelled SMPS in SS that runs 
to settling in around 7 secs on my i7 Novatech laptop, so despite LTSpice 
being 3 times faster than any other Windows spice, who cares if its GUI is 
shit :-)


-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451117

Am 09.03.2017 um 22:42 schrieb Lasse Langwadt Christensen:
> Den torsdag den 9. marts 2017 kl. 21.53.17 UTC+1 skrev John S:
>> On 3/9/2017 1:33 PM, John Larkin wrote:

>>> Try this one. 32 seconds on my new Dell. Runs about 25% CPU.
>>
>> Mine is an i7 and runs about 25% (only one core, apparently) and takes
>> about 53 seconds. The computer is about 5 years old.
>
> 64bit ltspice under wine in ubuntu on ancient i7-965
>
> 20 seconds using 12% (1 core out of 8)

LTspice 4:  Linux, virtual Win7 machine  VMware Workstation 12: 42 sec
same machine in a Linux window LTspice4 with wine under Linux:  22 sec

Machine is a Dell Precision "portable Workstation"  3.5 years old.
"portable" has to be taken with a grain of salt. 240W power supply.

I have no idea which run was on which CPU. The CPUs all run at pretty
different speed.

regards, Gerhard



system description:

gerhard@precision:~$ inxi -CDb
System:    Host: precision Kernel: 4.4.0-62-generic x86_64 (64 bit) 
Desktop: Cinnamon 2.8.8
            Distro: Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa
Machine:   System: Dell product: Precision M6600 v: 01
            Mobo: Dell model: 04YY4M v: A00 Bios: Dell v: A15 date: 
09/27/2013
CPU:       Quad core Intel Core i7-2820QM (-HT-MCP-) cache: 8192 KB
            clock speeds: max: 3400 MHz 1: 983 MHz 2: 1281 MHz 3: 1301 
MHz 4: 1096 MHz 5: 1564 MHz 6: 1029 MHz
            7: 1119 MHz 8: 868 MHz
Graphics:  Card: NVIDIA GF104GLM [Quadro 4000M]
            Display Server: X.Org 1.15.1 drivers: nvidia (unloaded: 
fbdev,vesa,nouveau)
            Resolution: 1920x1080@60.0hz, 2560x1440@60.0hz
            GLX Renderer: Quadro 4000M/PCIe/SSE2 GLX Version: 4.5.0 
NVIDIA 367.57
Network:   Card-1: Intel 82579LM Gigabit Network Connection driver: e1000e
            Card-2: Intel Centrino Ultimate-N 6300 driver: iwlwifi
Drives:    HDD Total Size: 1536.3GB (74.0% used) ID-1: /dev/sda model: 
Samsung_SSD_850 size: 1024.2GB
            ID-2: /dev/sdb model: SAMSUNG_SSD_830 size: 512.1GB
Info:      Processes: 268 Uptime: 13:11 Memory: 2589.1/16003.5MB Client: 
Shell (bash) inxi: 2.2.28

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451166

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 04:51:03 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann
<ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote:

>Am 09.03.2017 um 22:42 schrieb Lasse Langwadt Christensen:
>> Den torsdag den 9. marts 2017 kl. 21.53.17 UTC+1 skrev John S:
>>> On 3/9/2017 1:33 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>
>>>> Try this one. 32 seconds on my new Dell. Runs about 25% CPU.
>>>
>>> Mine is an i7 and runs about 25% (only one core, apparently) and takes
>>> about 53 seconds. The computer is about 5 years old.
>>
>> 64bit ltspice under wine in ubuntu on ancient i7-965
>>
>> 20 seconds using 12% (1 core out of 8)
>
>LTspice 4:  Linux, virtual Win7 machine  VMware Workstation 12: 42 sec
>same machine in a Linux window LTspice4 with wine under Linux:  22 sec
>
>Machine is a Dell Precision "portable Workstation"  3.5 years old.
>"portable" has to be taken with a grain of salt. 240W power supply.
>
>I have no idea which run was on which CPU. The CPUs all run at pretty
>different speed.
>
>regards, Gerhard
>
>
>
>system description:
>
>gerhard@precision:~$ inxi -CDb
>System:    Host: precision Kernel: 4.4.0-62-generic x86_64 (64 bit) 
>Desktop: Cinnamon 2.8.8
>            Distro: Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa
>Machine:   System: Dell product: Precision M6600 v: 01
>            Mobo: Dell model: 04YY4M v: A00 Bios: Dell v: A15 date: 
>09/27/2013
>CPU:       Quad core Intel Core i7-2820QM (-HT-MCP-) cache: 8192 KB
>            clock speeds: max: 3400 MHz 1: 983 MHz 2: 1281 MHz 3: 1301 
>MHz 4: 1096 MHz 5: 1564 MHz 6: 1029 MHz
>            7: 1119 MHz 8: 868 MHz
>Graphics:  Card: NVIDIA GF104GLM [Quadro 4000M]
>            Display Server: X.Org 1.15.1 drivers: nvidia (unloaded: 
>fbdev,vesa,nouveau)
>            Resolution: 1920x1080@60.0hz, 2560x1440@60.0hz
>            GLX Renderer: Quadro 4000M/PCIe/SSE2 GLX Version: 4.5.0 
>NVIDIA 367.57
>Network:   Card-1: Intel 82579LM Gigabit Network Connection driver: e1000e
>            Card-2: Intel Centrino Ultimate-N 6300 driver: iwlwifi
>Drives:    HDD Total Size: 1536.3GB (74.0% used) ID-1: /dev/sda model: 
>Samsung_SSD_850 size: 1024.2GB
>            ID-2: /dev/sdb model: SAMSUNG_SSD_830 size: 512.1GB
>Info:      Processes: 268 Uptime: 13:11 Memory: 2589.1/16003.5MB Client: 
>Shell (bash) inxi: 2.2.28
>
>
>
>

On my Dell, that sim runs about 10% slower if I plot the waveform
during the run. I can imagine that PCs with slow graphics could take a
bigger hit. Do VMs add graphics overhead?

We once rented a compute farm from Amazon to run a slow sim. It wasn't
any faster than our 4-core Dells.

 


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451183

Am 10.03.2017 um 17:20 schrieb John Larkin:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 04:51:03 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann
> <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote:

>>
>> LTspice 4:  Linux, virtual Win7 machine  VMware Workstation 12: 42 sec
>> same machine in a Linux window LTspice4 with wine under Linux:  22 sec
>>
>> Machine is a Dell Precision "portable Workstation"  3.5 years old.
>> "portable" has to be taken with a grain of salt. 240W power supply.

>
>
> On my Dell, that sim runs about 10% slower if I plot the waveform
> during the run. I can imagine that PCs with slow graphics could take a
> bigger hit. Do VMs add graphics overhead?

I suppose they do. There must be a lot of exchanging graphics state
when switching tasks and there must be a lot of task switches; when I
move the cursor from a win7 window to the Linux table top: that looks
harmless, but someone has to decide now which operating system has to
react on the next click. And that click could trigger actions is a
3D game or 3D layout in Altium Designer.

I also think that the 2nd  2560*144 pixel monitor attached to my laptop
slows things down, somewhat. Waveform was ON in my test.



> We once rented a compute farm from Amazon to run a slow sim. It wasn't
> any faster than our 4-core Dells.

Spice is well-known for being hard to parallelize. It has been tried
over and over again. It is not even really floating-point limited.
There has been H-spice on the Cray trying to vectorize it. Do you
remember all those Weitek/NS32032 coprocessor boards that were sold
as Spice accelerators? No one ever made a breakthrough.

Gerhard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451196

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 19:06:04 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann
<ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote:

>Am 10.03.2017 um 17:20 schrieb John Larkin:
>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 04:51:03 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann
>> <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> LTspice 4:  Linux, virtual Win7 machine  VMware Workstation 12: 42 sec
>>> same machine in a Linux window LTspice4 with wine under Linux:  22 sec
>>>
>>> Machine is a Dell Precision "portable Workstation"  3.5 years old.
>>> "portable" has to be taken with a grain of salt. 240W power supply.
>
>>
>>
>> On my Dell, that sim runs about 10% slower if I plot the waveform
>> during the run. I can imagine that PCs with slow graphics could take a
>> bigger hit. Do VMs add graphics overhead?
>
>I suppose they do. There must be a lot of exchanging graphics state
>when switching tasks and there must be a lot of task switches; when I
>move the cursor from a win7 window to the Linux table top: that looks
>harmless, but someone has to decide now which operating system has to
>react on the next click. And that click could trigger actions is a
>3D game or 3D layout in Altium Designer.
>
>I also think that the 2nd  2560*144 pixel monitor attached to my laptop
>slows things down, somewhat. Waveform was ON in my test.
>
>
>
>> We once rented a compute farm from Amazon to run a slow sim. It wasn't
>> any faster than our 4-core Dells.
>
>Spice is well-known for being hard to parallelize. It has been tried
>over and over again. It is not even really floating-point limited.
>There has been H-spice on the Cray trying to vectorize it. Do you
>remember all those Weitek/NS32032 coprocessor boards that were sold
>as Spice accelerators? No one ever made a breakthrough.
>
>Gerhard
>

I'd buy one of those Nvidia boards if it would speed up Spice by, say,
100:1.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451259

On 3/10/2017 12:42 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 19:06:04 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann
> <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 10.03.2017 um 17:20 schrieb John Larkin:
>>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 04:51:03 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann
>>> <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> LTspice 4:  Linux, virtual Win7 machine  VMware Workstation 12: 42 sec
>>>> same machine in a Linux window LTspice4 with wine under Linux:  22 sec
>>>>
>>>> Machine is a Dell Precision "portable Workstation"  3.5 years old.
>>>> "portable" has to be taken with a grain of salt. 240W power supply.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On my Dell, that sim runs about 10% slower if I plot the waveform
>>> during the run. I can imagine that PCs with slow graphics could take a
>>> bigger hit. Do VMs add graphics overhead?
>>
>> I suppose they do. There must be a lot of exchanging graphics state
>> when switching tasks and there must be a lot of task switches; when I
>> move the cursor from a win7 window to the Linux table top: that looks
>> harmless, but someone has to decide now which operating system has to
>> react on the next click. And that click could trigger actions is a
>> 3D game or 3D layout in Altium Designer.
>>
>> I also think that the 2nd  2560*144 pixel monitor attached to my laptop
>> slows things down, somewhat. Waveform was ON in my test.
>>
>>
>>
>>> We once rented a compute farm from Amazon to run a slow sim. It wasn't
>>> any faster than our 4-core Dells.
>>
>> Spice is well-known for being hard to parallelize. It has been tried
>> over and over again. It is not even really floating-point limited.
>> There has been H-spice on the Cray trying to vectorize it. Do you
>> remember all those Weitek/NS32032 coprocessor boards that were sold
>> as Spice accelerators? No one ever made a breakthrough.
>>
>> Gerhard
>>
>
> I'd buy one of those Nvidia boards if it would speed up Spice by, say,
> 100:1.

In your example LTSpice listing, just change your maximum time step from 
10 ns to 10 us. That will give you great speed with no detectable loss 
of detail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451289

"John S"  wrote in message news:o9vn80$nvt$1@dont-email.me...


>> Spice is well-known for being hard to parallelize. It has been tried
>> over and over again. It is not even really floating-point limited.
>> There has been H-spice on the Cray trying to vectorize it. Do you
>> remember all those Weitek/NS32032 coprocessor boards that were sold
>> as Spice accelerators? No one ever made a breakthrough.
>>
>> Gerhard
>>
>
>> I'd buy one of those Nvidia boards if it would speed up Spice by, say,
>> 100:1.

>In your example LTSpice listing, just change your maximum time step from 10 
>ns to 10 us. That will give you great speed with no detectable loss of 
>detail.

Yes. I do find it surprizing, that many don't even *try* to understand the 
most basic aspects of Spice when running their simulations. Like, read the 
manual!

Lots of point mean slower simulations, few points means a jaggered graph. 
Even with essentially zero knowledge of equations solvers, one should surly 
expect to just know that high accuracy (reltol=1u) will also slow the 
simulation.

The forgivable one is TRTOL. Many might not understand how to set this 
parameter.

Setting this option can make a change of speed of around a factor of 3 or 
so. The Spice3 default is 7. However, in something like a SMPS this value 
can often result in incorrect results. I default this to 1 in SuperSpice to 
make sure results are always accurate. For a whole class of circuits though, 
increasing it up to say 3 or more will be ok, with a significant speedup. 
Its worth doing a few runs when setting up your design to get an optimum 
value for it.


-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451325

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 08:55:22 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

>"John S"  wrote in message news:o9vn80$nvt$1@dont-email.me...
>
>
>>> Spice is well-known for being hard to parallelize. It has been tried
>>> over and over again. It is not even really floating-point limited.
>>> There has been H-spice on the Cray trying to vectorize it. Do you
>>> remember all those Weitek/NS32032 coprocessor boards that were sold
>>> as Spice accelerators? No one ever made a breakthrough.
>>>
>>> Gerhard
>>>
>>
>>> I'd buy one of those Nvidia boards if it would speed up Spice by, say,
>>> 100:1.
>
>>In your example LTSpice listing, just change your maximum time step from 10 
>>ns to 10 us. That will give you great speed with no detectable loss of 
>>detail.
>
>Yes. I do find it surprizing, that many don't even *try* to understand the 
>most basic aspects of Spice when running their simulations. Like, read the 
>manual!

My sim was intended to run slow.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web