6.6.26 x32 CUDA issue

Message boards : Number crunching : 6.6.26 x32 CUDA issue
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile KW2E
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 346
Credit: 104,396,190
RAC: 34
United States
Message 890404 - Posted: 2 May 2009, 2:33:52 UTC
Last modified: 2 May 2009, 2:38:11 UTC

I know that in newer versions of 6.6.x that there was a discussion about not using CUDA devices that were less capable than the primary CUDA device, but this is silly:


5/1/2009 8:26:00 PM CUDA device: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 18122, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, est. 117GFLOPS)
5/1/2009 8:26:00 PM CUDA device (not used): GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 18122, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, est. 117GFLOPS)

It's the exact same card!

I cannot seem to find where I disable the "feature" of not using the less capable card.

Any ideas? I'm going to revert to 6.6.23 for now.

Rob
ID: 890404 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65775
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 890406 - Posted: 2 May 2009, 2:44:13 UTC - in response to Message 890404.  

I know that in newer versions of 6.6.x that there was a discussion about not using CUDA devices that were less capable than the primary CUDA device, but this is silly:


5/1/2009 8:26:00 PM CUDA device: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 18122, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, est. 117GFLOPS)
5/1/2009 8:26:00 PM CUDA device (not used): GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 18122, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, est. 117GFLOPS)

It's the exact same card!

I cannot seem to find where I disable the "feature" of not using the less capable card.

Any ideas? I'm going to revert to 6.6.23 for now.

Rob

Great so the 6.6.24 bug is back. I tried 6.6.24 on My GTX 295 and 24 did the same thing to to the 295 as 26 did to Your 2nd 260 and yep this less capable idea of Boincs is CRAP, As since when is a second card not as good If It's the same type of card as the 1st? As that isn't logical, It's twisted and perverted logic that needs to stop, now.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 890406 · Report as offensive
Profile KW2E
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 346
Credit: 104,396,190
RAC: 34
United States
Message 890407 - Posted: 2 May 2009, 2:47:44 UTC - in response to Message 890406.  

Careful Vic, it's just alpha software. There are bound to be issues. I know this so it's no big deal to me. I just revert back to .23 and call it good for now.

It does seem rather silly though. :)

Just reporting an issue.

Rob
ID: 890407 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65775
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 890421 - Posted: 2 May 2009, 4:09:46 UTC - in response to Message 890407.  

Careful Vic, it's just alpha software. There are bound to be issues. I know this so it's no big deal to me. I just revert back to .23 and call it good for now.

It does seem rather silly though. :)

Just reporting an issue.

Rob

I know It's alpha software, I was just venting, Besides I've been running 6.6.20 ever since, I'll let someone else be the guinea pig. As I have enough of an anxiety problem now.

Say how's the 165? Ever get It running?
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 890421 · Report as offensive
Profile KW2E
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 346
Credit: 104,396,190
RAC: 34
United States
Message 890422 - Posted: 2 May 2009, 4:14:56 UTC - in response to Message 890421.  

The AMD? Yes and no.

I had it running for a bit but I have since set it back on the shelf. Plenty of heat generators in this office as it is.

:)

Thanks Vic,

Rob
ID: 890422 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65775
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 890433 - Posted: 2 May 2009, 4:40:25 UTC - in response to Message 890422.  
Last modified: 2 May 2009, 4:40:59 UTC

The AMD? Yes and no.

I had it running for a bit but I have since set it back on the shelf. Plenty of heat generators in this office as it is.

:)

Thanks Vic,

Rob

No problem Rob. Oh and You might try and use a psu with a single +12v rail with the AMD/Via motherboard as that was what was recommended to get the best performance out of It.

Now hopefully the Devs will get It right in 6.6.27, Besides doesn't the switch in 6.6.26, Oh that's right, duh, It won't install right, Well to err is human or as a teacher of Mine used to say "GIGO" or Garbage In Garbage Out and that computers were good at It. Yeah I've been reading the notes ageless has posted from Rom, crazy, But they'll swat It, The bugs can't hide forever.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 890433 · Report as offensive
Profile Paul D. Buck
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Jul 00
Posts: 3898
Credit: 1,158,042
RAC: 0
United States
Message 890480 - Posted: 2 May 2009, 9:25:08 UTC

Known issue because of a new feature added to prevent less capable CUDA cards from being used. 6.6.25 has a new cc_config flag to use all GPUs in options.

UCB is aware and the issue is that the second card has a 64K block of memory less than the other cards. Why, not known, driver issue? Video memory reserve? Gremlins?
ID: 890480 · Report as offensive
MarkJ Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 08
Posts: 1139
Credit: 80,854,192
RAC: 5
Australia
Message 890505 - Posted: 2 May 2009, 11:44:26 UTC - in response to Message 890404.  

I know that in newer versions of 6.6.x that there was a discussion about not using CUDA devices that were less capable than the primary CUDA device, but this is silly:


5/1/2009 8:26:00 PM CUDA device: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 18122, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, est. 117GFLOPS)
5/1/2009 8:26:00 PM CUDA device (not used): GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 18122, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, est. 117GFLOPS)

It's the exact same card!

I cannot seem to find where I disable the "feature" of not using the less capable card.

Any ideas? I'm going to revert to 6.6.23 for now.

Rob


I got exactly the same thing. I used the cc_config flag <use_all_gpus> to get them going.

As Paul has said apparently its reporting a different memory size. Given the cards have the same memory it could be the drivers. I had 182.50 drivers installed.

It could be a bug in the detection logic since 6.6.23. Trak ticket 888 has been raised for this and the email list notified.
BOINC blog
ID: 890505 · Report as offensive
MarkJ Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 08
Posts: 1139
Credit: 80,854,192
RAC: 5
Australia
Message 890711 - Posted: 3 May 2009, 8:21:52 UTC - in response to Message 890505.  

I know that in newer versions of 6.6.x that there was a discussion about not using CUDA devices that were less capable than the primary CUDA device, but this is silly:


5/1/2009 8:26:00 PM CUDA device: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 18122, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, est. 117GFLOPS)
5/1/2009 8:26:00 PM CUDA device (not used): GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 18122, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, est. 117GFLOPS)

It's the exact same card!

I cannot seem to find where I disable the "feature" of not using the less capable card.

Any ideas? I'm going to revert to 6.6.23 for now.

Rob


I got exactly the same thing. I used the cc_config flag <use_all_gpus> to get them going.

As Paul has said apparently its reporting a different memory size. Given the cards have the same memory it could be the drivers. I had 182.50 drivers installed.


I have confirmed the memory size reporting on GPUgrid (it reports the memory for each cuda device in the work units). Its reporting 64k less memory on the 1st device.

Beta drivers 185.81 don't show the missing 64k so I have been told. I haven't tried them so can't verify this or not. They also give cuda version 2.2 with a slight reduction in run times and increased heat produced by the cards, so I have read.
BOINC blog
ID: 890711 · Report as offensive
Profile Valerie Chilton
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Jan 08
Posts: 53
Credit: 20,682,710
RAC: 0
United States
Message 890889 - Posted: 3 May 2009, 17:52:54 UTC

I'm having much the same thing with the 64 bit. One of the cars isn't used. What file and what changes do I need to make to enable the 2nd card ?

And after the spanking comes...



Ni !
ID: 890889 · Report as offensive
Profile Valerie Chilton
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Jan 08
Posts: 53
Credit: 20,682,710
RAC: 0
United States
Message 890900 - Posted: 3 May 2009, 18:35:17 UTC

Changing back to the older ver fixed the prob.
And after the spanking comes...



Ni !
ID: 890900 · Report as offensive
MarkJ Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 08
Posts: 1139
Credit: 80,854,192
RAC: 5
Australia
Message 891145 - Posted: 4 May 2009, 13:00:40 UTC - in response to Message 890889.  

I'm having much the same thing with the 64 bit. One of the cars isn't used. What file and what changes do I need to make to enable the 2nd card ?


in cc_config.xml you'll need:

<options>
<use_all_gpus>1</use_all_gpus>
</options>

Oh and I tried the 185.81 drivers. I had GPUgrid work crapping out all over the place. Uninstalled it. Reinstalled 182.50 drivers, trashed all the cuda work it had. Now crunching on some fresh work.
BOINC blog
ID: 891145 · Report as offensive

Message boards : Number crunching : 6.6.26 x32 CUDA issue


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.