VLAR change


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Technical News : VLAR change

1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author Message
Jeff Cobb
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 1 Mar 99
Posts: 110
Credit: 40,367
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1015702 - Posted: 14 Jul 2010, 23:06:04 UTC

We are beta testing a change whereby VLAR WUs are not scheduled onto GPUs. We hope to move this to the main project next week.
____________

ClaggyProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4213
Credit: 34,475,735
RAC: 15,652
United Kingdom
Message 1015704 - Posted: 14 Jul 2010, 23:13:18 UTC - in response to Message 1015702.

Thanks for the update Jeff,

Claggy

Profile Zeus Fab3r
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Jan 01
Posts: 646
Credit: 102,293,021
RAC: 47,895
Serbia
Message 1015711 - Posted: 14 Jul 2010, 23:27:08 UTC

This is indeed a good news, thanks Jeff.
____________

Who the hell is General Failure and why is he reading my harddisk?¿

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,647,395
RAC: 516
United States
Message 1015721 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 0:22:16 UTC - in response to Message 1015702.

thank you thank you thank you for testing it first!!! :D

____________

Janice

jravin
Send message
Joined: 25 Mar 02
Posts: 968
Credit: 104,809,661
RAC: 43,770
United States
Message 1015729 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 1:12:18 UTC - in response to Message 1015702.

We are beta testing a change whereby VLAR WUs are not scheduled onto GPUs. We hope to move this to the main project next week.


Excellent! Thank you so much!
Good job.
____________

Profile [seti.international] Dirk Sadowski
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7115
Credit: 61,258,534
RAC: 5,651
Germany
Message 1015746 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 2:37:52 UTC - in response to Message 1015702.
Last modified: 15 Jul 2010, 2:44:47 UTC

We are beta testing a change whereby VLAR WUs are not scheduled onto GPUs. We hope to move this to the main project next week.


Thank you very much! *thumb up*


BTW. Which BOINC version at least is needed for this function? Or is the BOINC version not important?


[EDIT: This means 0.12x+ ARs only to GPUs?]
____________
BR

SETI@home Needs your Help ... $10 & U get a Star!

Team seti.international

Das Deutsche Cafe. The German Cafe.

Josef W. SegurProject donor
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4334
Credit: 1,113,795
RAC: 779
United States
Message 1015747 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 2:45:59 UTC - in response to Message 1015746.
Last modified: 15 Jul 2010, 2:47:44 UTC

...
Which BOINC version at least is needed for this function? Or is the BOINC version not important?

It's a BOINC server code change. BOINC core client doesn't matter.

Edit: Yes, the criteria is at 0.12 AR.
Joe

Profile Geek@PlayProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 31 Jul 01
Posts: 2467
Credit: 86,144,272
RAC: 279
United States
Message 1015754 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 3:42:20 UTC
Last modified: 15 Jul 2010, 3:43:25 UTC

Excellent!!
____________
Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....

Wedge009
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 356
Credit: 152,983,843
RAC: 61,611
Australia
Message 1015812 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 11:46:56 UTC

Thanks for this.

Just a question about the 0.12 upper AR limit, though. I had a bunch of WUs a short while back that were about 0.18 AR, and they were quite slow on the GPU as well. Well, I suppose even if the limit is hard-coded, it's still better than the current state of allowing VLAR WUs through to the GPU.
____________
Soli Deo Gloria

PhonAcq
Send message
Joined: 14 Apr 01
Posts: 1624
Credit: 22,525,022
RAC: 4,811
United States
Message 1015815 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 12:02:54 UTC - in response to Message 1015721.

thank you thank you thank you for testing it first!!! :D


Yes, please test the heck out of it.

PhonAcq
Send message
Joined: 14 Apr 01
Posts: 1624
Credit: 22,525,022
RAC: 4,811
United States
Message 1015816 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 12:08:01 UTC

Of course, this change will mean that we non-GPUers' will suffer, won't it? Actually the question is whether we non-GPU hosts will get a fair credit for dealing with the more difficult wu's.

Conversely, will there be enough wu's produced to keep the GPUers' happy, because the VLAR bottleneck will essentially vanish?

And, finally, does this change have any implication for the AP crunchers?

Profile Bill Walker
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 99
Posts: 3438
Credit: 2,196,231
RAC: 897
Canada
Message 1015820 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 12:16:55 UTC - in response to Message 1015816.

Of course, this change will mean that we non-GPUers' will suffer, won't it?


Doens't it mean that the VLARs will only go to CPUs? That should mean a larger pool of WUs for us non-GPU crunchers to chase.

____________

Profile Link
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 03
Posts: 838
Credit: 1,577,462
RAC: 160
Germany
Message 1015821 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 12:17:29 UTC - in response to Message 1015816.

Of course, this change will mean that we non-GPUers' will suffer, won't it? Actually the question is whether we non-GPU hosts will get a fair credit for dealing with the more difficult wu's.

Actually after my calculations VLARs are the best paid WUs on CPU. Here example for my AthlonXP 2000+:

- VLAR (< 0.013): about 350 CPU-seconds / 1Cr
- AR ~ 0.38: about 365 CPU-seconds / 1Cr
- AR ~ 0.4x: about 470 CPU-seconds / 1Cr
- VHAR: about 500-700 CPU-seconds / 1Cr
____________
.

Profile Bill Walker
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 99
Posts: 3438
Credit: 2,196,231
RAC: 897
Canada
Message 1015828 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 12:30:38 UTC - in response to Message 1015821.
Last modified: 15 Jul 2010, 12:30:54 UTC

Woohoo! Send me your VLARS please.
____________

Profile Fred J. Verster
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Apr 04
Posts: 3252
Credit: 31,902,797
RAC: 257
Netherlands
Message 1015862 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 14:56:10 UTC - in response to Message 1015828.

Actually after my calculations VLARs are the best paid WUs on CPU. Here example for my AthlonXP 2000+:

- VLAR (< 0.013): about 350 CPU-seconds / 1Cr
- AR ~ 0.38: about 365 CPU-seconds / 1Cr
- AR ~ 0.4x: about 470 CPU-seconds / 1Cr
- VHAR: about 500-700 CPU-seconds / 1Cr



Are these figures, really all from your AthlonXP 2000+ , on my Q6600's, it's
vice versa.
OTOH, I never crunch VHAR's on CPU.

Ehh, sorry I didn't pay attention to the credits per seconds, not really interrested in credits, only processing time, credits
have a low priority, in my crunching ability/scheme.


And you've little influence on the Angle Range of WU's sended to you, maybe this will change if the new AR-Function-Scheduler, is in place and works as it supposed to.
Then you would be able to ask only work for CPU (<0.013 AR) or GPU (>0.013 AR).

____________

Profile hiamps
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 4292
Credit: 72,971,319
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1015873 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 15:34:21 UTC - in response to Message 1015816.

Of course, this change will mean that we non-GPUers' will suffer, won't it? Actually the question is whether we non-GPU hosts will get a fair credit for dealing with the more difficult wu's.

Conversely, will there be enough wu's produced to keep the GPUers' happy, because the VLAR bottleneck will essentially vanish?

And, finally, does this change have any implication for the AP crunchers?

Seems most of us with GPU's also have CPU's in our machines...Why would you do all the hard work?
____________
Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

PhonAcq
Send message
Joined: 14 Apr 01
Posts: 1624
Credit: 22,525,022
RAC: 4,811
United States
Message 1015875 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 15:40:17 UTC - in response to Message 1015873.

Obviously, I'm addressing the relative amount of work for the host in total.

PhonAcq
Send message
Joined: 14 Apr 01
Posts: 1624
Credit: 22,525,022
RAC: 4,811
United States
Message 1015878 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 15:45:14 UTC - in response to Message 1015820.

Of course, this change will mean that we non-GPUers' will suffer, won't it?


Doens't it mean that the VLARs will only go to CPUs? That should mean a larger pool of WUs for us non-GPU crunchers to chase.


Not understanding this reply. There are cpu only and gpu+cpu crunchers. If the VLAR's are blocked from the gpu's, then the non-VLAR wu's will be sopped up by the gpu's, leaving the cpu's with a strongly biased ratio of VLAR's.

I suppose it's a sh.ty job, but someone has to do it.

Profile [seti.international] Dirk Sadowski
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7115
Credit: 61,258,534
RAC: 5,651
Germany
Message 1015879 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 15:48:27 UTC

BTW.

Nice to know that the admins have an opened ear for suggestions of the members for to make better the project (for to get the max performance of all hosts for accelerated science)..

Who said this won't work? X-D

O.K., now I can switch on again my PC.. :o)

____________
BR

SETI@home Needs your Help ... $10 & U get a Star!

Team seti.international

Das Deutsche Cafe. The German Cafe.

Profile [seti.international] Dirk Sadowski
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7115
Credit: 61,258,534
RAC: 5,651
Germany
Message 1015885 - Posted: 15 Jul 2010, 15:53:32 UTC

Current I can't post some examples of my E7600, because the new Cr.-System isn't finished balanced.

But, AFAIK, the VLAR WUs get more Cr./hour on CPU, than normal AR WUs.

So CPU only (and of course CPU & GPU) hosts will have increased RAC. This isn't well?

____________
BR

SETI@home Needs your Help ... $10 & U get a Star!

Team seti.international

Das Deutsche Cafe. The German Cafe.

1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Technical News : VLAR change

Copyright © 2014 University of California