No GPU work on one machine

Author	Message
Starman Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 120 Credit: 17,527,915 RAC: 51,604	Message 1177084 - Posted: 10 Dec 2011, 15:53:22 UTC
I haven't been able to get any GPU work on one of my machines (5360487), for at least 2-3 weeks now. Even though everything seems to be running smoothly again. My other machines are all getting what they want now, except for this one. It has the max 100 CPU WU's but just can't get any GPU work. Any ideas. Thanks Brett ____________
ID: 1177084 ·

Claggy Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 3360 Credit: 25,947,396 RAC: 1,286	Message 1177097 - Posted: 10 Dec 2011, 17:10:35 UTC - in response to Message 1177084. Last modified: 10 Dec 2011, 17:57:08 UTC
I haven't been able to get any GPU work on one of my machines (5360487), for at least 2-3 weeks now. Even though everything seems to be running smoothly again. My other machines are all getting what they want now, except for this one. It has the max 100 CPU WU's but just can't get any GPU work. Any ideas. Thanks Brett First Update that host to Boinc 6.10.60, and no later. (Boinc 6.10.18 is just a bit too Buggy, i think it had a libcurl DNS Bug) Move that host to a different venue from the others (home, school or work), set up a new set of Project Preferences for that venue, then Disable CPU work fetch, by setting Use CPU to no, then update that host, Now it can only do ATI GPU work fetches, when it has enough ATI GPU work, enable CPU work fetch again, (Boinc 6.10.18 and earlier also had a Bug where preferences across venues didn't work correctly) Edit: I've now noticed you have a HD 2600 on that host and are running Hybrid Astropulse, is it really worth it?, do you get any speedup over the r409 CPU app? I certainly didn't get a speedup with my overclocked E8500 & HD5770. Claggy
ID: 1177097 ·

Team kizb Send message Joined: 8 Mar 01 Posts: 219 Credit: 3,709,162 RAC: 0	Message 1177112 - Posted: 10 Dec 2011, 18:20:39 UTC - in response to Message 1177097.
I'm having a simular issue. Blue has been crunching WU's just fine, but for some reason Green keeps saying project as no new work. ____________ My Computers: █ Blue Offline █ Green Offline █ Red Offline
ID: 1177112 ·

Team kizb Send message Joined: 8 Mar 01 Posts: 219 Credit: 3,709,162 RAC: 0	Message 1177115 - Posted: 10 Dec 2011, 18:43:54 UTC - in response to Message 1177112.
Seems as the above talked about work around is working, interesting. Any idea why it doesn't like to download GPU tasks when CPU is enabled? ____________ My Computers: █ Blue Offline █ Green Offline █ Red Offline
ID: 1177115 ·

Claggy Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 3360 Credit: 25,947,396 RAC: 1,286	Message 1177119 - Posted: 10 Dec 2011, 18:54:44 UTC - in response to Message 1177115.
Seems as the above talked about work around is working, interesting. Any idea why it doesn't like to download GPU tasks when CPU is enabled? The scheduler probably thinks the CPU is faster than the GPU, so sends work to that first, why?, don't know, but probably because of the Dodgy DCF, Claggy
ID: 1177119 ·

Kevin Olley Send message Joined: 3 Aug 99 Posts: 368 Credit: 33,586,072 RAC: 6,294	Message 1177129 - Posted: 10 Dec 2011, 19:58:35 UTC - in response to Message 1177119.
Seems as the above talked about work around is working, interesting. Any idea why it doesn't like to download GPU tasks when CPU is enabled? The scheduler probably thinks the CPU is faster than the GPU, so sends work to that first, why?, don't know, but probably because of the Dodgy DCF, Claggy I find at times that the "to completion" times on CPU WU's is shorter than the times for the same type of WU on GPU. ____________ Kevin
ID: 1177129 ·

Starman Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 120 Credit: 17,527,915 RAC: 51,604	Message 1177170 - Posted: 11 Dec 2011, 0:44:16 UTC
Before I starting running the GPU app, my RAC was around 1,000. With the GPU running it was upto 1,700, so 70% improvement is worth it. I'll try the fixes and see what happens. ____________
ID: 1177170 ·

Josef W. Segur Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 3930 Credit: 934,263 RAC: 14	Message 1177180 - Posted: 11 Dec 2011, 2:50:52 UTC - in response to Message 1177129.
Kevin Olley wrote: I find at times that the "to completion" times on CPU WU's is shorter than the times for the same type of WU on GPU. It may be the VLARs you rescheduled onto GPU which have made the servers think your CPU can do 63 GFLOPS on MB tasks. The servers don't know those ~3800 second runtimes were done on GPU so they affect the CPU average. Joe
ID: 1177180 ·

Kevin Olley Send message Joined: 3 Aug 99 Posts: 368 Credit: 33,586,072 RAC: 6,294	Message 1177226 - Posted: 11 Dec 2011, 10:54:58 UTC - in response to Message 1177180.
Kevin Olley wrote: I find at times that the "to completion" times on CPU WU's is shorter than the times for the same type of WU on GPU. It may be the VLARs you rescheduled onto GPU which have made the servers think your CPU can do 63 GFLOPS on MB tasks. The servers don't know those ~3800 second runtimes were done on GPU so they affect the CPU average. Joe I doubt it, I was seeing this a long time before I had any reason to reschedule any WU's from CPU to GPU. The only reason I reschedule is lack of GPU WU's. I have been having DCF problems, or problems with "to completion" times affecting cache size. Too many shorties on GPU will reduce DCF to a level that if it was not for the CPU limits in place I would have been flooded with CPU WU's. Too many shorties or regular WU on CPU when GPU was processing regular WU would increase DCF and "to completion" times to a point that it would affect my GPU cache or Boinc to the point that the GPU's when they had a to limits cache would be forced into high priority mode until DCF reduced to a more normal level. This can be controlled to a certain extent with AP's, with careful use of suspend button you can force an AP to start you then unsuspend suspended units and the AP is next in line. If no AP's are available then I have a couple of CPND WU's that I use. I use BoincTasks on this machine and one of the things that it shows is the total estimated completion time for the cache. the way the estimate jumps on the completion of a VLAR on CPU on the GPU cache estimated runtime is horrifying. (18 days to 250+ days not unusual(divide by 9)) ____________ Kevin
ID: 1177226 ·

Claggy Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 3360 Credit: 25,947,396 RAC: 1,286	Message 1177227 - Posted: 11 Dec 2011, 11:12:55 UTC - in response to Message 1177129.
Seems as the above talked about work around is working, interesting. Any idea why it doesn't like to download GPU tasks when CPU is enabled? The scheduler probably thinks the CPU is faster than the GPU, so sends work to that first, why?, don't know, but probably because of the Dodgy DCF, Claggy I find at times that the "to completion" times on CPU WU's is shorter than the times for the same type of WU on GPU. Do you have <flops> values in your app_info? Claggy
ID: 1177227 ·

Kevin Olley Send message Joined: 3 Aug 99 Posts: 368 Credit: 33,586,072 RAC: 6,294	Message 1177230 - Posted: 11 Dec 2011, 12:06:39 UTC - in response to Message 1177227.
Seems as the above talked about work around is working, interesting. Any idea why it doesn't like to download GPU tasks when CPU is enabled? The scheduler probably thinks the CPU is faster than the GPU, so sends work to that first, why?, don't know, but probably because of the Dodgy DCF, Claggy I find at times that the "to completion" times on CPU WU's is shorter than the times for the same type of WU on GPU. Do you have <flops> values in your app_info? Claggy No the only alteration I have made is to the count, To be honest calculating flops and more advanced modifications to app_info or similar type files is above my comfort level. I keep 3 copys of app_info.txt (count 1, 0.5, 0.33) and copy and paste in the right format when I need them. I know its cheating but it works for me. My "programing" abilities are very low, so I have a bad habit of finding other ways that seem to work for me. ____________ Kevin
ID: 1177230 ·

arkayn Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 14 May 99 Posts: 3084 Credit: 40,050,226 RAC: 65,081	Message 1177346 - Posted: 11 Dec 2011, 22:42:51 UTC - in response to Message 1177230.
Do you have <flops> values in your app_info? Claggy No the only alteration I have made is to the count, To be honest calculating flops and more advanced modifications to app_info or similar type files is above my comfort level. I keep 3 copys of app_info.txt (count 1, 0.5, 0.33) and copy and paste in the right format when I need them. I know its cheating but it works for me. My "programing" abilities are very low, so I have a bad habit of finding other ways that seem to work for me. Flops are fairly easy to calculate as the needed numbers are in your applications details for the machine in question. For example on the SETI@home Enhanced (anonymous platform, nvidia GPU) It shows 156.60088862089 All you have to do is add a e09 to it and you get <flops>156.60088862089e09</flops> Your CPU is <flops>62.12696862414e09</flops> and AP is <flops>32.098248233676e09</flops> ____________
ID: 1177346 ·

Claggy Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 3360 Credit: 25,947,396 RAC: 1,286	Message 1177354 - Posted: 11 Dec 2011, 23:16:21 UTC - in response to Message 1177346. Last modified: 11 Dec 2011, 23:17:08 UTC
Do you have <flops> values in your app_info? Claggy No the only alteration I have made is to the count, To be honest calculating flops and more advanced modifications to app_info or similar type files is above my comfort level. I keep 3 copys of app_info.txt (count 1, 0.5, 0.33) and copy and paste in the right format when I need them. I know its cheating but it works for me. My "programing" abilities are very low, so I have a bad habit of finding other ways that seem to work for me. Flops are fairly easy to calculate as the needed numbers are in your applications details for the machine in question. For example on the SETI@home Enhanced (anonymous platform, nvidia GPU) It shows 156.60088862089 All you have to do is add a e09 to it and you get <flops>156.60088862089e09</flops> Your CPU is <flops>62.12696862414e09</flops> and AP is <flops>32.098248233676e09</flops> I wouldn't use the CPU MB flops value as CPU work has been rebranded to the GPU, and the APR of the CPU has been inflated, I'd use a figure of around 15e09 instead of 62.12e09 Claggy
ID: 1177354 ·

Kevin Olley Send message Joined: 3 Aug 99 Posts: 368 Credit: 33,586,072 RAC: 6,294	Message 1177366 - Posted: 12 Dec 2011, 0:17:16 UTC - in response to Message 1177354.
Flops are fairly easy to calculate as the needed numbers are in your applications details for the machine in question. For example on the SETI@home Enhanced (anonymous platform, nvidia GPU) It shows 156.60088862089 All you have to do is add a e09 to it and you get <flops>156.60088862089e09</flops> Your CPU is <flops>62.12696862414e09</flops> and AP is <flops>32.098248233676e09</flops> I wouldn't use the CPU MB flops value as CPU work has been rebranded to the GPU, and the APR of the CPU has been inflated, I'd use a figure of around 15e09 instead of 62.12e09 Claggy OK, I can see where the figures are coming from and the potential problems that could be caused by my prior actions, but I am sorry I am still lost as to where in the app_info file I have to put this information. I apologize for being a pain, but my computing skills (software, programing etc) are extremely limited. ____________ Kevin
ID: 1177366 ·

arkayn Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 14 May 99 Posts: 3084 Credit: 40,050,226 RAC: 65,081	Message 1177374 - Posted: 12 Dec 2011, 1:00:09 UTC
I stick mine right under the version number. <app_info> <app> <name>setiathome_enhanced</name> </app> <file_info> <name>AK_v8b2_win_SSE3_AMD.exe</name> <executable/> </file_info> <app_version> <app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name> <version_num>603</version_num> <flops>15.812442866308e09</flops> <platform>windows_intelx86</platform> <file_ref> <file_name>AK_v8b2_win_SSE3_AMD.exe</file_name> <main_program/> </file_ref> </app_version> <app_version> <app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name> <version_num>603</version_num> <flops>15.812442866308e09</flops> <platform>windows_x86_64</platform> <file_ref> <file_name>AK_v8b2_win_SSE3_AMD.exe</file_name> <main_program/> </file_ref> </app_version> <app> <name>setiathome_enhanced</name> </app> <file_info> <name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda41rc1.exe</name> <executable/> </file_info> <file_info> <name>cudart32_41_15.dll</name> <executable/> </file_info> <file_info> <name>cufft32_41_15.dll</name> <executable/> </file_info> <app_version> <app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name> <version_num>610</version_num> <flops>203.99134720153e09</flops> <platform>windows_intelx86</platform> <plan_class>cuda_fermi</plan_class> <avg_ncpus>0.040000</avg_ncpus> <max_ncpus>0.040000</max_ncpus> <coproc> You will need to add those numbers to all 6 occurrences of the GPU part. ____________
ID: 1177374 ·

Kevin Olley Send message Joined: 3 Aug 99 Posts: 368 Credit: 33,586,072 RAC: 6,294	Message 1177375 - Posted: 12 Dec 2011, 1:09:55 UTC - in response to Message 1177374.
I stick mine right under the version number. You will need to add those numbers to all 6 occurrences of the GPU part. Thank you I shall stop rescheduling and let the numbers stabilise and then give it a try. ____________ Kevin
ID: 1177375 ·

Josef W. Segur Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 3930 Credit: 934,263 RAC: 14	Message 1177396 - Posted: 12 Dec 2011, 5:05:58 UTC - in response to Message 1177375.
I stick mine right under the version number. You will need to add those numbers to all 6 occurrences of the GPU part. Thank you I shall stop rescheduling and let the numbers stabilise and then give it a try. Just before you add the <flops> entries, I suggest you use the rescheduler to protect against -177 errors for maximum elapsed time exceeded on cached tasks. The expert tab has a setting called something like "limit rsc_fpops_bound" which provides that protection when you do a reschedule, even if the other settings mean that no tasks are actually rescheduled. That's as much as I know, I hope someone with practical experience will provide a clearer explanation. Those cached tasks will have scaled down rsc_fpops_est which is used to calculate estimated time, and rsc_fpops_bound which is used to calculate the time limit. The big increase in flops will make the times much shorter, but DCF will soon increase to fix the estimates. Unfortunately DCF isn't used for the limit. Joe
ID: 1177396 ·

Kevin Olley Send message Joined: 3 Aug 99 Posts: 368 Credit: 33,586,072 RAC: 6,294	Message 1177418 - Posted: 12 Dec 2011, 8:25:49 UTC - in response to Message 1177396.
I stick mine right under the version number. You will need to add those numbers to all 6 occurrences of the GPU part. Thank you I shall stop rescheduling and let the numbers stabilise and then give it a try. Just before you add the <flops> entries, I suggest you use the rescheduler to protect against -177 errors for maximum elapsed time exceeded on cached tasks. The expert tab has a setting called something like "limit rsc_fpops_bound" which provides that protection when you do a reschedule, even if the other settings mean that no tasks are actually rescheduled. That's as much as I know, I hope someone with practical experience will provide a clearer explanation. Those cached tasks will have scaled down rsc_fpops_est which is used to calculate estimated time, and rsc_fpops_bound which is used to calculate the time limit. The big increase in flops will make the times much shorter, but DCF will soon increase to fix the estimates. Unfortunately DCF isn't used for the limit. Joe It is one of the main reasons that I use reschedular for, the other is to get an estimate of how many VHAR's to regulars are residing in my cache. ____________ Kevin
ID: 1177418 ·

Starman Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 120 Credit: 17,527,915 RAC: 51,604	Message 1178212 - Posted: 15 Dec 2011, 5:30:56 UTC
Well, I finally got some GPU work for this machine. In fact 6 AP WU's no less! The only change I made (2 days ago) was to downgrade to 6.10.60. :) ____________
ID: 1178212 ·

AndyJ Send message Joined: 17 Aug 02 Posts: 248 Credit: 27,380,212 RAC: 616	Message 1178272 - Posted: 15 Dec 2011, 11:56:34 UTC - in response to Message 1177396.
I stick mine right under the version number. You will need to add those numbers to all 6 occurrences of the GPU part. Thank you I shall stop rescheduling and let the numbers stabilise and then give it a try. Just before you add the <flops> entries, I suggest you use the rescheduler to protect against -177 errors for maximum elapsed time exceeded on cached tasks. The expert tab has a setting called something like "limit rsc_fpops_bound" which provides that protection when you do a reschedule, even if the other settings mean that no tasks are actually rescheduled. That's as much as I know, I hope someone with practical experience will provide a clearer explanation. Those cached tasks will have scaled down rsc_fpops_est which is used to calculate estimated time, and rsc_fpops_bound which is used to calculate the time limit. The big increase in flops will make the times much shorter, but DCF will soon increase to fix the estimates. Unfortunately DCF isn't used for the limit. Joe Good info Joe, I just put <flops> onto my main cruncher, got -17's. Will give this a try. Or is there a way to edit fpops in the app_info? Regards, A ____________
ID: 1178272 ·

Author

Message

Starman
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 120
Credit: 17,527,915
RAC: 51,604

I haven't been able to get any GPU work on one of my machines (5360487), for at least 2-3 weeks now. Even though everything seems to be running smoothly again. My other machines are all getting what they want now, except for this one. It has the max 100 CPU WU's but just can't get any GPU work. Any ideas.

Thanks

Brett
____________

ID: 1177084 ·

Claggy

Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 3360
Credit: 25,947,396
RAC: 1,286

I haven't been able to get any GPU work on one of my machines (5360487), for at least 2-3 weeks now. Even though everything seems to be running smoothly again. My other machines are all getting what they want now, except for this one. It has the max 100 CPU WU's but just can't get any GPU work. Any ideas.

Thanks

Brett

First Update that host to Boinc 6.10.60, and no later. (Boinc 6.10.18 is just a bit too Buggy, i think it had a libcurl DNS Bug)

Move that host to a different venue from the others (home, school or work), set up a new set of Project Preferences for that venue, then Disable CPU work fetch, by setting Use CPU to no, then update that host,
Now it can only do ATI GPU work fetches, when it has enough ATI GPU work, enable CPU work fetch again, (Boinc 6.10.18 and earlier also had a Bug where preferences across venues didn't work correctly)

Edit: I've now noticed you have a HD 2600 on that host and are running Hybrid Astropulse, is it really worth it?, do you get any speedup over the r409 CPU app? I certainly didn't get a speedup with my overclocked E8500 & HD5770.

Claggy

ID: 1177097 ·

Team kizb
Send message
Joined: 8 Mar 01
Posts: 219
Credit: 3,709,162
RAC: 0

I'm having a simular issue. Blue has been crunching WU's just fine, but for some reason Green keeps saying project as no new work.
____________
My Computers:
█ Blue Offline
█ Green Offline
█ Red Offline

ID: 1177112 ·

Team kizb
Send message
Joined: 8 Mar 01
Posts: 219
Credit: 3,709,162
RAC: 0

Seems as the above talked about work around is working, interesting. Any idea why it doesn't like to download GPU tasks when CPU is enabled?
____________
My Computers:
█ Blue Offline
█ Green Offline
█ Red Offline

ID: 1177115 ·

Claggy

Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 3360
Credit: 25,947,396
RAC: 1,286

Seems as the above talked about work around is working, interesting. Any idea why it doesn't like to download GPU tasks when CPU is enabled?

The scheduler probably thinks the CPU is faster than the GPU, so sends work to that first, why?, don't know, but probably because of the Dodgy DCF,

Claggy

ID: 1177119 ·

Kevin Olley
Send message
Joined: 3 Aug 99
Posts: 368
Credit: 33,586,072
RAC: 6,294

Seems as the above talked about work around is working, interesting. Any idea why it doesn't like to download GPU tasks when CPU is enabled?

The scheduler probably thinks the CPU is faster than the GPU, so sends work to that first, why?, don't know, but probably because of the Dodgy DCF,

Claggy

I find at times that the "to completion" times on CPU WU's is shorter than the times for the same type of WU on GPU.

____________
Kevin

ID: 1177129 ·

Starman
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 120
Credit: 17,527,915
RAC: 51,604

Before I starting running the GPU app, my RAC was around 1,000. With the GPU running it was upto 1,700, so 70% improvement is worth it. I'll try the fixes and see what happens.
____________

ID: 1177170 ·

Josef W. Segur

Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 3930
Credit: 934,263
RAC: 14

Kevin Olley wrote:

I find at times that the "to completion" times on CPU WU's is shorter than the times for the same type of WU on GPU.

It may be the VLARs you rescheduled onto GPU which have made the servers think your CPU can do 63 GFLOPS on MB tasks. The servers don't know those ~3800 second runtimes were done on GPU so they affect the CPU average.

Joe

ID: 1177180 ·

Kevin Olley
Send message
Joined: 3 Aug 99
Posts: 368
Credit: 33,586,072
RAC: 6,294

Kevin Olley wrote:
I find at times that the "to completion" times on CPU WU's is shorter than the times for the same type of WU on GPU.

It may be the VLARs you rescheduled onto GPU which have made the servers think your CPU can do 63 GFLOPS on MB tasks. The servers don't know those ~3800 second runtimes were done on GPU so they affect the CPU average.
Joe

I doubt it, I was seeing this a long time before I had any reason to reschedule any WU's from CPU to GPU. The only reason I reschedule is lack of GPU WU's.

I have been having DCF problems, or problems with "to completion" times affecting cache size.

Too many shorties on GPU will reduce DCF to a level that if it was not for the CPU limits in place I would have been flooded with CPU WU's.

Too many shorties or regular WU on CPU when GPU was processing regular WU would increase DCF and "to completion" times to a point that it would affect my GPU cache or Boinc to the point that the GPU's when they had a to limits cache would be forced into high priority mode until DCF reduced to a more normal level.

This can be controlled to a certain extent with AP's, with careful use of suspend button you can force an AP to start you then unsuspend suspended units and the AP is next in line. If no AP's are available then I have a couple of CPND WU's that I use.

I use BoincTasks on this machine and one of the things that it shows is the total estimated completion time for the cache. the way the estimate jumps on the completion of a VLAR on CPU on the GPU cache estimated runtime is horrifying. (18 days to 250+ days not unusual(divide by 9))

____________
Kevin

ID: 1177226 ·

Claggy

Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 3360
Credit: 25,947,396
RAC: 1,286

Seems as the above talked about work around is working, interesting. Any idea why it doesn't like to download GPU tasks when CPU is enabled?

The scheduler probably thinks the CPU is faster than the GPU, so sends work to that first, why?, don't know, but probably because of the Dodgy DCF,

Claggy

I find at times that the "to completion" times on CPU WU's is shorter than the times for the same type of WU on GPU.

Do you have <flops> values in your app_info?

Claggy

ID: 1177227 ·

Kevin Olley
Send message
Joined: 3 Aug 99
Posts: 368
Credit: 33,586,072
RAC: 6,294

Seems as the above talked about work around is working, interesting. Any idea why it doesn't like to download GPU tasks when CPU is enabled?

The scheduler probably thinks the CPU is faster than the GPU, so sends work to that first, why?, don't know, but probably because of the Dodgy DCF,

Claggy

I find at times that the "to completion" times on CPU WU's is shorter than the times for the same type of WU on GPU.

Do you have <flops> values in your app_info?

Claggy

No the only alteration I have made is to the count, To be honest calculating flops and more advanced modifications to app_info or similar type files is above my comfort level.

I keep 3 copys of app_info.txt (count 1, 0.5, 0.33) and copy and paste in the right format when I need them. I know its cheating but it works for me.

My "programing" abilities are very low, so I have a bad habit of finding other ways that seem to work for me.

____________
Kevin

ID: 1177230 ·

arkayn

Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 May 99
Posts: 3084
Credit: 40,050,226
RAC: 65,081

Do you have <flops> values in your app_info?

Claggy

No the only alteration I have made is to the count, To be honest calculating flops and more advanced modifications to app_info or similar type files is above my comfort level.

I keep 3 copys of app_info.txt (count 1, 0.5, 0.33) and copy and paste in the right format when I need them. I know its cheating but it works for me.

My "programing" abilities are very low, so I have a bad habit of finding other ways that seem to work for me.

Flops are fairly easy to calculate as the needed numbers are in your applications details for the machine in question.

For example on the SETI@home Enhanced (anonymous platform, nvidia GPU)
It shows 156.60088862089

All you have to do is add a e09 to it and you get
<flops>156.60088862089e09</flops>

Your CPU is
<flops>62.12696862414e09</flops>

and AP is
<flops>32.098248233676e09</flops>
____________

ID: 1177346 ·

Claggy

Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 3360
Credit: 25,947,396
RAC: 1,286

Do you have <flops> values in your app_info?

Claggy

No the only alteration I have made is to the count, To be honest calculating flops and more advanced modifications to app_info or similar type files is above my comfort level.

I keep 3 copys of app_info.txt (count 1, 0.5, 0.33) and copy and paste in the right format when I need them. I know its cheating but it works for me.

My "programing" abilities are very low, so I have a bad habit of finding other ways that seem to work for me.

Flops are fairly easy to calculate as the needed numbers are in your applications details for the machine in question.

For example on the SETI@home Enhanced (anonymous platform, nvidia GPU)
It shows 156.60088862089

All you have to do is add a e09 to it and you get
<flops>156.60088862089e09</flops>

Your CPU is
<flops>62.12696862414e09</flops>

and AP is
<flops>32.098248233676e09</flops>

I wouldn't use the CPU MB flops value as CPU work has been rebranded to the GPU, and the APR of the CPU has been inflated, I'd use a figure of around 15e09 instead of 62.12e09

Claggy

ID: 1177354 ·

Kevin Olley
Send message
Joined: 3 Aug 99
Posts: 368
Credit: 33,586,072
RAC: 6,294

Flops are fairly easy to calculate as the needed numbers are in your applications details for the machine in question.

For example on the SETI@home Enhanced (anonymous platform, nvidia GPU)
It shows 156.60088862089

All you have to do is add a e09 to it and you get
<flops>156.60088862089e09</flops>

Your CPU is
<flops>62.12696862414e09</flops>

and AP is
<flops>32.098248233676e09</flops>

I wouldn't use the CPU MB flops value as CPU work has been rebranded to the GPU, and the APR of the CPU has been inflated, I'd use a figure of around 15e09 instead of 62.12e09

Claggy

OK, I can see where the figures are coming from and the potential problems that could be caused by my prior actions, but I am sorry I am still lost as to where in the app_info file I have to put this information.

I apologize for being a pain, but my computing skills (software, programing etc) are extremely limited.

____________
Kevin

ID: 1177366 ·

arkayn

Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 May 99
Posts: 3084
Credit: 40,050,226
RAC: 65,081

I stick mine right under the version number.

<app_info> <app> <name>setiathome_enhanced</name> </app> <file_info> <name>AK_v8b2_win_SSE3_AMD.exe</name> <executable/> </file_info> <app_version> <app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name> <version_num>603</version_num> <flops>15.812442866308e09</flops> <platform>windows_intelx86</platform> <file_ref> <file_name>AK_v8b2_win_SSE3_AMD.exe</file_name> <main_program/> </file_ref> </app_version> <app_version> <app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name> <version_num>603</version_num> <flops>15.812442866308e09</flops> <platform>windows_x86_64</platform> <file_ref> <file_name>AK_v8b2_win_SSE3_AMD.exe</file_name> <main_program/> </file_ref> </app_version> <app> <name>setiathome_enhanced</name> </app> <file_info> <name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda41rc1.exe</name> <executable/> </file_info> <file_info> <name>cudart32_41_15.dll</name> <executable/> </file_info> <file_info> <name>cufft32_41_15.dll</name> <executable/> </file_info> <app_version> <app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name> <version_num>610</version_num> <flops>203.99134720153e09</flops> <platform>windows_intelx86</platform> <plan_class>cuda_fermi</plan_class> <avg_ncpus>0.040000</avg_ncpus> <max_ncpus>0.040000</max_ncpus> <coproc>

You will need to add those numbers to all 6 occurrences of the GPU part.
____________

ID: 1177374 ·

Kevin Olley
Send message
Joined: 3 Aug 99
Posts: 368
Credit: 33,586,072
RAC: 6,294

I stick mine right under the version number.

You will need to add those numbers to all 6 occurrences of the GPU part.

Thank you

I shall stop rescheduling and let the numbers stabilise and then give it a try.

____________
Kevin

ID: 1177375 ·

Josef W. Segur

Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 3930
Credit: 934,263
RAC: 14

I stick mine right under the version number.

You will need to add those numbers to all 6 occurrences of the GPU part.

Thank you

I shall stop rescheduling and let the numbers stabilise and then give it a try.

Just before you add the <flops> entries, I suggest you use the rescheduler to protect against -177 errors for maximum elapsed time exceeded on cached tasks. The expert tab has a setting called something like "limit rsc_fpops_bound" which provides that protection when you do a reschedule, even if the other settings mean that no tasks are actually rescheduled. That's as much as I know, I hope someone with practical experience will provide a clearer explanation.

Those cached tasks will have scaled down rsc_fpops_est which is used to calculate estimated time, and rsc_fpops_bound which is used to calculate the time limit. The big increase in flops will make the times much shorter, but DCF will soon increase to fix the estimates. Unfortunately DCF isn't used for the limit.

Joe

ID: 1177396 ·

Kevin Olley
Send message
Joined: 3 Aug 99
Posts: 368
Credit: 33,586,072
RAC: 6,294

I stick mine right under the version number.

You will need to add those numbers to all 6 occurrences of the GPU part.

Thank you

I shall stop rescheduling and let the numbers stabilise and then give it a try.

Just before you add the <flops> entries, I suggest you use the rescheduler to protect against -177 errors for maximum elapsed time exceeded on cached tasks. The expert tab has a setting called something like "limit rsc_fpops_bound" which provides that protection when you do a reschedule, even if the other settings mean that no tasks are actually rescheduled. That's as much as I know, I hope someone with practical experience will provide a clearer explanation.

Those cached tasks will have scaled down rsc_fpops_est which is used to calculate estimated time, and rsc_fpops_bound which is used to calculate the time limit. The big increase in flops will make the times much shorter, but DCF will soon increase to fix the estimates. Unfortunately DCF isn't used for the limit.
Joe

It is one of the main reasons that I use reschedular for, the other is to get an estimate of how many VHAR's to regulars are residing in my cache.

____________
Kevin

ID: 1177418 ·

Starman
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 120
Credit: 17,527,915
RAC: 51,604

Well, I finally got some GPU work for this machine. In fact 6 AP WU's no less!
The only change I made (2 days ago) was to downgrade to 6.10.60. :)

____________

ID: 1178212 ·

AndyJ

Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 02
Posts: 248
Credit: 27,380,212
RAC: 616

I stick mine right under the version number.

You will need to add those numbers to all 6 occurrences of the GPU part.

Thank you

I shall stop rescheduling and let the numbers stabilise and then give it a try.

Just before you add the <flops> entries, I suggest you use the rescheduler to protect against -177 errors for maximum elapsed time exceeded on cached tasks. The expert tab has a setting called something like "limit rsc_fpops_bound" which provides that protection when you do a reschedule, even if the other settings mean that no tasks are actually rescheduled. That's as much as I know, I hope someone with practical experience will provide a clearer explanation.

Those cached tasks will have scaled down rsc_fpops_est which is used to calculate estimated time, and rsc_fpops_bound which is used to calculate the time limit. The big increase in flops will make the times much shorter, but DCF will soon increase to fix the estimates. Unfortunately DCF isn't used for the limit.
Joe

Good info Joe, I just put <flops> onto my main cruncher, got -17's. Will give this a try. Or is there a way to edit fpops in the app_info?

Regards,

A
____________

ID: 1178272 ·