It's broken. My first Astropulse 6 completed after 20 seconds. I want a refund. >:o(

That was a B3_P1 AP. Those have a problem and are about 98% of the time 100% blanked.

Take a look at the taskID for it and you'll see:

In ap_remove_radar.cpp: get_indices_to_randomize: num_ffts_forecast < 100.  Blanking too much RFI?

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

SHHH!! We're demanding refunds, just go along with it. ^^

I have another one trying to download now, I'll be interested to see the performance of the new application.

---

SHHH!! We're demanding refunds, just go along with it. ^^

I have another one trying to download now, I'll be interested to see the performance of the new application.

I think if you are issued a refund you forfeit ever being able to claim your free toaster.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!

This app works as I crunched 5 last night

ap_6.00_win_x86_SSE3_OpenCL_NV_r540.exe

AstroPulse_Kernels_r540.cl

The name of the application is v6 and call for 601 in the app_info.xml

1 hour 15 minutes approx / task

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?userid=8612202&offset=0&show_names=0&state=0&appid=12


Michael Miles

This app works as I crunched 5 last night

ap_6.00_win_x86_SSE3_OpenCL_NV_r540.exe

AstroPulse_Kernels_r540.cl

The name of the application is v6 and call for 601 in the app_info.xml

1 hour 15 minutes approx / task

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?userid=8612202&offset=0&show_names=0&state=0&appid=12


Michael Miles

Please don't use the NV r540 app, as it doesn't have the code included in the v6 6.01 apps, run the NV r555 app instead.

Claggy

This app works as I crunched 5 last night

ap_6.00_win_x86_SSE3_OpenCL_NV_r540.exe

AstroPulse_Kernels_r540.cl

The name of the application is v6 and call for 601 in the app_info.xml

1 hour 15 minutes approx / task

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?userid=8612202&offset=0&show_names=0&state=0&appid=12


Michael Miles

ouch, is that still online? [assorted swearwords]
Where did you get that from? It's a AP 6.00 it doesn't contain the code the validator needs to detect outliers!

Please replace ASAP with this.
Haven't gotten around to write an appropriate app_info entry but

<cmdline>-instances_per_device 1 -unroll 4 -ffa_block 2048 -ffa_block_fetch 1024 -sbs 128</cmdline>

should be a good if low starting point.

---

I'm not the Pope. I don't speak Ex Cathedra!

Roger that
Thank you

Small discrepancy in different ReadMe files

Here:
http://lunatics.kwsn.net/index.php?module=Downloads;sa=dlview;id=328
http://lunatics.kwsn.net/downloads/Lunatics%20ReadMev0.40.txt

"You will usually find that the SSSE3x application is fastest on the Intel
processors which support SSSE3x, except on dual-core CPUs with especially fast
memory subsystems."

Somehow the last part was deleted (Or not added initially? "Lunatics ReadMe.txt" found back in Lunatics_Win??_v0.38_setup.exe have the same omission).

In other places (ReleaseNotes.txt, first post here) the sentence is:

"You will usually find that the SSSE3x application is fastest on the Intel
processors which support SSSE3x, except on dual-core CPUs with especially fast
memory subsystems, where SSE4.1 may be faster."

---

 


- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)
 

I installed v0.40 on this pc and initially it went well, but after about 20 Cuda tasks I noticed a sharp drop in processing rate.
MSI Afterburner tells me the GPU load of only 2% with an occasional peak to 90%. I run 2 tasks at the same time on this 560Ti and the normal GPU load is 95-97%.


The result files (stderr output) do not show any information that indicates a problem.

What can I do to solve this?

---

Seti@Netherlands website

I went back to Lunatics_x38g_win32_cuda32.exe (only exchanged the Cuda executable and modified app_info accordingly) and it runs ok now.

Looked at most of the tasks finished today on this host and around 10-15% of these tasks took 10x the usual time. The usual time for a 2.7 AR task is 3 minutes, now some of them took 1800-3200 seconds.

I went back to Lunatics_x38g_win32_cuda32.exe (only exchanged the Cuda executable and modified app_info accordingly) and it runs ok now.

Looked at most of the tasks finished today on this host and around 10-15% of these tasks took 10x the usual time. The usual time for a 2.7 AR task is 3 minutes, now some of them took 1800-3200 seconds.

host/task links please. we didn't change anything in that ares from v0.39 but yours is iirc the second report of sudden speed loss.

driver version?

edit sorry, you gave that info already. I'm too tired...

560Ti? They are known to cause trouble with later x-branch, when they start getting pushed. jason has a post somewhere that lists about a dozen things you can check...

---

I'm not the Pope. I don't speak Ex Cathedra!

I went back to Lunatics_x38g_win32_cuda32.exe (only exchanged the Cuda executable and modified app_info accordingly) and it runs ok now.

Looked at most of the tasks finished today on this host and around 10-15% of these tasks took 10x the usual time. The usual time for a 2.7 AR task is 3 minutes, now some of them took 1800-3200 seconds.

host/task links please. we didn't change anything in that ares from v0.39 but yours is iirc the second report of sudden speed loss.

driver version?

There's a link in the first post - host ID 5907499, driver 275.33

I'm trying to remember the history of x41g and 560Ti cards - I may need to do some digging. I think we had some early reports that some early samples of the 560Ti weren't being supplied with enough voltage to support the increased optimisation (equals workload) of x41g.

I went back to Lunatics_x38g_win32_cuda32.exe (only exchanged the Cuda executable and modified app_info accordingly) and it runs ok now.

Looked at most of the tasks finished today on this host and around 10-15% of these tasks took 10x the usual time. The usual time for a 2.7 AR task is 3 minutes, now some of them took 1800-3200 seconds.

host/task links please. we didn't change anything in that ares from v0.39 but yours is iirc the second report of sudden speed loss.

driver version?

There's a link in the first post - host ID 5907499, driver 275.33

I'm trying to remember the history of x41g and 560Ti cards - I may need to do some digging. I think we had some early reports that some early samples of the 560Ti weren't being supplied with enough voltage to support the increased optimisation (equals workload) of x41g.

Looked through and spotted some long running shorties. There are major things to check with 560ti:
- sufficient core voltage such that it doesn't downclock (couldn't see evidence of downclock online, but possible)
- Running a solid state drive ? Make really sure its firmware is up to date... then check again. ( Yes this causes problems with Cuda apps due to broken SSDs hogging DMA, that was a real toughy to find )
- Update driver using the "clean Install" Advanced Option
- [Check temperatures] x41g pushes harder.
- running other projects with non-threadsafe Cuda apps ?
- If you run into those long runners, check the file sizes on those tasks... Could be a reappearance of those freaked out tasks, or corruption during download of some sort

Jason

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

- If you run into those long runners, check the file sizes on those tasks... Could be a reappearance of those freaked out tasks, or corruption during download of some sort

Jason

The mega-WUs only caused an extended delay at startup, while the coded receiver data was re-assembled using the CPU. Once the task got into its stride, the CUDA part ran at normal speed. Any other workunit corruption would have caused an error, not a slowdown - like an MD5 error, of a filesize mismatch during download, I'd have thought.

- If you run into those long runners, check the file sizes on those tasks... Could be a reappearance of those freaked out tasks, or corruption during download of some sort

Jason

The mega-WUs only caused an extended delay at startup, while the coded receiver data was re-assembled using the CPU. Once the task got into its stride, the CUDA part ran at normal speed. Any other workunit corruption would have caused an error, not a slowdown - like an MD5 error, of a filesize mismatch during download, I'd have thought.

Could be. Just trying to list as many options to cover as I can recall. The 560ti were also originally sold with some crackpot drivers ( 266.66) that messed up a hidden Cuda kernel compute cache if they were ever installed, though doesn't look like the problem here.

I'm wagering on the other project, or SSD issues until we hear more back from the OP

[Edit:] While I'm asleep, If the OP eliminates those possiilities & still has trouble, I'd like yourself or other Lunatics crew to trial the x41u Cuda 4.1 build on the same machine if possible with the OP (would need attention to driver version etc). I'm in the process of cosmetic cleanups, mostly Kepler related, and intend to release after this AP 6.01 transition dust has settled anyway.

x41g should work just as well as x38g on that card really, but x41u Cuda 4.1 is in a different league on 560ti.

Jason

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

Looked through and spotted some long running shorties. There are major things to check with 560ti:
- sufficient core voltage such that it doesn't downclock (couldn't see evidence of downclock online, but possible)
- Running a solid state drive ? Make really sure its firmware is up to date... then check again. ( Yes this causes problems with Cuda apps due to broken SSDs hogging DMA, that was a real toughy to find )
- Update driver using the "clean Install" Advanced Option
- [Check temperatures] x41g pushes harder.
- running other projects with non-threadsafe Cuda apps ?
- If you run into those long runners, check the file sizes on those tasks... Could be a reappearance of those freaked out tasks, or corruption during download of some sort

Jason

1. This pc was running 24-7 in this configuration since September 25 2011. The 560Ti never showed any sign of downclocking. MSI Afterburner confirmed that nothing happened with the clockrates.
2. No SSD
3. Will update the driver and let you know the result.
4. As you can see in the Afterburner screenshot, the temperature was 60°C. Now with x38g running, the temperature is 70°C at 63% fan speed
5. No other Cuda apps were running

One other thing I should mention: prior to installing v0.40 I updated Boinc from 6.10.58 to the current 6.12.34.

1. This pc was running 24-7 in this configuration since September 25 2011. The 560Ti never showed any sign of downclocking. MSI Afterburner confirmed that nothing happened with the clockrates.
2. No SSD
3. Will update the driver and let you know the result.
4. As you can see in the Afterburner screenshot, the temperature was 60°C. Now with x38g running, the temperature is 70°C at 63% fan speed
5. No other Cuda apps were running

One other thing I should mention: prior to installing v0.40 I updated Boinc from 5.10.58 to the current 6.12.34.

Hmm, definitely weird. Well we'll find out one way or another. With those things eliminated, if after updating driver you still get weirdness, we will get you testing x41u. Can't very well push out an updated release next week if there is some unknown latent problem lurking.

Thanks for the cross-checking.

Jason

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

If either John van Gorsel or Victor is game to try out the experimental x41u version, please PM me. I have them here ready to email (tell me your email address), or if you prefer I can find a hosting site for you to download from.

PMed email addy.

---

So just to confirm, when I get to this, which may be a week from now, i7-2 will be fastest with SSE3 correct? Or should I try SSSE4.x as it's a i7-2?