Message boards :
Number crunching :
Lunatics Windows Installer v0.40 release notes
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 14 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
LadyL Send message Joined: 14 Sep 11 Posts: 1679 Credit: 5,230,097 RAC: 0 |
This app works as I crunched 5 last night 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! |
Michael W.F. Miles Send message Joined: 24 Mar 07 Posts: 268 Credit: 34,410,870 RAC: 0 |
Roger that Thank you |
BilBg Send message Joined: 27 May 07 Posts: 3720 Credit: 9,385,827 RAC: 0 |
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." Â - ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :) Â |
S@NL - John van Gorsel Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 193 Credit: 139,673,078 RAC: 0 |
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 |
S@NL - John van Gorsel Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 193 Credit: 139,673,078 RAC: 0 |
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. |
LadyL Send message Joined: 14 Sep 11 Posts: 1679 Credit: 5,230,097 RAC: 0 |
I went back to Lunatics_x38g_win32_cuda32.exe (only exchanged the Cuda executable and modified app_info accordingly) and it runs ok now. 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! |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14650 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
I went back to Lunatics_x38g_win32_cuda32.exe (only exchanged the Cuda executable and modified app_info accordingly) and it runs ok now. 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. |
jason_gee Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 |
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 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. |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14650 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
- 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 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. |
jason_gee Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 |
- 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 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. |
S@NL - John van Gorsel Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 193 Credit: 139,673,078 RAC: 0 |
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. |
jason_gee Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 |
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. 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. |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14650 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
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. |
zoom3+1=4 Send message Joined: 30 Nov 03 Posts: 65750 Credit: 55,293,173 RAC: 49 |
|
Dave Send message Joined: 29 Mar 02 Posts: 778 Credit: 25,001,396 RAC: 0 |
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? |
Josef W. Segur Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 4504 Credit: 1,414,761 RAC: 0 |
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? Any i7 should like the SSE3 better. Both the SSSE3x and SSE4.1 builds are really meant for Intel Core 2 architecture and are suboptimal for later Intel developments. Joe |
S@NL - John van Gorsel Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 193 Credit: 139,673,078 RAC: 0 |
Some additional info: Did a clean install of the latest nVidia driver (296.10), and reinstalled v0.40, and only changed the <count> tag to 0.5. I immediately noticed the intermittent load on the GPU, and both instances of the exe in the TaskManager confirmed this. Screenshot of Afterburner: Just to be sure, I installed v0.40 again and left the <count> tag at 1. When I looked at the Afterburner graph I remembered having seen the same thing on my Linux pc's after I installed x41g a couple of weeks ago. All I needed to do was free up one core (set the "Use at most ...% of the processors" to 75% or 90%). In the graph below you can see where I set the processor use to 75%: The Linux pc's were running GTX260 cards so it seem unrelated to the GTX560Ti. I have one other pc running a GTX580 and x38g (3 tasks simultanously, GPU load is a straight line at 96%). I can install x41g on that pc and see what happens. Also no problem to test the x41u on the Q9660/GTX560Ti. This pc is only used for testing and running Boinc. I will send a PM to Richard. |
JLConawayII Send message Joined: 2 Apr 02 Posts: 188 Credit: 2,840,460 RAC: 0 |
That looks identical to my ATI utilization when it's trying to run a VLAR. edit: And, apparently, some normally marked WU's as well. Except CPU load has no effect on mine, it stays low. http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=2373271846 This one, for instance, showed low utilization, where this one http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=2373271874 ran at 89% utilization and completed 5x faster |
Michael W.F. Miles Send message Joined: 24 Mar 07 Posts: 268 Credit: 34,410,870 RAC: 0 |
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 validated http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=2370788573 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=2371083839 These where the 540 app Curious if the validation code was not in then it should not have validated? I am running 555 app now Thanks for the app |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14650 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
v6.00 with r540 should validate against v6.01 with r555. The difference between them is not in task validation, but another part of the code which helps to keep the project running smoothly, with sensible runtime estimates. That bit affects us all, so it would be a great help if people could ensure that they are running at least r555 as in the installer, not any earlier beta version - as Michael is now doing. Thank you. |
©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.