Lunatics Windows Installer v0.40 release notes

Message boards : Number crunching : Lunatics Windows Installer v0.40 release notes
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 . . . 14 · Next

AuthorMessage
Horacio

Send message
Joined: 14 Jan 00
Posts: 536
Credit: 75,967,266
RAC: 0
Argentina
Message 1211337 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 0:03:47 UTC - in response to Message 1211323.  

/HUG Jason


LoL, thanks, helps a lot :D

...Now everyone hold hands, lol.


Well I think indeed sleeping on the problem is going to be the best idea. There are the mentioned workarounds of freeing cores & raising priorties, so we're not stuck yet :)

Thanks all


Ive noticed this weird long running tasks some time ago but was only on some shorties... Ive thought it was an error on the ETS and I forgot about it.

Now, Ive tried the Process Lasso on the host with the 560Ti's and Im crunching at twice the speed on WUs that have the same estimated task size... (may be there is some difference in the AR acting up, but definatelly the GPU usage went up...) Ill let it run a bit more and then Ill try the same on the other hosts...

One thing to share about process lasso, Im system engineer and Ive felt a bit intimidated about touching those settings (may be, because I know all the things that could go wrong :D ) So if it were to me, I would preffer to have a command line option or a separated version selectable from the isntaller or whatever that dont rely on a priority rescheduler... Just a though...
ID: 1211337 · Report as offensive
JLConawayII

Send message
Joined: 2 Apr 02
Posts: 188
Credit: 2,840,460
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1211340 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 0:19:05 UTC

If I remember correctly, Folding@home has such a setting for making task priority higher if you're having trouble with the GPU client.
ID: 1211340 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14644
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 1211346 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 0:40:22 UTC - in response to Message 1211340.  

If I remember correctly, Folding@home has such a setting for making task priority higher if you're having trouble with the GPU client.

So does GPUGrid, with their SWAN_SYNC environment variable - which, I gather, is supposed to switch the app from busy-wait to polling for synchronisation, or vice versa, or something. Never seemed to make much difference for me, but it's another way of getting control options from the user to the application.
ID: 1211346 · Report as offensive
Josef W. Segur
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4504
Credit: 1,414,761
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1211365 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 1:45:07 UTC

A couple of comments on freeing one core, as a refinement but not as a recommendation.

For any host with up to 100 CPU cores, setting 99% frees one core. BOINC rounds down to the nearest fraction.

I wouldn't use that setting. Instead, when setting the <count> fields to control how many GPU tasks run at once I'd set the <avg_ncpus> fields such that when all GPUs had work there would be a CPU core freed, but if GPU work was running out all CPU cores would go back to doing pure CPU tasks. For a single GPU situation, <avg_ncpus> would be the same as or a tiny bit higher than <count>, for multiple GPUs it would scale down:

            1 GPU       2 GPUs       3 GPUs
<count>  <avg_ncpus>  <avg_ncpus>  <avg_ncpus>
  0.5        0.5          0.25         0.167
  0.33       0.34         0.167        0.112
  0.25       0.25         0.125        0.084
  0.2        0.2          0.1          0.067
                                                                   Joe
ID: 1211365 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13715
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 1211420 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 4:52:39 UTC - in response to Message 1211326.  
Last modified: 29 Mar 2012, 4:54:22 UTC

How many people have posted in this thread? Without counting, I'd guess at fewer than 20. What do the other 660 think?

I only do MB work, so i haven't bothered with the latest release as it doesn't affect me.

The advantage of the Lunatics installer is that allows pretty much anyone to install an optimised application without having to muck around manually copying & editing files. Adding yet more options, command line switches & other refinements detracts from the whole point of the installer IMHO. It's meant to make things simple, not more complicated.
I think at most you might want to have a screen during setup that mentions that some people may have some issues, and point them to the readme file for more information.


I'm happy with things the way they are at present- i ran the installer, edited the config file to run 2 WUs at a time on the GPU & then just let it do it's thing. If people want to reserve a Core or tweak other settings to get another .5% boost in throughput then they can go for it. But i wouldn't have those options as part of the installer.
Just tell people at the start (and end for those with short memories) of the installation to read the readme file for known issues, and their possible work arounds.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1211420 · Report as offensive
Profile jason_gee
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 7489
Credit: 91,093,184
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 1211422 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 5:04:10 UTC - in response to Message 1211420.  
Last modified: 29 Mar 2012, 5:04:33 UTC

How many people have posted in this thread? Without counting, I'd guess at fewer than 20. What do the other 660 think?

I only do MB work, so i haven't bothered with the latest release as it doesn't affect me.

The advantage of the Lunatics installer is that allows pretty much anyone to install an optimised application without having to muck around manually copying & editing files. Adding yet more options, command line switches & other refinements detracts from the whole point of the installer IMHO. It's meant to make things simple, not more complicated.
I think at most you might want to have a screen during setup that mentions that some people may have some issues, and point them to the readme file for more information.


I'm happy with things the way they are at present- i ran the installer, edited the config file to run 2 WUs at a time on the GPU & then just let it do it's thing. If people want to reserve a Core or tweak other settings to get another .5% boost in throughput then they can go for it. But i wouldn't have those options as part of the installer.
Just tell people at the start (and end for those with short memories) of the installation to read the readme file for known issues, and their possible work arounds.


Thanks Grant,
That's the original direction I was coming from. I'll remain avoiding making anything needlessly complex for standard running.

Cheers,
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.
ID: 1211422 · Report as offensive
Profile Sutaru Tsureku
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7105
Credit: 147,663,825
RAC: 5
Germany
Message 1211428 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 5:42:13 UTC
Last modified: 29 Mar 2012, 6:01:26 UTC

I forgot something..
A big 'Thank you!' to all who are in the Lunatics crew - and who are involved the we have the Lunatics Installers!


Just a few ideas of one S@h member..

It's possible to extend the CUDA app with cmdline settings, so the members could in-/decrease the priority himself?

It's possible to make a bench-test tool, a very easy for noobs like me, one click and the program say which app (CPU extension usage) is the best/fastest for the machine?

For S@h Enhanced (MultiBeam) and Astropulse apps?

This would be very helpful and nice..

Thanks a lot!


I just wanted to make a bench-test for to see which AP 6.01 app (r555 vs. r557) is faster on my machine, but I failed..


- Best regards! - Sutaru Tsureku, team seti.international founder. - Optimize your PC for higher RAC. - SETI@home needs your help. -
ID: 1211428 · Report as offensive
Profile Mark Wyzenbeek
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Jun 99
Posts: 134
Credit: 6,203,079
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1211430 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 6:00:09 UTC - in response to Message 1211420.  

How many people have posted in this thread? Without counting, I'd guess at fewer than 20. What do the other 660 think?


I ran the installer without trouble. I've finally downloaded a couple AP workunits but haven't started crunching them yet. I don't have a fancy GPU to use.

Thanks for the update!
The Universe is not only stranger than you imagine, it's stranger than you can imagine.

SETI@home classic workunits 1,405 CPU time 57,318 hours
ID: 1211430 · Report as offensive
Horacio

Send message
Joined: 14 Jan 00
Posts: 536
Credit: 75,967,266
RAC: 0
Argentina
Message 1211434 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 6:25:19 UTC - in response to Message 1211422.  

I'm happy with things the way they are at present- i ran the installer, edited the config file to run 2 WUs at a time on the GPU & then just let it do it's thing. If people want to reserve a Core or tweak other settings to get another .5% boost in throughput then they can go for it. But i wouldn't have those options as part of the installer.
Just tell people at the start (and end for those with short memories) of the installation to read the readme file for known issues, and their possible work arounds.


Thanks Grant,
That's the original direction I was coming from. I'll remain avoiding making anything needlessly complex for standard running.

Cheers,
Jason


I agree with the part about not making the installation more complex, but I still think that relying on process lasso or any 3rd party tool to make one app to work almost twice faster dosnt sounds good...
The optional command line to be edited manually (or an enviroment variable or whatever inside BOINC/SETI apps) sounds better from (my) user's point of view...

About few people downloading this, In my case Ive dowloaded it for one new host devoted exclusively for Seti in which I dont care what it does as long as it is crunching but, Im not running the CPU AP apps in the other hosts cause is not efficient (for my taste, of course) so I might not have need of this new installation... I guess there is a lot of people in the same situation, not needing/wanting the CPU AP app...

Again, Im just sharing my thought not saying what Lunatics should do...
ID: 1211434 · Report as offensive
Profile jason_gee
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 7489
Credit: 91,093,184
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 1211436 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 6:32:10 UTC - in response to Message 1211434.  
Last modified: 29 Mar 2012, 6:33:25 UTC

I'm happy with things the way they are at present- i ran the installer, edited the config file to run 2 WUs at a time on the GPU & then just let it do it's thing. If people want to reserve a Core or tweak other settings to get another .5% boost in throughput then they can go for it. But i wouldn't have those options as part of the installer.
Just tell people at the start (and end for those with short memories) of the installation to read the readme file for known issues, and their possible work arounds.


Thanks Grant,
That's the original direction I was coming from. I'll remain avoiding making anything needlessly complex for standard running.

Cheers,
Jason


I agree with the part about not making the installation more complex, but I still think that relying on process lasso or any 3rd party tool to make one app to work almost twice faster dosnt sounds good...
The optional command line to be edited manually (or an enviroment variable or whatever inside BOINC/SETI apps) sounds better from (my) user's point of view...

About few people downloading this, In my case Ive dowloaded it for one new host devoted exclusively for Seti in which I dont care what it does as long as it is crunching but, Im not running the CPU AP apps in the other hosts cause is not efficient (for my taste, of course) so I might not have need of this new installation... I guess there is a lot of people in the same situation, not needing/wanting the CPU AP app...

Again, Im just sharing my thought not saying what Lunatics should do...


Thanks, It'll all be considered for next release (Kepler GPU refresh + performance updates), taking into account that some users appear to need added functionality.
"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.
ID: 1211436 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 18996
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1211441 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 7:00:32 UTC - in response to Message 1211326.  

How many people have posted in this thread? Without counting, I'd guess at fewer than 20. What do the other 660 think?


As one of the others, I report that on old h/ware, q6600 & gt250, the installation went without incident and the computer is crunching as expected. AP tasks have been hard to grab but now have a couple that should start later today, or early tomorrow.

Think you should take the opinion that "no news, is good news". People don't usually hesitate to complain.
ID: 1211441 · Report as offensive
KB7RZF
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Aug 99
Posts: 9549
Credit: 3,308,926
RAC: 2
United States
Message 1211448 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 7:28:51 UTC

Being someone who just runs CPU, I love the installer. And since I run whatever is thrown my way on my 2 computers, I updated to this latest installer. I don't really have time or money to deal with GPU's right now, I'd like to, but just don't have the time. Maybe next year? LOL

Thank you to the Lunatic's Crew for everything you guys and gals have done. Its outstanding work, has made installing these optimized app's so much easier even the non-techie folks can do it. I have always admired that we have some of the most dedicated folks here on this project that enjoy helping others, and not getting frustrated even when questions are posed more than once. I'm sure once things calm down for me, I'll be one of those who asks. There is a lot of information on these boards, and instead of trying to sift through it all, its easier to get it answered the right way without having to dig through so much info.


ID: 1211448 · Report as offensive
LadyL
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Sep 11
Posts: 1679
Credit: 5,230,097
RAC: 0
Message 1211477 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 9:39:51 UTC

Seeing the thread exploded over night, if I don't get to your question, please don't hesitate to repeat it.

@Micheal Miles - The NVidia OpenCL apps run on 270+ drivers but hog a CPU core. You'll either have overcommit or you can do a workaround and free one core - I think Joe posted how to do that.
I'm not the Pope. I don't speak Ex Cathedra!
ID: 1211477 · Report as offensive
LadyL
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Sep 11
Posts: 1679
Credit: 5,230,097
RAC: 0
Message 1211478 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 9:42:06 UTC - in response to Message 1211285.  

Will those work to fix this on the ATI client as well? I don't understand why half of my WUs run normally and half of them crap out.



James - we just deliver the parcel. That's a question to put to Raistmer and ask him to look into and possibly fix.
I'm not the Pope. I don't speak Ex Cathedra!
ID: 1211478 · Report as offensive
LadyL
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Sep 11
Posts: 1679
Credit: 5,230,097
RAC: 0
Message 1211482 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 9:48:09 UTC - in response to Message 1211365.  

A couple of comments on freeing one core, as a refinement but not as a recommendation.

For any host with up to 100 CPU cores, setting 99% frees one core. BOINC rounds down to the nearest fraction.

I wouldn't use that setting. Instead, when setting the <count> fields to control how many GPU tasks run at once I'd set the <avg_ncpus> fields such that when all GPUs had work there would be a CPU core freed, but if GPU work was running out all CPU cores would go back to doing pure CPU tasks. For a single GPU situation, <avg_ncpus> would be the same as or a tiny bit higher than <count>, for multiple GPUs it would scale down:

            1 GPU       2 GPUs       3 GPUs
<count>  <avg_ncpus>  <avg_ncpus>  <avg_ncpus>
  0.5        0.5          0.25         0.167
  0.33       0.34         0.167        0.112
  0.25       0.25         0.125        0.084
  0.2        0.2          0.1          0.067
                                                                   Joe


Joe are you sure it's 1 and not >1? Besides the float representation may lead to values slightly smaller than 1 when adding up... I'd rather play safe and add another % of fraction.
I'm not the Pope. I don't speak Ex Cathedra!
ID: 1211482 · Report as offensive
LadyL
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Sep 11
Posts: 1679
Credit: 5,230,097
RAC: 0
Message 1211489 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 10:37:19 UTC - in response to Message 1211428.  

It's possible to extend the CUDA app with cmdline settings, so the members could in-/decrease the priority himself?

Everything is possible. Whether it's practical is a differnt question and whether I sanction it... IMO the less knobs the better. There is such a thing as too many tuning options. PnP - not endless fumbling to find another half % of speed.

It's possible to make a bench-test tool, a very easy for noobs like me, one click and the program say which app (CPU extension usage) is the best/fastest for the machine?

For S@h Enhanced (MultiBeam) and Astropulse apps?

This would be very helpful and nice..

Sutaru, you've been running benches for ages.
If somebody has too much time, they are very welcome to take our test WUs and our benching scripts and write a nice colourful program, that does the thinking for you. Anyway, as far as I know, we are on our way to get rid of that bit. Would certainly make my life easier.

I just wanted to make a bench-test for to see which AP 6.01 app (r555 vs. r557) is faster on my machine, but I failed..

http://lunatics.kwsn.net/index.php?module=Downloads;catd=44

looks like I haven't gotten around to put the AP bench online. Ok, now.
unzip preserving folder strcuture, add apps, add WUs - available separately.
I'm not the Pope. I don't speak Ex Cathedra!
ID: 1211489 · Report as offensive
Profile Cliff Harding
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 99
Posts: 1432
Credit: 110,967,840
RAC: 67
United States
Message 1211503 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 12:53:03 UTC

In the last 24hrs I have noticed that the cpu scheduler has been preempting the GPU tasks and running CPU tasks at high-priority. The machine (A-SYS) is an i7/750/6Gb/ram/Win7 Ultimate/64-bit/EVGA GTX460SE/EVGA GTS250, BOINC 7.0.22, Lunatics 0.40. All app_info.xml settings are default except the GPU count. Machine is running at 85% CPU (6 cores), leaving 2 cores for GPU processing at 2 tasks each.

29-Mar-2012 00:17:37 [SETI@home] [cpu_sched] Preempting 07jn11ad.2890.1299.14.10.112_1 (removed from memory)
29-Mar-2012 00:17:37 [SETI@home] [cpu_sched] Preempting 15my11aa.14592.481.6.10.229_0 (removed from memory)
29-Mar-2012 00:17:37 [SETI@home] [cpu_sched] Preempting 15my11aa.7272.1708.9.10.247_1 (removed from memory)
29-Mar-2012 00:17:37 [SETI@home] [cpu_sched] Preempting 07jn11ad.2890.1299.14.10.113_0 (removed from memory)
29-Mar-2012 00:17:37 [SETI@home] [cpu_sched] Preempting 17jn11ac.25044.322838.4.10.148_2 (removed from memory)


was the last time that preempting occurred and is still in effect. The CPU tasks started doing this with deadlines of 10 April and estimated run times for them are approx 30 minutes each. It is now working on ones for 11 April.

I exited the BM, stopping all work and restarted Boinc with nothing changing. Also recycled the machine with the same results.

I also have 8 AP6 6.01 (6 d/l'ed on 27 March, 2 on 28 March) with expected deadline of 21/22 April. When the first of these tasks came in they had a estimated running time of appro 120 hours each. During the last two days I have noticed the estimated run time go from 120 to 71 to 172 hours.

Questions:
1) Why are the GPU tasks being preempted when this did not occur in Lunatics 0.39?

2) Is the scheduler just clearing out the machine as fast as possible to allow room for the AP6 tasks?

3) Do I have a major problem here? I don't want to regress to Lunatics 0.39 because of the new AP6 units.

4) Do I need to test the new _41x?


I don't buy computers, I build them!!
ID: 1211503 · Report as offensive
Profile red-ray
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jun 99
Posts: 308
Credit: 9,029,848
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1211508 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 13:01:50 UTC - in response to Message 1211503.  
Last modified: 29 Mar 2012, 13:02:11 UTC

I get the same all the time when my DCF jumps after a slow GPU finishes. What is your current DCF? You may wish to update cc_config.xml to show the DCF changes.

<cc_config>
<log_flags>
<dcf_debug>1</dcf_debug>
ID: 1211508 · Report as offensive
tbret
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 3380
Credit: 296,162,071
RAC: 40
United States
Message 1211510 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 13:06:16 UTC - in response to Message 1211503.  

In the last 24hrs I have noticed that the cpu scheduler has been preempting the GPU tasks and running CPU tasks at high-priority. The machine (A-SYS) is an i7/750/6Gb/ram/Win7 Ultimate/64-bit/EVGA GTX460SE/EVGA GTS250, BOINC 7.0.22, Lunatics 0.40. All app_info.xml settings are default except the GPU count. Machine is running at 85% CPU (6 cores), leaving 2 cores for GPU processing at 2 tasks each.

29-Mar-2012 00:17:37 [SETI@home] [cpu_sched] Preempting 07jn11ad.2890.1299.14.10.112_1 (removed from memory)
29-Mar-2012 00:17:37 [SETI@home] [cpu_sched] Preempting 15my11aa.14592.481.6.10.229_0 (removed from memory)
29-Mar-2012 00:17:37 [SETI@home] [cpu_sched] Preempting 15my11aa.7272.1708.9.10.247_1 (removed from memory)
29-Mar-2012 00:17:37 [SETI@home] [cpu_sched] Preempting 07jn11ad.2890.1299.14.10.113_0 (removed from memory)
29-Mar-2012 00:17:37 [SETI@home] [cpu_sched] Preempting 17jn11ac.25044.322838.4.10.148_2 (removed from memory)


was the last time that preempting occurred and is still in effect. The CPU tasks started doing this with deadlines of 10 April and estimated run times for them are approx 30 minutes each. It is now working on ones for 11 April.

I exited the BM, stopping all work and restarted Boinc with nothing changing. Also recycled the machine with the same results.

I also have 8 AP6 6.01 (6 d/l'ed on 27 March, 2 on 28 March) with expected deadline of 21/22 April. When the first of these tasks came in they had a estimated running time of appro 120 hours each. During the last two days I have noticed the estimated run time go from 120 to 71 to 172 hours.

Questions:
1) Why are the GPU tasks being preempted when this did not occur in Lunatics 0.39?

2) Is the scheduler just clearing out the machine as fast as possible to allow room for the AP6 tasks?

3) Do I have a major problem here? I don't want to regress to Lunatics 0.39 because of the new AP6 units.

4) Do I need to test the new _41x?


Must be something to do with your specific situation.

My eight-banger AMD is running 4 cores only, but two nVidia cards two at a time with no interference. Like you, I'm looking forward to seeing what AVX does with AP v6 when I finally get to them.
ID: 1211510 · Report as offensive
Profile Cliff Harding
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 99
Posts: 1432
Credit: 110,967,840
RAC: 67
United States
Message 1211511 - Posted: 29 Mar 2012, 13:20:04 UTC - in response to Message 1211508.  

I get the same all the time when my DCF jumps after a slow GPU finishes. What is your current DCF? You may wish to update cc_config.xml to show the DCF changes.

<cc_config>
<log_flags>
<dcf_debug>1</dcf_debug>


Modified the cc_config.xml and reread it.
03/29/2012 09:06:07 | | Re-reading cc_config.xml
03/29/2012 09:06:07 | | Config: use all coprocessors
03/29/2012 09:06:07 | Milkyway@Home | Config: excluded GPU. Type: all. App: milkyway. Device: 1
03/29/2012 09:06:07 | | log flags: file_xfer, sched_ops, task, cpu_sched, dcf_debug, sched_op_debug
03/29/2012 09:06:11 | SETI@home | Computation for task 06jn11ab.31414.9883.7.10.59_0 finished
03/29/2012 09:06:11 | SETI@home | [dcf] DCF: 1.006398->1.006192, raw_ratio 1.004339, adj_ratio 0.997954
03/29/2012 09:06:11 | SETI@home | Starting task 20my11ad.5048.16018.13.10.110_0 using setiathome_enhanced version 603 in slot 2
03/29/2012 09:06:13 | SETI@home | Started upload of 06jn11ab.31414.9883.7.10.59_0_0
03/29/2012 09:06:23 | SETI@home | Computation for task 06jn11aa.24762.11110.3.10.232_0 finished
03/29/2012 09:06:23 | SETI@home | [dcf] DCF: 1.006192->1.005995, raw_ratio 1.004220, adj_ratio 0.998039
03/29/2012 09:06:23 | SETI@home | Starting task 24my11af.14050.16427.3.10.118_0 using setiathome_enhanced version 603 in slot 7



I don't buy computers, I build them!!
ID: 1211511 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 . . . 14 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Lunatics Windows Installer v0.40 release notes


 
©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.