Lunatics Windows Installer v0.40 release notes


log in

Advanced search

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

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 14 · Next
Author Message
Cosmic_Ocean
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Dec 00
Posts: 2250
Credit: 8,601,778
RAC: 4,306
United States
Message 1210777 - Posted: 27 Mar 2012, 23:30:28 UTC - in response to Message 1210755.

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 uptime: 1484d 22h 42m
Ended due to UPS failure, found 14 hours after the fact

JLConawayII
Send message
Joined: 2 Apr 02
Posts: 186
Credit: 2,762,491
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1210781 - Posted: 27 Mar 2012, 23:48:01 UTC
Last modified: 27 Mar 2012, 23:49:19 UTC

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.
____________

Profile HAL9000
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 99
Posts: 4087
Credit: 111,874,219
RAC: 147,962
United States
Message 1210784 - Posted: 27 Mar 2012, 23:55:16 UTC - in response to Message 1210781.

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!

Profile Michael W.F. Miles
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Mar 07
Posts: 238
Credit: 28,036,039
RAC: 18,650
Canada
Message 1210859 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 4:06:20 UTC

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

ClaggyProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4072
Credit: 32,910,940
RAC: 7,797
United Kingdom
Message 1210936 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 8:19:44 UTC - in response to Message 1210859.
Last modified: 28 Mar 2012, 8:24:50 UTC

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

LadyL
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Sep 11
Posts: 1679
Credit: 5,230,097
RAC: 0
Message 1210938 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 8:34:06 UTC - in response to Message 1210859.

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!

Profile Michael W.F. Miles
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Mar 07
Posts: 238
Credit: 28,036,039
RAC: 18,650
Canada
Message 1210946 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 8:57:29 UTC

Roger that
Thank you

Profile BilBg
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 May 07
Posts: 2649
Credit: 6,006,991
RAC: 4,205
Bulgaria
Message 1211081 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 15:31:39 UTC - in response to Message 1210310.
Last modified: 28 Mar 2012, 15:54:15 UTC


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!" :)

S@NL - John van GorselProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 190
Credit: 137,413,133
RAC: 23,267
Netherlands
Message 1211085 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 15:55:51 UTC
Last modified: 28 Mar 2012, 15:56:59 UTC

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 GorselProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 190
Credit: 137,413,133
RAC: 23,267
Netherlands
Message 1211120 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 17:20:49 UTC
Last modified: 28 Mar 2012, 17:21:20 UTC

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
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Sep 11
Posts: 1679
Credit: 5,230,097
RAC: 0
Message 1211128 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 17:31:36 UTC - in response to Message 1211120.
Last modified: 28 Mar 2012, 17:35:53 UTC

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!

Richard HaselgroveProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 8466
Credit: 49,003,205
RAC: 73,188
United Kingdom
Message 1211132 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 17:36:22 UTC - in response to Message 1211128.

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.

Profile jason_geeProject donor
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 4964
Credit: 73,120,450
RAC: 15,223
Australia
Message 1211138 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 17:43:19 UTC - in response to Message 1211132.
Last modified: 28 Mar 2012, 17:49:14 UTC

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
____________
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
Charles Darwin

Richard HaselgroveProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 8466
Credit: 49,003,205
RAC: 73,188
United Kingdom
Message 1211141 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 17:51:51 UTC - in response to Message 1211138.

- 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.

Profile jason_geeProject donor
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 4964
Credit: 73,120,450
RAC: 15,223
Australia
Message 1211142 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 17:54:47 UTC - in response to Message 1211141.
Last modified: 28 Mar 2012, 18:03:27 UTC

- 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
____________
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
Charles Darwin

S@NL - John van GorselProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 190
Credit: 137,413,133
RAC: 23,267
Netherlands
Message 1211157 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 18:30:59 UTC - in response to Message 1211138.
Last modified: 28 Mar 2012, 18:37:20 UTC



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.

Profile jason_geeProject donor
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 4964
Credit: 73,120,450
RAC: 15,223
Australia
Message 1211159 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 18:38:17 UTC - in response to Message 1211157.

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
____________
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
Charles Darwin

Richard HaselgroveProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 8466
Credit: 49,003,205
RAC: 73,188
United Kingdom
Message 1211173 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 19:11:39 UTC

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.

zoom314Project donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 46126
Credit: 36,599,330
RAC: 5,286
Message 1211178 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 19:23:01 UTC - in response to Message 1211173.

PMed email addy.
____________
My Facebook, War Commander, 2015

Dave
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Mar 02
Posts: 774
Credit: 23,193,139
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1211202 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 20:19:12 UTC

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?

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 14 · Next

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

Copyright © 2014 University of California