So it is something implemented in the silicone? No firmware hack to disable it, or I suppose if there was, it would void the warranty? Grr, the games we're forced to play... ;-)

I don't see signs of it, yet, in your Pendings, but whenever I see low GPU temps on my 560Ti cards, they are usually throwing trash.

The other comment you made is one I've made repeatedly: You can't predict SETI performance from the GFLOPS reported by the benchmarks, or the video card specs, or the number of processors, or the clock speeds, or the memory bandwidth, or the "compute capability" or any other thing I've been able to find.

There can be a huge difference in cards that look virtually the same or no difference in cards that look very different on paper.

Oh, and just a comment, not a suggestion: For the most part I've taken my factory overclocked cards back close to nVIDIA original spec because I got tired of fighting it...over and over and over again. Bump the voltage, bump the clock, bump the voltage, bump the clock, feel the heat, back-off the voltage, wait, rinse, repeat, see the bad WU results, slow the clock, bump the voltage, see the BSOD, feel the BSOD, be the BSOD.

Too much work for too little gain.

But that's just me. Too many video cards to play that game with for hours every day because the ambient temps moved up half a degree. I'd rather turn in less work, but consistently good work. It just stopped being fun for me.

Good luck.

Words of Wisdom, me thinks...

---

Fighting downclocks makes me sad. Just the other day I thought I had a very stable configuration so I went to bed and apparently right after I did, blam downclock.

When mine DC's I lose about 1/2 of the card's processing capacity. A night of crippled productivity because I wanted another 20 MHZ.

---

Executive Director GPU Users Group Inc. -
brad@gpuug.org

...
The other strange thing is that on my active computers page http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/hosts_user.php?sort=rpc_time&rev=0&show_all=0&userid=7810325 it shows under GPU that I have [4] NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (1279MB) driver: 301.24 when actually I have 2 of those, one GTX260 and one GTX285. Not a big deal, but thought it was strange that it showed the wrong cards for 2 of the 4.
...

Although the BOINC core client shows the different cards at startup, it intends to use only the best card and any close equivalent, so it can use one set of capability measures internally. So it assumes they're equivalent and reports that way to the servers. When a user adds the <use_all_gpus> to cc_config, the core client merely treats the added cards as additional equivalents.

                                                                   Joe

Do you know why I had to add that file to my system to get it to see all the cards, when it saw all 4 of them before I upgraded? They originally were all 260's, so maybe since they were identical, the system could somehow see them? I thought it strange that I need to add that file when it worked just fine before, with 4 cards.

---

Do you know why I had to add that file to my system to get it to see all the cards, when it saw all 4 of them before I upgraded? They originally were all 260's, so maybe since they were identical, the system could somehow see them? I thought it strange that I need to add that file when it worked just fine before, with 4 cards.

Boinc, by default, only use the best GPU on the system.
If all your GPUs are equal then all of them are the best ones and all of them get used.
If you mix different ones, you need to instruct BOINC that you want to use the others that are not the best ones.

The default is to not use all of them, due to the complexities on the estimated times for your different GPUs, which might cause that some WUs fail due to taking more time than the expected when are crunched on a slower GPU.

---

Thanks for the reply, it will be interesting to see if there are any issues with expiring WU's, or my cache getting oversubscribed. Is there a way to correct it so it knows exactly what I have, to keep everything in line, or is it just the way it is, and hopefully will work out fine in the end?

---

Thanks for the reply, it will be interesting to see if there are any issues with expiring WU's, or my cache getting oversubscribed. Is there a way to correct it so it knows exactly what I have, to keep everything in line, or is it just the way it is, and hopefully will work out fine in the end?

It is the way it is...

The main issue, Its not that the WUs will be expiring, what can happen is that at a certain point some WU may gets cancelled due to "too much time crunching" cause is running on the slow GPU.
But if the relative speed of the different GPUs is not extremely different it may not give you troubles.

Anyway, to avoid cache oversuscribed, just dont set it too bigger, a 3 or 4 days of total cache should work ok, specially now that there are not limits.
But, if Boinc enters in panic mode (WUs running on high priority), just make the cache a little short until it dosnt enter in panic anymore.

---

Just got back from a short vaca, and thought I'd see what this has done since I've been gone, just crunching on it for 3-4 days straight. It seems that things are def going the wrong way, I don't understand how my RAC is around 47k, when it was supposedly 65-70k before I left. I also found about 200 tasks that hadn't transmitted yet, so I forced them, took like 5 times to get them all gone. Can anyone see anything going on with this, I would think I should be at least 70k with the setup I have going, I can't figure it out, and I don't see tasks erroring out. I'm stumped.

The fact that you are seeing a lot of errors may have something to do with it. You get no credit for time spent on an error.

Most of the errors were download errors, which waste no time at all.

The main time-wasters are the invalid (or inconclusive) AP_v6 tasks crunched using the NV r560 application, which was withdrawn over a month ago.

Richard, should I stop running the app, or try installing the older drivers mentioned in that link? I know I had a big issue when trying to install my new 560 cards with the old drivers, that's why I ended up with the current 3.x drivers. If it's best to just not run the optimized apps, how do I stop doing it without removing the whole thing? Is there some simple switch that I can change to keep the app there, but not use it, at least till the issue gets figured out? I know that the app makes things run a lot more efficiently, but I don't know if I'm up to the task of fighting the driver downgrade war on this machine, the upgrade one was bad enough. ;-) Thanks!

---

The main time-wasters are the invalid (or inconclusive) AP_v6 tasks crunched using the NV r560 application, which was withdrawn over a month ago.

Richard, should I stop running the app, or try installing the older drivers mentioned in that link? I know I had a big issue when trying to install my new 560 cards with the old drivers, that's why I ended up with the current 3.x drivers. If it's best to just not run the optimized apps, how do I stop doing it without removing the whole thing? Is there some simple switch that I can change to keep the app there, but not use it, at least till the issue gets figured out? I know that the app makes things run a lot more efficiently, but I don't know if I'm up to the task of fighting the driver downgrade war on this machine, the upgrade one was bad enough. ;-) Thanks!

There are multiple, different, issues at play.

Astropulse v6: the r560 application itself is broken - don't use it. A later r1305 is being tested at Lunatics and Beta, but hasn't been passed for general release yet.

Nvidia drivers: there were problems with versions 295.73 and 296.10, especially when used with a DVI monitor attached. They have been overcome with the latest 301.42 WHQL driver - there should be no need to downgrade any more.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 Ti GPUs: some versions have been problematic, being particularly sensitive to power supply problems. I'll leave you with the hardware guys on that one.

Thanks for the heads up Richard, and not to be dumb, but how exactly does one stop using the Astropulse v6 app? I've never had to do this before so I don't know the proper way to disable it. I have a 1200w PCP&C power supply, so should hopefully be set on that front. Glad to hear the latest WHQL drivers are good to go, because I didn't look forward to messing with them any more. I did the upgrade from the beta to the latest this morning, and all appears to be good.

*edit* I just brought up task mgr and took a look at what was running. I saw these 2 processes, AK_v8b2_win_x64_SSE41.exe and Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe 8 instances each. I presume one of those 2 is the one I shouldn't be running? Also, I am sure that when given the choice, I picked the 64 bit option for any software I downloaded, why does it appear that I am running the Lunatics 32 bit version? Or is this normal?

---

Thanks for the heads up Richard, and not to be dumb, but how exactly does one stop using the Astropulse v6 app? I've never had to do this before so I don't know the proper way to disable it. I have a 1200w PCP&C power supply, so should hopefully be set on that front. Glad to hear the latest WHQL drivers are good to go, because I didn't look forward to messing with them any more. I did the upgrade from the beta to the latest this morning, and all appears to be good.

*edit* I just brought up task mgr and took a look at what was running. I saw these 2 processes, AK_v8b2_win_x64_SSE41.exe and Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe 8 instances each. I presume one of those 2 is the one I shouldn't be running? Also, I am sure that when given the choice, I picked the 64 bit option for any software I downloaded, why does it appear that I am running the Lunatics 32 bit version? Or is this normal?

To stop using the AP NV r560 app, you need to take it out of the app_info.xml file. I think the easiest to do that is running again the Lunatics installer as the failling app its not included in that package. (or post the content of the app_info and we will tell you what you need to delete)

The apps you see are the ones for the MB WUs (v8b2 is for CPU and x41g for CUDA). AFAIK, there is no 64bit version of the CUDA app, it runs on the GPU and windows can run 32bit apps with no issue, so there is no need to compile/maintain a different version for the 64Bit CPUs...

---

Thanks for the heads up Richard, and not to be dumb, but how exactly does one stop using the Astropulse v6 app? I've never had to do this before so I don't know the proper way to disable it. I have a 1200w PCP&C power supply, so should hopefully be set on that front. Glad to hear the latest WHQL drivers are good to go, because I didn't look forward to messing with them any more. I did the upgrade from the beta to the latest this morning, and all appears to be good.

*edit* I just brought up task mgr and took a look at what was running. I saw these 2 processes, AK_v8b2_win_x64_SSE41.exe and Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe 8 instances each. I presume one of those 2 is the one I shouldn't be running? Also, I am sure that when given the choice, I picked the 64 bit option for any software I downloaded, why does it appear that I am running the Lunatics 32 bit version? Or is this normal?

To stop using the AP NV r560 app, you need to take it out of the app_info.xml file. I think the easiest to do that is running again the Lunatics installer as the failling app its not included in that package. (or post the content of the app_info and we will tell you what you need to delete)

The apps you see are the ones for the MB WUs (v8b2 is for CPU and x41g for CUDA). AFAIK, there is no 64bit version of the CUDA app, it runs on the GPU and windows can run 32bit apps with no issue, so there is no need to compile/maintain a different version for the 64Bit CPUs...

The big bottleneck on CUDA cards is shifting everything into and back from GPU memory, and arranging it neatly when it gets there. Since 64-bit numbers take up twice as much space, and twice as much bandwidth, as 32-bit numbers. that slows everything down. And the cuda app doesn't need a huge amount of space (300MB maximum), so it doesn't need to use 64-bit address pointers, either.

Put all that together, and test it (it's been done) - 32-bit comes out quicker.

Thanks for the replies guys, heres my app_info file, I just search for anything looking like r560, and couldn't find it. Lead on, and I will do as instructed to exorcise this demon from my system!

<app_info>
<app>
<name>setiathome_enhanced</name>
</app>
<file_info>
<name>AK_v8b2_win_x64_SSE41.exe</name>
<executable/>
</file_info>
<app_version>
<app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
<version_num>603</version_num>
<platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
<file_ref>
<file_name>AK_v8b2_win_x64_SSE41.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app_version>
<app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
<version_num>603</version_num>
<platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
<file_ref>
<file_name>AK_v8b2_win_x64_SSE41.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app>
<name>astropulse_v6</name>
</app>
<file_info>
<name>AP6_win_x86_SSE3_OpenCL_NV_r560.exe</name>
<executable/>
</file_info>
<app_version>
<app_name>astropulse_v6</app_name>
<version_num>601</version_num>
<avg_ncpus>0.04</avg_ncpus>
<max_ncpus>0.2</max_ncpus>
<platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
<plan_class>cuda_fermi</plan_class>
<cmdline>-instances_per_device 1 -unroll 4 -ffa_block 2048 -ffa_block_fetch 1024 -sbs 128</cmdline>
<coproc>
<type>CUDA</type>
<count>0.5</count>
</coproc>
<file_ref>
<file_name>AP6_win_x86_SSE3_OpenCL_NV_r560.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app_version>
<app_name>astropulse_v6</app_name>
<version_num>601</version_num>
<avg_ncpus>0.04</avg_ncpus>
<max_ncpus>0.2</max_ncpus>
<platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
<plan_class>cuda_fermi</plan_class>
<cmdline>-instances_per_device 1 -unroll 4 -ffa_block 2048 -ffa_block_fetch 1024 -sbs 128</cmdline>
<coproc>
<type>CUDA</type>
<count>0.5</count>
</coproc>
<file_ref>
<file_name>AP6_win_x86_SSE3_OpenCL_NV_r560.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app>
<name>astropulse_v505</name>
</app>
<app_version>
<app_name>astropulse_v505</app_name>
<version_num>506</version_num>
<avg_ncpus>0.04</avg_ncpus>
<max_ncpus>0.2</max_ncpus>
<platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
<plan_class>cuda_fermi</plan_class>
<cmdline>-instances_per_device 1 -unroll 4 -ffa_block 2048 -ffa_block_fetch 1024 -sbs 128 -v505</cmdline>
<coproc>
<type>CUDA</type>
<count>0.5</count>
</coproc>
<file_ref>
<file_name>AP6_win_x86_SSE3_OpenCL_NV_r560.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app_version>
<app_name>astropulse_v505</app_name>
<version_num>505</version_num>
<avg_ncpus>0.04</avg_ncpus>
<max_ncpus>0.2</max_ncpus>
<platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
<plan_class>cuda_fermi</plan_class>
<cmdline>-instances_per_device 1 -unroll 4 -ffa_block 2048 -ffa_block_fetch 1024 -sbs 128 -v505</cmdline>
<coproc>
<type>CUDA</type>
<count>0.5</count>
</coproc>
<file_ref>
<file_name>AP6_win_x86_SSE3_OpenCL_NV_r560.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app_version>
<app_name>astropulse_v505</app_name>
<version_num>506</version_num>
<avg_ncpus>0.04</avg_ncpus>
<max_ncpus>0.2</max_ncpus>
<platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
<plan_class>cuda_fermi</plan_class>
<cmdline>-instances_per_device 1 -unroll 4 -ffa_block 2048 -ffa_block_fetch 1024 -sbs 128 -v505</cmdline>
<coproc>
<type>CUDA</type>
<count>0.5</count>
</coproc>
<file_ref>
<file_name>AP6_win_x86_SSE3_OpenCL_NV_r560.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app_version>
<app_name>astropulse_v505</app_name>
<version_num>505</version_num>
<avg_ncpus>0.04</avg_ncpus>
<max_ncpus>0.2</max_ncpus>
<platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
<plan_class>cuda_fermi</plan_class>
<cmdline>-instances_per_device 1 -unroll 4 -ffa_block 2048 -ffa_block_fetch 1024 -sbs 128 -v505</cmdline>
<coproc>
<type>CUDA</type>
<count>0.5</count>
</coproc>
<file_ref>
<file_name>AP6_win_x86_SSE3_OpenCL_NV_r560.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app>
<name>astropulse_v6</name>
</app>
<file_info>
<name>AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r555.exe</name>
<executable/>
</file_info>
<app_version>
<app_name>astropulse_v6</app_name>
<version_num>601</version_num>
<platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
<file_ref>
<file_name>AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r555.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app_version>
<app_name>astropulse_v6</app_name>
<version_num>601</version_num>
<platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
<file_ref>
<file_name>AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r555.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app>
<name>astropulse_v505</name>
</app>
<app_version>
<app_name>astropulse_v505</app_name>
<version_num>505</version_num>
<platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
<cmdline>-v505</cmdline>
<file_ref>
<file_name>AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r555.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app_version>
<app_name>astropulse_v505</app_name>
<version_num>505</version_num>
<platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
<cmdline>-v505</cmdline>
<file_ref>
<file_name>AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r555.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app>
<name>setiathome_enhanced</name>
</app>
<file_info>
<name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe</name>
<executable/>
</file_info>
<file_info>
<name>cudart32_32_16.dll</name>
<executable/>
</file_info>
<file_info>
<name>cufft32_32_16.dll</name>
<executable/>
</file_info>
<app_version>
<app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
<version_num>610</version_num>
<platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
<plan_class>cuda_fermi</plan_class>
<avg_ncpus>0.040000</avg_ncpus>
<max_ncpus>0.040000</max_ncpus>
<coproc>
<type>CUDA</type>
<count>0.5</count>
</coproc>
<file_ref>
<file_name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>cudart32_32_16.dll</file_name>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>cufft32_32_16.dll</file_name>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app_version>
<app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
<version_num>609</version_num>
<platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
<plan_class>cuda23</plan_class>
<avg_ncpus>0.040000</avg_ncpus>
<max_ncpus>0.040000</max_ncpus>
<coproc>
<type>CUDA</type>
<count>0.5</count>
</coproc>
<file_ref>
<file_name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>cudart32_32_16.dll</file_name>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>cufft32_32_16.dll</file_name>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app_version>
<app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
<version_num>608</version_num>
<platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
<plan_class>cuda</plan_class>
<avg_ncpus>0.040000</avg_ncpus>
<max_ncpus>0.040000</max_ncpus>
<coproc>
<type>CUDA</type>
<count>0.5</count>
</coproc>
<file_ref>
<file_name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>cudart32_32_16.dll</file_name>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>cufft32_32_16.dll</file_name>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app_version>
<app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
<version_num>610</version_num>
<platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
<plan_class>cuda_fermi</plan_class>
<avg_ncpus>0.040000</avg_ncpus>
<max_ncpus>0.040000</max_ncpus>
<coproc>
<type>CUDA</type>
<count>0.5</count>
</coproc>
<file_ref>
<file_name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>cudart32_32_16.dll</file_name>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>cufft32_32_16.dll</file_name>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app_version>
<app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
<version_num>609</version_num>
<platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
<plan_class>cuda23</plan_class>
<avg_ncpus>0.040000</avg_ncpus>
<max_ncpus>0.040000</max_ncpus>
<coproc>
<type>CUDA</type>
<count>0.5</count>
</coproc>
<file_ref>
<file_name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>cudart32_32_16.dll</file_name>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>cufft32_32_16.dll</file_name>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
<app_version>
<app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
<version_num>608</version_num>
<platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
<plan_class>cuda</plan_class>
<avg_ncpus>0.040000</avg_ncpus>
<max_ncpus>0.040000</max_ncpus>
<coproc>
<type>CUDA</type>
<count>0.5</count>
</coproc>
<file_ref>
<file_name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>cudart32_32_16.dll</file_name>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>cufft32_32_16.dll</file_name>
</file_ref>
</app_version>
</app_info>
-instances_per_device 1 -unroll 4 -ffa_block 2048 -ffa_block_fetch 1024 -sbs 128 -v505version_num

---

Here's the app_info with the NV r560 removed:

<app_info> 
<app>
 <name>setiathome_enhanced</name>
 </app>
 <file_info>
 <name>AK_v8b2_win_x64_SSE41.exe</name>
 <executable/>
 </file_info>
 <app_version>
 <app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
 <version_num>603</version_num>
 <platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>AK_v8b2_win_x64_SSE41.exe</file_name>
 <main_program/>
 </file_ref>
 </app_version>
 <app_version>
 <app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
 <version_num>603</version_num>
 <platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>AK_v8b2_win_x64_SSE41.exe</file_name>
 <main_program/>
 </file_ref>
 </app_version>
 <app>
 <name>astropulse_v6</name>
 </app>
 <file_info>
 <name>AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r555.exe</name>
 <executable/>
 </file_info>
 <app_version>
 <app_name>astropulse_v6</app_name>
 <version_num>601</version_num>
 <platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r555.exe</file_name>
 <main_program/>
 </file_ref>
 </app_version> 
<app_version>
 <app_name>astropulse_v6</app_name>
 <version_num>601</version_num>
 <platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r555.exe</file_name>
 <main_program/>
 </file_ref>
 </app_version>
 <app>
 <name>astropulse_v505</name>
 </app>
 <app_version>
 <app_name>astropulse_v505</app_name>
 <version_num>505</version_num>
 <platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
 <cmdline>-v505</cmdline>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r555.exe</file_name>
 <main_program/>
 </file_ref>
 </app_version> 
<app_version>
 <app_name>astropulse_v505</app_name>
 <version_num>505</version_num>
 <platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
 <cmdline>-v505</cmdline>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>AP6_win_x86_SSE_CPU_r555.exe</file_name>
 <main_program/>
 </file_ref>
 </app_version>
 <app>
 <name>setiathome_enhanced</name>
 </app>
 <file_info>
 <name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe</name>
 <executable/>
 </file_info>
 <file_info>
 <name>cudart32_32_16.dll</name>
 <executable/>
 </file_info>
 <file_info>
 <name>cufft32_32_16.dll</name>
 <executable/>
 </file_info>
 <app_version>
 <app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
 <version_num>610</version_num>
 <platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
 <plan_class>cuda_fermi</plan_class>
 <avg_ncpus>0.040000</avg_ncpus>
 <max_ncpus>0.040000</max_ncpus>
 <coproc>
 <type>CUDA</type>
 <count>0.5</count>
 </coproc>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe</file_name>
 <main_program/>
 </file_ref>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>cudart32_32_16.dll</file_name>
 </file_ref>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>cufft32_32_16.dll</file_name>
 </file_ref>
 </app_version>
 <app_version>
 <app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
 <version_num>609</version_num>
 <platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
 <plan_class>cuda23</plan_class>
 <avg_ncpus>0.040000</avg_ncpus>
 <max_ncpus>0.040000</max_ncpus>
 <coproc>
 <type>CUDA</type>
 <count>0.5</count>
 </coproc>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe</file_name>
 <main_program/>
 </file_ref>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>cudart32_32_16.dll</file_name>
 </file_ref>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>cufft32_32_16.dll</file_name>
 </file_ref>
 </app_version>
 <app_version>
 <app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
 <version_num>608</version_num>
 <platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
 <plan_class>cuda</plan_class>
 <avg_ncpus>0.040000</avg_ncpus>
 <max_ncpus>0.040000</max_ncpus>
 <coproc>
 <type>CUDA</type>
 <count>0.5</count>
 </coproc>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe</file_name>
 <main_program/>
 </file_ref>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>cudart32_32_16.dll</file_name>
 </file_ref>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>cufft32_32_16.dll</file_name>
 </file_ref>
 </app_version>
 <app_version>
 <app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
 <version_num>610</version_num>
 <platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
 <plan_class>cuda_fermi</plan_class>
 <avg_ncpus>0.040000</avg_ncpus>
 <max_ncpus>0.040000</max_ncpus>
 <coproc>
 <type>CUDA</type>
 <count>0.5</count>
 </coproc>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe</file_name>
 <main_program/>
 </file_ref>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>cudart32_32_16.dll</file_name>
 </file_ref>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>cufft32_32_16.dll</file_name>
 </file_ref>
 </app_version>
 <app_version>
 <app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
 <version_num>609</version_num>
 <platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
 <plan_class>cuda23</plan_class>
 <avg_ncpus>0.040000</avg_ncpus>
 <max_ncpus>0.040000</max_ncpus>
 <coproc>
 <type>CUDA</type>
 <count>0.5</count>
 </coproc>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe</file_name>
 <main_program/>
 </file_ref>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>cudart32_32_16.dll</file_name>
 </file_ref>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>cufft32_32_16.dll</file_name>
 </file_ref>
 </app_version>
 <app_version>
 <app_name>setiathome_enhanced</app_name>
 <version_num>608</version_num>
 <platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
 <plan_class>cuda</plan_class>
 <avg_ncpus>0.040000</avg_ncpus>
 <max_ncpus>0.040000</max_ncpus>
 <coproc>
 <type>CUDA</type>
 <count>0.5</count>
 </coproc>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe</file_name>
 <main_program/>
 </file_ref>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>cudart32_32_16.dll</file_name>
 </file_ref>
 <file_ref>
 <file_name>cufft32_32_16.dll</file_name>
 </file_ref>
 </app_version>
 </app_info>

Claggy

I noticed that the formatting was nested, does it make a diff if it's flat, or do I need to backspace everything like it was in the orig file? Thanks!

---

I noticed that the formatting was nested, does it make a diff if it's flat, or do I need to backspace everything like it was in the orig file? Thanks!

It doesn't matter eithier way,

Claggy

I can't tell if the changes to the file have made a difference or not, especially since the servers been down and nothing has been reported for a few days. Here's my initial startup screen, all appears good, but I guess I'll have to wait a few days to see my reported credits appear, and watch from there. One thing I've noticed in the last few days monitoring my temps in EVGA Precision is that they have been high (the hottest cards are 58-62c) when I start BOINC up, but by the time I get home from work, a those same cards are in the low 40's. I exit out of BOINC and re-start it, and the jump right back up in the high 50's. If it was a downclock, I thought the only way to reset it was to reboot the computer, but just by exiting and re-starting the program, the temps come right back up. Any ideas? I presume that my crunch rate is fairly well correlated to the temps of the cards, so they certainly don't appear to be running up to their potential. I'm just full of weird questions, I know... ;-)


5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM Starting BOINC client version 6.10.60 for windows_x86_64
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM Config: use all coprocessors
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM log flags: file_xfer, sched_ops, task
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM Libraries: libcurl/7.19.7 OpenSSL/0.9.8l zlib/1.2.3
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM Data directory: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM Running under account Administrator
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM Processor: 8 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz [Family 6 Model 26 Stepping 5]
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM Processor: 256.00 KB cache
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM Processor features: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss htt tm pni ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 syscall nx lm vmx tm2 popcnt pbe
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM OS: Microsoft Windows XP: Professional x64 Edition, Service Pack 2, (05.02.3790.00)
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM Memory: 5.99 GB physical, 7.61 GB virtual
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM Disk: 232.88 GB total, 193.37 GB free
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM Local time is UTC -5 hours
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 560 Ti (driver version 30142, CUDA version 4020, compute capability 2.0, 1280MB, 1611 GFLOPS peak)
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM NVIDIA GPU 1: GeForce GTX 560 Ti (driver version 30142, CUDA version 4020, compute capability 2.0, 1280MB, 1611 GFLOPS peak)
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM NVIDIA GPU 2: GeForce GTX 260 (driver version 30142, CUDA version 4020, compute capability 1.3, 896MB, 630 GFLOPS peak)
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM NVIDIA GPU 3: GeForce GTX 285 (driver version 30142, CUDA version 4020, compute capability 1.3, 1024MB, 759 GFLOPS peak)
5/31/2012 3:11:49 PM SETI@home Found app_info.xml; using anonymous platform
5/31/2012 3:11:55 PM SETI@home URL http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/; Computer ID 5873188; resource share 100
5/31/2012 3:11:55 PM SETI@home General prefs: from SETI@home (last modified 26-May-2007 00:12:51)
5/31/2012 3:11:55 PM SETI@home Computer location: home
5/31/2012 3:11:55 PM SETI@home General prefs: no separate prefs for home; using your defaults
5/31/2012 3:11:55 PM Reading preferences override file
5/31/2012 3:11:55 PM Preferences:
5/31/2012 3:11:55 PM max memory usage when active: 3067.44MB
5/31/2012 3:11:55 PM max memory usage when idle: 6073.53MB
5/31/2012 3:11:55 PM max disk usage: 100.00GB
5/31/2012 3:11:55 PM (to change preferences, visit the web site of an attached project, or select Preferences in the Manager)
5/31/2012 3:11:55 PM Not using a proxy

---

It's been about a week now, and things aren't really improving much on the RAC front. As I stated before, I'm not a RAC hog, but I just feel that there is something going on that I haven't been able to figure out. I went from a system that I described in the beginning of the thread (older versions of the apps, and 4 GTX260 cards), to it currently with the latest versions of the optimized app, video driver, and the 6.10.60 version of BOINC, 2 GTX560ti's a GTX280 and a GTX260. My RAC was around 55-58 for this rig before I did anything to it, and now it's struggling to get up to 46k. I can't understand how upgrading the software would do this, especially since I've significantly increased the GPU horsepower. The system seems to be running fine, it just doesn't produce the RAC it did before the upgrade. Any thoughts as to where to look for what might be causing this? It bugs me that it is worse than when I started, even after improving the hardware. Thanks guys!

---

I would check "% of time BOINC is running" & "While BOINC is running % of time work is allowed" to make sure the systems are processing work all the time.
My figures are 99.9561% & 99.993%

Looking at your system with the 4 GPUs, it's now returing WUs almost as soon as it gets them, indicating there's no cache there. So during outages it may not be processing any work at all.

One of your systems is still running v7, so the settings to maintina a cache on v6 systems will leave that system with no cache at all- revert it back to v6 or set overides on the system itself.

---

Grant
Darwin NT