Have no Office installed atm.
You could send me the links via mail.

And I'm not sure I have your email atm, after I lost my daily driver with the contact list in a power cut :-(

I can do you a PM here, though - that should do it?

Edit - PM sent.

Got it.

Will run the first test tomorrow after work.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

I have only 1 so far from my Q6600, http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=968825720.

Cheers.

Got ap_24ja12ah_B3_P0_00233_20120410_31495.wu in the cage, though the r555/CPU app is a new one for this exercise.

Typo correction from a long way down the page - Horatio's CPU app is r557, of course, not r577.

Here's my list of Inconclusive:
2402009700
2401712891
2401149365
2400949559
2400173351
2400167519
2399688500
2399108050
2399007772
2398218968
2398098019
2395607586
2395603227
2395485254
2395484101
2395461657
2394473363
2394244633
2393827071
2393717959
2393435584
2393262477
2393125823
2391546328
2388404565
2384866932
2383779922
2382517326
2382107375
2381632875
2381559982
2381212026
2381140422
2380691271
2378557376
2377286245
2377249863
2376307271
2375792932
2375787448

---

Here's my list of Inconclusive:

Are those all from Pending AstroPulse v6 tasks for computer 2340442? With your computers hidden, it would take longer than I'm willing to spend before bedtime to check them all individually.

But with that throughput, we can get a statistical impression of the scale of the problem - 18 valid, 6 invalid for that host as I type implies a 25% failure rate. That's not good, for you or for the project's bandwidth.

Another inconclusive CPU AP:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=954218372

---

Here's my list of Inconclusive:

Are those all from Pending AstroPulse v6 tasks for computer 2340442? With your computers hidden, it would take longer than I'm willing to spend before bedtime to check them all individually.

But with that throughput, we can get a statistical impression of the scale of the problem - 18 valid, 6 invalid for that host as I type implies a 25% failure rate. That's not good, for you or for the project's bandwidth.

Yes its for 2340442 and i don't have this issue with v5.

---

I'll examine whatever results you folks can provide, might even undertake to do a stock CPU run of one of the WUs on my Q8200. It isn't very fast, took about 45 hours to do an offline stock run of WU 3954412 from Beta which I was checking because it was originally inconclusive on the r555 CPU build I was running. My offline stock run came up strongly similar to the r555 result as did the third wingman at Beta, so the indication there is some glitch in the _1 result from stock.

There are many possible causes for inconclusives, it will be interesting to see if these cases turn up some which haven't been seen before.

                                                                   Joe

I'll examine whatever results you folks can provide, might even undertake to do a stock CPU run of one of the WUs on my Q8200. It isn't very fast, took about 45 hours to do an offline stock run of WU 3954412 from Beta which I was checking because it was originally inconclusive on the r555 CPU build I was running. My offline stock run came up strongly similar to the r555 result as did the third wingman at Beta, so the indication there is some glitch in the _1 result from stock.

There are many possible causes for inconclusives, it will be interesting to see if these cases turn up some which haven't been seen before.

                                                                   Joe

Did you see the list I put in the Panic thread?

Might give you a place to start.

Did you see the list I put in the Panic thread?

Might give you a place to start.

I didn't like that list over there. Here it is where it ought to be, I guess:

Here's a list of optimized app v6 AP WUs that validated against stock V6 AP apps.


__TASK_________WU_____Computer
2400174547 - 972282042 - 6011644
2399373128 - 971918307 - 5829212
2399245287 - 971860355 - 5829212
2399245286 - 954078529 - 5829212
2399240418 - 971858387 - 5829212
2399192807 - 971836264 - 5829212
2398100980 - 971335178 - 6011644
2392885930 - 968913612 - 6568834
2389492481 - 967359215 - 5829212
2381016725 - 963389045 - 5829212

One inconclusive:

2387615947 - 966484070 - 5829212

I didn't like that list over there. Here it is where it ought to be, I guess:

One inconclusive:

2387615947 - 966484070 - 5829212

Yes, better here - though we're really trying to concentrate on the (few) inconclusives, which otherwise get rather lost in the greater number of valid results.

Anyway, ap_02ja12aa_B5_P1_00071_20120406_22092.wu has been added to the menagerie - that's r555 on your CPU, there. Thanks.

Same here, lots of invalids and inconclusives which will turn to invalids I guess. In the beginning I suspected they might be, bcs I calculated CPU units with NV GPU, but those send to GPU from server, got trashed in same way too.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=6567776&offset=0&show_names=0&state=0&appid=12
Those with short runtimes, no matter how its marked(GPU or CPU) are done by GTX 470.

I suspected the GPU to be faulty, bcs another GPU on this system suddenly died, so I ran MB tasks last few days - no problem so far, everything validates. Seems problem is only AP related and not GPU fault.
I got only one validated from all of 15-20 tasks I ran on this GPU.

---

This should probably go in the gripe thread: 'grad student code'

I coded for my PhD and I'd have been ashamed to make such a mess of the debug logging.
WT* is the use of an output that only tells you how far the app got? that's debug logging while you are developing not for release!

So after I vented, we are looking at inconclusive/invalid of optimised/stock CPU in the order of up to 10-25% ?!

Since the stock output is virtually useless for even comparing the basic numbers of signals, that will have to go through offline running...

Ok guys, while we need to grab the files at the inconclusive stage, on this scale it's impossible to run them all. Please notify us when an inconclusive goes invalid, at which stage we can proceed to offline runs

Thanks all for your help.

---

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

One of my inconclusivs has now been validated
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=954832873

Its got a bit of history as well...


Regards,

---

Cliff,
Been there, Done that, Still no damm T shirt!

Same here, lots of invalids and inconclusives which will turn to invalids I guess. In the beginning I suspected they might be, bcs I calculated CPU units with NV GPU, but those send to GPU from server, got trashed in same way too.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=6567776&offset=0&show_names=0&state=0&appid=12
Those with short runtimes, no matter how its marked(GPU or CPU) are done by GTX 470.

I suspected the GPU to be faulty, bcs another GPU on this system suddenly died, so I ran MB tasks last few days - no problem so far, everything validates. Seems problem is only AP related and not GPU fault.
I got only one validated from all of 15-20 tasks I ran on this GPU.

'all units are created equal' - there are no 'CPU' or 'GPU' WU. If the app has a problem on your GPU it doesn't matter if you rescheduled or they were direct sends.

I'm wondering about the effect of unroll on the GPU - i.e. if too low unroll leads to errors.

---

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

I'm wondering about the effect of unroll on the GPU - i.e. if too low unroll leads to errors.

The 1st invalid I reported had its unroll set to 2, after advice I increased the unroll to 10, still got inconclusives, but 1 validated ok..

The default unroll was AFAIR set to 1 originally..

So it might well have something to do with whats going on

Regards,

---

Cliff,
Been there, Done that, Still no damm T shirt!

I'm wondering about the effect of unroll on the GPU - i.e. if too low unroll leads to errors.

The 1st invalid I reported had its unroll set to 2, after advice I increased the unroll to 10, still got inconclusives, but 1 validated ok..

The default unroll was AFAIR set to 1 originally..

So it might well have something to do with whats going on

Regards,

IIRC minimum unroll is 2 - thanks Cliff.

So that validated WU has unroll 10 on a GTX 560 (1023MB) driver: 301.24

hbomber has unroll 4 on a GTX 470 (1279MB) driver: 301.24
and it looks like all GPU crunched units are going inconclusive.

X-Files 27 has unroll 8 on a GeForce GTX 580 (1536MB) driver: 296.35
some are validating but I don't see any of the valids coming from an inconclusive state.

---

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

ARGH - make that 'too high unroll'

Unless it has to be not too high and not too low, in which case we're in trouble.

---

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

I know they are same, the units. But I had to note it, to prevent any further questions or misunderstanding.
I can run same unit on GPU with different unroll, next on CPU(presuming it will be valid), and compare them eventually. Thus I can avoid that long wait until they get validated by server, producing junk and wasting energy.

The problem is I don't know how to compare the results.
If there is a relatively easy way - comparison of output file e.g, I'll find the proper unroll value for my card.

---

Same here, lots of invalids and inconclusives which will turn to invalids I guess. In the beginning I suspected they might be, bcs I calculated CPU units with NV GPU, but those send to GPU from server, got trashed in same way too.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=6567776&offset=0&show_names=0&state=0&appid=12
Those with short runtimes, no matter how its marked(GPU or CPU) are done by GTX 470.

I suspected the GPU to be faulty, bcs another GPU on this system suddenly died, so I ran MB tasks last few days - no problem so far, everything validates. Seems problem is only AP related and not GPU fault.
I got only one validated from all of 15-20 tasks I ran on this GPU.

'all units are created equal' - there are no 'CPU' or 'GPU' WU. If the app has a problem on your GPU it doesn't matter if you rescheduled or they were direct sends.

I'm wondering about the effect of unroll on the GPU - i.e. if too low unroll leads to errors.

To low doesn´t hurt.
Only to high values result in overflows.

Keep in mind lots of crappy work is out in the field atm.
I got 5 in a row with 100% blanking 2 with 98%.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

I know they are same, the units. But I had to note it, to prevent any further questions or misunderstanding.
I can run same unit on GPU with different unroll, next on CPU(presuming it will be valid), and compare them eventually. Thus I can avoid that long wait until they get validated by server, producing junk and wasting energy.

The problem is I don't know how to compare the results.
If there is a relatively easy way - comparison of output file e.g, I'll find the proper unroll value for my card.

You can easily run these values on your card.

<cmdline>-instances_per_device 2 -unroll 10 -ffa_block 6144 -ffa_block_fetch 2048</cmdline>

unroll 12 might be possible but i suggest to try 10 first.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.