Optimize your GPU. Find the value the easy way.


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Optimize your GPU. Find the value the easy way.

Previous · 1 . . . 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · Next
Author Message
Profile MikeProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 01
Posts: 24616
Credit: 34,009,976
RAC: 24,054
Germany
Message 1287930 - Posted: 26 Sep 2012, 9:07:17 UTC - in response to Message 1287928.

I`ve got 700 already.

____________

Profile Alex Storey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 04
Posts: 554
Credit: 1,671,241
RAC: 631
Greece
Message 1287934 - Posted: 26 Sep 2012, 9:32:31 UTC - in response to Message 1287930.

I`ve got 700 already.


You've crunched a WU that took 7 times longer than normal?

Josef W. SegurProject donor
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4306
Credit: 1,083,360
RAC: 1,432
United States
Message 1288101 - Posted: 26 Sep 2012, 16:05:41 UTC - in response to Message 1287928.
Last modified: 26 Sep 2012, 16:12:29 UTC

I've been running V1.4 for 24 hours now!:D Are these "real" WUs? Or am I doing something wrong? I chose:

Devices 1
Count 1.00
x41g
Use all 18 workunits
Test with the values above

Shorties take around 1700 sec on my mobile GPU, middies around 4600 and "normal" WUs (the ones that give out around 100 credit or more) 7700 sec.

I've only managed to get through 7 WUs in 24hrs but the times are nowhere near the above. So far I've got:

(PG0395_v7.wu) 803 Seconds
(PG0444_v7.wu) 704 Seconds
(PG1327_v7.wu) 984 Seconds
(FG00091_V7.wu) 20770 Seconds
(FG00134_V7.wu) 22019 Seconds
(FG01307_V7.wu) 18278 Seconds
(FG02968_V7.wu) 15836 Seconds

Are these test WUs some sort of Seti outliers? I've never seen a WU hand out 300 credits... not even with CreditNew!;)

The PG set are shortened WUs, the FG set are full length. The names indicate the angle range with an implied decimal point after the first digit. So FG00091 and FG00134 are VLAR tasks which would not normally be sent to CUDA, the others so far are rarities; the set was chosen to provide samples across the range, not to represent typical distribution.

The _v7 in the filenames indicates that the autocorrelation search supported by SETI@home v7 will be done in addition to the other four search types. That will mean that even the WUs with more typical AR will take longer to process than SETI@home Enhanced tasks of the same AR.
Joe

Zule
Send message
Joined: 1 Jul 06
Posts: 16
Credit: 34,835,566
RAC: 90,192
United States
Message 1288268 - Posted: 27 Sep 2012, 1:47:21 UTC

This has me confused.. Just for fun I tried this on two computers both with GTX 260's and both comp's came back at .5 as the optimal setting.. So I decided to actually try it on one comp and so far it is a tiny bit faster running at .5.. I'm lucky in that I have a group of work units that are all the same day and angle.. It crunched 8, two at a time, at 6:35 each.. And so far it's crunched 4 or 5 more, 1 at a time, at 3:44 each..

How is this possible? Everything I've ever read says the 200 series can't do 2 at a time or that it wouldn't help.. Yet I'm seeing a positive from it and the card is staying in the upper 70's with default fan settings..


EDIT: Boinc 6.10.60.. Driver 275.33.. Lunatics v.39

Profile S@NL - eFMer - efmer.com/boincProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 99
Posts: 512
Credit: 130,276,125
RAC: 34,543
United States
Message 1288334 - Posted: 27 Sep 2012, 6:28:50 UTC - in response to Message 1288268.

This has me confused.. Just for fun I tried this on two computers both with GTX 260's and both comp's came back at .5 as the optimal setting.. So I decided to actually try it on one comp and so far it is a tiny bit faster running at .5.. I'm lucky in that I have a group of work units that are all the same day and angle.. It crunched 8, two at a time, at 6:35 each.. And so far it's crunched 4 or 5 more, 1 at a time, at 3:44 each..

How is this possible? Everything I've ever read says the 200 series can't do 2 at a time or that it wouldn't help.. Yet I'm seeing a positive from it and the card is staying in the upper 70's with default fan settings..


EDIT: Boinc 6.10.60.. Driver 275.33.. Lunatics v.39

Normally it's even slower running more than 1.
My guess it got something to do with feeding the GPU. Maybe the CPU doesn't got the time to feed the GPU properly.
And with 2 CPU tasks it may get more time allocated.

This means leaving a CPU core dedicated to the GPU feeding may help.
Or set a higher priority on the feeder task.

You can try this program: http://www.efmer.eu/forum_tt/index.php?topic=198.0 and set the priority higher.
____________
TThrottle Control your temperatures. BoincTasks The best way to view BOINC. Anza Borrego Desert hiking.

Profile Alex Storey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 04
Posts: 554
Credit: 1,671,241
RAC: 631
Greece
Message 1288363 - Posted: 27 Sep 2012, 9:47:52 UTC - in response to Message 1288268.
Last modified: 27 Sep 2012, 9:55:25 UTC

This has me confused.. Just for fun I tried this on two computers both with GTX 260's and both comp's came back at .5 as the optimal setting.. So I decided to actually try it on one comp and so far it is a tiny bit faster running at .5.. I'm lucky in that I have a group of work units that are all the same day and angle.. It crunched 8, two at a time, at 6:35 each.. And so far it's crunched 4 or 5 more, 1 at a time, at 3:44 each..

How is this possible? Everything I've ever read says the 200 series can't do 2 at a time or that it wouldn't help.. Yet I'm seeing a positive from it and the card is staying in the upper 70's with default fan settings..


EDIT: Boinc 6.10.60.. Driver 275.33.. Lunatics v.39


Yeah me too. I've got the same dumb look on my face you do. I tried to kickstart this conversation quite a few posts up when Fred tested his laptop and all I got was... tumbleweeds. So I too decided to to try 2 at a time (like you said "just for fun") on the tiniest of mobile GPUs from the 200 series and whadayaknow... 2 was a bit faster than one for me too. I thought it was big news, but no-one seems to care.

The good news is that thanx to Fred we finally have a much needed Seti benchmarking tool for idiots. Fred, I know you have been "advertising" this tool as a one-off way to check "count" but I think you have created a monster of a benchmarking tool for us Seti noobs without even realizing it!:D

From a post I made over 180 days ago in the Lunatics Windows Installer v0.40 Release Notes thread:
... If I had a "pretty" benchmark app I would go OCD on the thing. I'd check every WHQL nVidia driver from late 250's to current 290's. I'd turn Windows eye-candy, services and processes on and off. I'd play with nVidia settings. And whenever Jason-G would come out of left-field with, "Oh, you know, it could be your Wi-Fi that's interfering with crunching" I'd check that too:) I say "pretty" because I don't know how to work with black & white windows. I need installers and progress bars and buttons I can click on and things to hold my hand:) Of course I'm sure you guys have next-to NO time for such a thing...
And thanx to a thread Jim_S created a couple of days ago, I got the idea that you can even use this tool to check how many CPU cores are optimal for GPU feeding.


So Fred, you just crossed out the biggest item on my Seti wishlist!
Thank you!:D

PS @Zule I have NO idea how this got by our gurus. My theory ATM is that no-one thought to check/benchmark "count" when the 270 drivers came out. Those drivers came out almost 3 years after your 260 did...

Richard HaselgroveProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 8670
Credit: 51,868,077
RAC: 49,350
United Kingdom
Message 1288379 - Posted: 27 Sep 2012, 10:52:20 UTC - in response to Message 1288363.

The answer has been posted on the boards before, but it's worth saying again. Here's one relatively recent iteration, from message 1259625:

it seems that multiple simultaneous WUs don't scale well unless on Fermi or later cards.

Yes, that's the way they were built.

Tasks don't actually run 'simultaneously' (any more than they do on a single-core CPU under a multi-tasking operating system). The hardware is switched from task to task on a scale of milliseconds, perhaps even microseconds.

Fermis and later have specialised silicon to handle this task-switching at high speed: earlier GPUs don't.

So, the bullet points are:

* 200 series can run two at once, and have always been able to - provided there's enough memory
* The benefits are marginal at best, and much lower than the speed-up you'd get on a Fermi

Zule
Send message
Joined: 1 Jul 06
Posts: 16
Credit: 34,835,566
RAC: 90,192
United States
Message 1288423 - Posted: 27 Sep 2012, 13:17:33 UTC - in response to Message 1288363.



Yeah me too. I've got the same dumb look on my face you do. I tried to kickstart this conversation quite a few posts up when Fred tested his laptop and all I got was... tumbleweeds. So I too decided to to try 2 at a time (like you said "just for fun") on the tiniest of mobile GPUs from the 200 series and whadayaknow... 2 was a bit faster than one for me too. I thought it was big news, but no-one seems to care.

The good news is that thanx to Fred we finally have a much needed Seti benchmarking tool for idiots. Fred, I know you have been "advertising" this tool as a one-off way to check "count" but I think you have created a monster of a benchmarking tool for us Seti noobs without even realizing it!:D


I think Fredo may have come up with the answer when he said it might help if you dedicated a CPU to it.. I'm currently only crunching GPU on this comp so I have a Phenom II 965 feeding the 260...

As for the drivers, I've done some benchmarking and 275.33 are the fastest for me. Seen a few other people say the same thing, yet everyone wants those latest drivers;)

Zule
Send message
Joined: 1 Jul 06
Posts: 16
Credit: 34,835,566
RAC: 90,192
United States
Message 1288431 - Posted: 27 Sep 2012, 13:35:18 UTC - in response to Message 1288334.


Normally it's even slower running more than 1.
My guess it got something to do with feeding the GPU. Maybe the CPU doesn't got the time to feed the GPU properly.
And with 2 CPU tasks it may get more time allocated.

This means leaving a CPU core dedicated to the GPU feeding may help.
Or set a higher priority on the feeder task.



So we accidentally found a flaw in the testing process since when the tool runs the CPU is dedicated to the GPU. Uninformed users may take the results from 200 series cards and below and use them in normal operation. Without a dedicated core/cpu like me it may have negative results..

Btw.. Love the tool and love Boinc Tasks:)

Profile Alex Storey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 04
Posts: 554
Credit: 1,671,241
RAC: 631
Greece
Message 1288444 - Posted: 27 Sep 2012, 14:35:18 UTC

@Zule I think Fred misunderstood what you were saying. It looks like he answered to "why is my GPU slower at doing 2 WUs at a time" which isn't what you asked:) I could be wrong though... Fred?

Right! After over 48hrs I managed to complete all 18 WUs (you know, for fun) and here are my numbers if anyone is interested:)

Starting test: (x41g)

25 September 2012 - 10:51:45 Start, (Wu: PG0395_v7.wu)
Results: (PG0395_v7.wu) average time on device: 803 Seconds (13 Minutes, 23 Seconds)

25 September 2012 - 11:05:10 Start, (Wu: PG0444_v7.wu)
Results: (PG0444_v7.wu) average time on device: 704 Seconds (11 Minutes, 44 Seconds)

25 September 2012 - 11:16:57 Start, (Wu: PG1327_v7.wu)
Results: (PG1327_v7.wu) average time on device: 984 Seconds (16 Minutes, 24 Seconds)

25 September 2012 - 11:33:25 Start, (Wu: FG00091_V7.wu)
Results: (FG00091_V7.wu) average time on device: 20770 Seconds (346 Minutes, 10 Seconds)

25 September 2012 - 17:19:38 Start, (Wu: FG00134_V7.wu)
Results: (FG00134_V7.wu) average time on device: 22019 Seconds (366 Minutes, 59 Seconds)

25 September 2012 - 23:26:41 Start, (Wu: FG01307_V7.wu)
Results: (FG01307_V7.wu) average time on device: 18278 Seconds (304 Minutes, 38 Seconds)

26 September 2012 - 04:31:25 Start, (Wu: FG02968_V7.wu)
Results: (FG02968_V7.wu) average time on device: 15836 Seconds (263 Minutes, 56 Seconds)

26 September 2012 - 08:55:25 Start, (Wu: FG03853_V7.wu)
Results: (FG03853_V7.wu) average time on device: 14476 Seconds (241 Minutes, 16 Seconds)

26 September 2012 - 12:56:44 Start, (Wu: FG04160_V7.wu)
Results: (FG04160_V7.wu) average time on device: 12624 Seconds (210 Minutes, 24 Seconds)

26 September 2012 - 16:27:11 Start, (Wu: FG04221_V7.wu)
Results: (FG04221_V7.wu) average time on device: 14786 Seconds (246 Minutes, 26 Seconds)

26 September 2012 - 20:33:38 Start, (Wu: FG04317_V7.wu)
Results: (FG04317_V7.wu) average time on device: 13567 Seconds (226 Minutes, 7 Seconds)

27 September 2012 - 00:19:50 Start, (Wu: FG04465_V7.wu)
Results: (FG04465_V7.wu) average time on device: 14341 Seconds (239 Minutes, 1 Seconds)

27 September 2012 - 04:18:57 Start, (Wu: FG09362_V7.wu)
Results: (FG09362_V7.wu) average time on device: 12044 Seconds (200 Minutes, 44 Seconds)

27 September 2012 - 07:39:46 Start, (Wu: FG11753_V7.wu)
Results: (FG11753_V7.wu) average time on device: 7003 Seconds (116 Minutes, 43 Seconds)

27 September 2012 - 09:36:35 Start, (Wu: FG13462_V7.wu)
Results: (FG13462_V7.wu) average time on device: 6399 Seconds (106 Minutes, 39 Seconds)

27 September 2012 - 11:23:16 Start, (Wu: FG24857_V7.wu)
Results: (FG24857_V7.wu) average time on device: 6295 Seconds (104 Minutes, 55 Seconds)

27 September 2012 - 13:08:13 Start, (Wu: FG53024_V7.wu)
Results: (FG53024_V7.wu) average time on device: 6420 Seconds (107 Minutes, 0 Seconds)

27 September 2012 - 14:55:15 Start, (Wu: FG76516_V7.wu)
Results: (FG76516_V7.wu) average time on device: 6453 Seconds (107 Minutes, 33 Seconds)


All four cores of my Atom D525 were crunching Seti/beta during the run. I manually suspended GPU activity in Boinc manager before running this test.

25/09/2012 10:50:56 Processor: 4 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU D525 @ 1.80GHz [Family 6 Model 28 Stepping 10]
25/09/2012 10:50:56 Processor: 512.00 KB cache
25/09/2012 10:50:56 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 nx lm tm2 movebe pbe
25/09/2012 10:50:56 OS: Microsoft Windows 7: Home Premium x86 Edition, Service Pack 1, (06.01.7601.00)
25/09/2012 10:50:56 Memory: 1.99 GB physical, 3.98 GB virtual
25/09/2012 10:50:56 Disk: 100.00 GB total, 23.43 GB free
25/09/2012 10:50:56 Local time is UTC +3 hours
25/09/2012 10:50:56 NVIDIA GPU 0: ION (driver version unknown, CUDA version 4000, compute capability 1.2, 444MB, 35 GFLOPS peak)


Boinc client version 6.10.60, nVidia driver 270.61, eFMer Seti Performance v1.40

Profile MarkJProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 08
Posts: 942
Credit: 25,130,102
RAC: 15,890
Australia
Message 1289086 - Posted: 28 Sep 2012, 23:29:07 UTC

GTX660 (Palit factory OC'ed, Base clock 1006Mhz, Boost clock 1072Mhz)

Starting automatic test: (x41g)
29 September 2012 - 08:56:38 Start, devices: 1, device count: 1 (1.00)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 1, average time / count: 234, average time on device: 234 Seconds (3 Minutes, 54 Seconds)
Next :---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 September 2012 - 09:00:34 Start, devices: 1, device count: 2 (0.50)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 2, average time / count: 319, average time on device: 159 Seconds (2 Minutes, 39 Seconds)
Next :---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 September 2012 - 09:05:56 Start, devices: 1, device count: 3 (0.33)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 465, average time on device: 155 Seconds (2 Minutes, 35 Seconds)
Next :---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 September 2012 - 09:13:45 Start, devices: 1, device count: 4 (0.25)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 4, average time / count: 619, average time on device: 154 Seconds (2 Minutes, 34 Seconds)
>> The best average time found: 155 Seconds (2 Minutes, 35 Seconds), with count: 0.33 (3)
____________
BOINC blog

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5872
Credit: 60,851,089
RAC: 47,561
Australia
Message 1289099 - Posted: 29 Sep 2012, 0:21:28 UTC - in response to Message 1289086.
Last modified: 29 Sep 2012, 0:21:43 UTC

GTX660 (Palit factory OC'ed, Base clock 1006Mhz, Boost clock 1072Mhz)
>> The best average time found: 155 Seconds (2 Minutes, 35 Seconds), with count: 0.33 (3)

Looks like a toss up between 2 & 3. Only a few seconds gained for the extra WU for 3 at a time, but overtime i guess it would all add up.
____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

Profile Snowmain
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Nov 05
Posts: 74
Credit: 11,516,357
RAC: 14,291
United States
Message 1289280 - Posted: 29 Sep 2012, 13:40:24 UTC
Last modified: 29 Sep 2012, 14:38:07 UTC

There is nothing automatic about this test. Notice how nearly 100% of this discussion involves Volunteer Testers. Perhaps version 1.5 or 1.6 could actually be automatic. There are millions of programs out there that all one need do is download and run and they work, perhaps one day this will become one.

Fred, thank you for working on this very neccesary pieces of software.

Starting automatic test: (x41g)
29 September 2012 - 09:19:29 Start, devices: 1, device count: 1 (1.00)
ERROR: Unable to copy from: C:\videocardtest\SetiPerformance_32_64_1_4\zip\x41g\ to: C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\eFMer\SetiPerformance, slot: 0
Aborted

Not really looking for help...Don't really care to put anymore time into this...

There are no spaces in my directory structure...

If and when this program become automatic, somebody pm me and I will gladly run it and post up my gtx 570 classified both at its stock 822MHz and at its current 839MHz.
____________

Profile Alex Storey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 04
Posts: 554
Credit: 1,671,241
RAC: 631
Greece
Message 1289299 - Posted: 29 Sep 2012, 14:12:01 UTC
Last modified: 29 Sep 2012, 14:14:32 UTC

Hey Snowmain!

Please don't take this the wrong way, it's one of those "Is your computer plugged in" kinda questions...Here it is:

Did you drag the folder out from inside the zipped folder and place it (say) on your desktop?

Edit: In other words are you trying to run the tool straight from the zipped folder?

JohnDKProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 00
Posts: 865
Credit: 47,218,541
RAC: 76,211
Denmark
Message 1289308 - Posted: 29 Sep 2012, 14:22:23 UTC - in response to Message 1289086.

GTX660 (Palit factory OC'ed, Base clock 1006Mhz, Boost clock 1072Mhz)

Starting automatic test: (x41g)
29 September 2012 - 08:56:38 Start, devices: 1, device count: 1 (1.00)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 1, average time / count: 234, average time on device: 234 Seconds (3 Minutes, 54 Seconds)
Next :---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 September 2012 - 09:00:34 Start, devices: 1, device count: 2 (0.50)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 2, average time / count: 319, average time on device: 159 Seconds (2 Minutes, 39 Seconds)
Next :---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 September 2012 - 09:05:56 Start, devices: 1, device count: 3 (0.33)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 465, average time on device: 155 Seconds (2 Minutes, 35 Seconds)
Next :---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 September 2012 - 09:13:45 Start, devices: 1, device count: 4 (0.25)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results:
Device: 0, device count: 4, average time / count: 619, average time on device: 154 Seconds (2 Minutes, 34 Seconds)
>> The best average time found: 155 Seconds (2 Minutes, 35 Seconds), with count: 0.33 (3)

Times from my MSI GTX560 factory OC. I thought GTX660 was faster than a GTX560, wonder if we tested using the same WU?

15 September 2012 - 14:59:07 Start, devices: 1, device count: 2 (0.50)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results: Device: 0, device count: 2, average time / count: 305, average time on device: 152 Seconds (2 Minutes, 32 Seconds)

15 September 2012 - 15:05:41 Start, devices: 1, device count: 3 (0.33)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results: Device: 0, device count: 3, average time / count: 448, average time on device: 149 Seconds (2 Minutes, 29 Seconds)

Profile S@NL - eFMer - efmer.com/boincProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 99
Posts: 512
Credit: 130,276,125
RAC: 34,543
United States
Message 1289309 - Posted: 29 Sep 2012, 14:22:28 UTC - in response to Message 1289280.


If and when this program become automatic, somebody pm me and I will gladly run it and post up my gtx 570 classified both at its stock 822MHz and at its current 839MHz.

Are you using 1.4 ?
Simply unpack the zip in a folder and run it.

Sometimes something unexpected happens.

Use explorer and try to open this folder: C:\videocardtest\SetiPerformance_32_64_1_4\zip\x41g\
Try opening C:\Users\Jim\AppData\Roaming\eFMer\SetiPerformance and check what is in slot0.

Helping me solve this will help others and will make a better V 1.5
____________
TThrottle Control your temperatures. BoincTasks The best way to view BOINC. Anza Borrego Desert hiking.

Profile S@NL - eFMer - efmer.com/boincProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 99
Posts: 512
Credit: 130,276,125
RAC: 34,543
United States
Message 1289310 - Posted: 29 Sep 2012, 14:26:34 UTC - in response to Message 1289308.


I thought GTX660 was faster than a GTX560, wonder if we tested using the same WU?


What I see so far is that the 6xx series is actually slower on the g.
It has more cuda cores but they are less capable.

The Beta Z series suggest that the 6xx series will be a bit faster with that program version.

____________
TThrottle Control your temperatures. BoincTasks The best way to view BOINC. Anza Borrego Desert hiking.

Profile S@NL - eFMer - efmer.com/boincProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 99
Posts: 512
Credit: 130,276,125
RAC: 34,543
United States
Message 1289316 - Posted: 29 Sep 2012, 14:34:28 UTC - in response to Message 1287868.


The log files (SetiPerformance.log & result.log) use strange sequence at line ends (line break):
0D 0D 0A (CR CR LF) instead of the usual for Windows 0D 0A

I can't find them.

\r\n \r\n\r\n (D A) only. Give me a specific location.

____________
TThrottle Control your temperatures. BoincTasks The best way to view BOINC. Anza Borrego Desert hiking.

Profile Snowmain
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Nov 05
Posts: 74
Credit: 11,516,357
RAC: 14,291
United States
Message 1289317 - Posted: 29 Sep 2012, 14:37:21 UTC - in response to Message 1289309.
Last modified: 29 Sep 2012, 14:41:36 UTC

MY advise.....

First) Skip the zip. Bandwidth is not an issue for anyone using seti. Its an unnecessary step that just adds complexity. Even for the host this file might have been downloaded 200 times, its just not enough data to make the zip necessary.

Second) Compile the entire program into a single executable file. This would then put all of the necessary files in one location... This would allow the program to be run from the desktop, or any other location.

I am sure my solutions here are highly simplistic to the more PC savvy among users.

But make it easy or im just not interested...ya know....like almost everyone else.
____________

Profile BilBg
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 May 07
Posts: 2828
Credit: 6,365,137
RAC: 7,260
Bulgaria
Message 1289374 - Posted: 29 Sep 2012, 16:50:31 UTC - in response to Message 1289316.


The log files (SetiPerformance.log & result.log) use strange sequence at line ends (line break):
0D 0D 0A (CR CR LF) instead of the usual for Windows 0D 0A

I can't find them.

\r\n \r\n\r\n (D A) only. Give me a specific location.

It is not 'specific', it is on every line break:
Offset(h) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F 00000000 30 39 2F 32 35 2F 32 30 31 32 2C 20 32 30 3A 30 09/25/2012, 20:0 00000010 36 3A 32 33 20 2D 2D 20 53 74 61 72 74 75 70 0D 6:23 -- Startup. 00000020 0D 0A 30 39 2F 32 35 2F 32 30 31 32 2C 20 32 30 ..09/25/2012, 20 00000030 3A 30 36 3A 32 34 20 2D 2D 20 53 74 61 72 74 20 :06:24 -- Start 00000040 72 65 61 64 69 6E 67 20 63 6F 6E 66 69 67 2E 78 reading config.x 00000050 6D 6C 0D 0D 0A 30 39 2F 32 35 2F 32 30 31 32 2C ml...09/25/2012, 00000060 20 32 30 3A 30 36 3A 32 34 20 2D 2D 20 3C 64 61 20:06:24 -- <da 00000070 74 61 3E 20 3C 6E 61 6D 65 3E 4D 42 36 5F 77 69 ta> <name>MB6_wi 00000080 6E 5F 78 38 36 5F 53 53 45 33 5F 4F 70 65 6E 43 n_x86_SSE3_OpenC 00000090 4C 5F 41 54 69 5F 48 44 35 5F 72 33 39 30 3C 66 L_ATi_HD5_r390<f 000000A0 6F 6C 64 65 72 3E 4D 42 36 5F 77 69 6E 5F 78 38 older>MB6_win_x8 000000B0 36 5F 53 53 45 33 5F 4F 70 65 6E 43 4C 5F 41 54 6_SSE3_OpenCL_AT 000000C0 69 5F 48 44 35 5F 72 33 39 30 3C 65 78 65 3E 4D i_HD5_r390<exe>M 000000D0 42 36 5F 77 69 6E 5F 78 38 36 5F 53 53 45 33 5F B6_win_x86_SSE3_ 000000E0 4F 70 65 6E 43 4C 5F 41 54 69 5F 48 44 35 5F 72 OpenCL_ATi_HD5_r 000000F0 33 39 30 2E 65 78 65 3C 70 61 72 61 6D 65 74 65 390.exe<paramete 00000100 72 3E 20 2D 2D 64 65 76 69 63 65 20 25 64 65 76 r> --device %dev 00000110 69 63 65 20 2D 69 6E 73 74 61 6E 63 65 73 5F 70 ice -instances_p 00000120 65 72 5F 64 65 76 69 63 65 20 34 20 2D 70 65 72 er_device 4 -per 00000130 69 6F 64 5F 69 74 65 72 61 74 69 6F 6E 73 5F 6E iod_iterations_n 00000140 75 6D 20 32 30 20 0D 0D 0A 30 39 2F 32 35 2F 32 um 20 ...09/25/2 Offset(h) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F 00000000 53 74 61 72 74 69 6E 67 20 61 75 74 6F 6D 61 74 Starting automat 00000010 69 63 20 74 65 73 74 3A 20 28 41 50 36 5F 77 69 ic test: (AP6_wi 00000020 6E 5F 78 38 36 5F 53 53 45 32 5F 4F 70 65 6E 43 n_x86_SSE2_OpenC 00000030 4C 5F 41 54 49 5F 72 31 33 31 36 29 0D 0D 0A 32 L_ATI_r1316)...2 00000040 35 20 53 65 70 74 65 6D 62 65 72 20 32 30 31 32 5 September 2012 00000050 20 2D 20 32 30 3A 31 38 3A 33 37 20 53 74 61 72 - 20:18:37 Star 00000060 74 2C 20 64 65 76 69 63 65 73 3A 20 31 2C 20 64 t, devices: 1, d 00000070 65 76 69 63 65 20 63 6F 75 6E 74 3A 20 31 20 28 evice count: 1 ( 00000080 31 2E 30 30 29 20 0D 0D 0A 32 35 20 53 65 70 74 1.00) ...25 Sept 00000090 65 6D 62 65 72 20 32 30 31 32 20 2D 20 32 30 3A ember 2012 - 20: 000000A0 31 38 3A 33 37 20 53 65 74 3A 20 41 50 36 5F 77 18:37 Set: AP6_w 000000B0 69 6E 5F 78 38 36 5F 53 53 45 32 5F 4F 70 65 6E in_x86_SSE2_Open 000000C0 43 4C 5F 41 54 49 5F 72 31 33 31 36 20 2C 20 45 CL_ATI_r1316 , E 000000D0 78 65 3A 20 41 50 36 5F 77 69 6E 5F 78 38 36 5F xe: AP6_win_x86_ 000000E0 53 53 45 32 5F 4F 70 65 6E 43 4C 5F 41 54 49 5F SSE2_OpenCL_ATI_ 000000F0 72 31 33 31 36 2E 65 78 65 20 2C 20 50 61 72 61 r1316.exe , Para 00000100 6D 65 74 65 72 73 3A 20 20 2D 2D 64 65 76 69 63 meters: --devic 00000110 65 20 25 64 65 76 69 63 65 20 2D 75 6E 72 6F 6C e %device -unrol 00000120 6C 20 33 20 0D 0D 0A 32 35 20 53 65 70 74 65 6D l 3 ...25 Septem 00000130 62 65 72 20 32 30 31 32 20 2D 20 32 30 3A 33 31 ber 2012 - 20:31 00000140 3A 31 32 20 52 75 6E 74 69 6D 65 3A 20 44 65 76 :12 Runtime: Dev 00000150 69 63 65 3A 20 30 2C 20 63 6F 75 6E 74 3A 20 30 ice: 0, count: 0 00000160 2C 20 37 35 34 20 73 65 63 6F 6E 64 73 0D 0D 0A , 754 seconds... 00000170 32 35 20 53 65 70 74 65 6D 62 65 72 20 32 30 31 25 September 201 00000180 32 20 2D 20 32 30 3A 33 31 3A 31 32 20 44 65 76 2 - 20:31:12 Dev 00000190 69 63 65 3A 20 30 2C 20 43 6F 75 6E 74 3A 20 30 ice: 0, Count: 0 000001A0 2C 20 66 69 6E 69 73 68 65 64 2E 0D 0D 0A 2D 2D , finished....--


____________



- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)

Previous · 1 . . . 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Optimize your GPU. Find the value the easy way.

Copyright © 2014 University of California