Has there been any testing and publication of running multiple tasks at once.

On first few tasks I was only doing one at a time, and was trying to do other essential things. Like this one, WU true angle range is : 0.428503

resultid=3022860597

Run time = 772.30

After u/grading BOINC and inserting app_config file for 2 tasks (0.5 setting)

I did this task - WU true angle range is : 0.428214

resultid=3022859980
Run time = 2,024.74

And this one WU true angle range is : 0.428564

resultid=3022860735
Run time = 1,984.35

Which, if this is consistent, means running only one task is more efficient.

edit] forgot to say it's a Nvidia 670
side note, VLAR's are taking over 3,000 sec

Has there been any testing and publication of running multiple tasks at once.

AFAIK not at this stage- it's best to run just one WU per GPU initially with the new version as it will run multiple CUDA versions to determine which one gives the best results on a particular system.
Once that settles down then running multiple instances again is the way to go, although initial reports indicate that in many cases where 3 used to be the magic number it's now 2...

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Have gone back to running only one task.

Indication do seem to suggest running only one might be most efficient at mid range AR. But might be different at different AR's, quick indication at VHAR says times are approx same doing 1 or 2 tasks.

All very confusing.

Just a remainder, when you run 2 WU at a time the time for EACH WU is a little bigger the when you run one, but remeember you need to count is not only that, the number that realy matter is the number of WU produced per hour/day, so 1 could apear faster but when you count the WU per hour/day agaist 2 you will see the diference.

---

Just a remainder, when yo run 2 WU at a time the time for EACH WU is a little bigger the when you run one, but remeember you need to count is not only that, the number that realy matter is the number of WU produced per hour/day, so 1 could apear faster but when you count the WU per hour/day agaist 2 you will see the diference.

If you look at the figures quoted you will notice when doing one task it completed in ~750 sec. When doing two tasks they took ~2,000sec.

Now my maths says 2 * 750 is less that 2,000.

Or to put it another way. In 6,000 sec I can either do 8 tasks one at a time or 6 tasks doing two at a time, if the AR is ~0.42. Other AR's may vary.

Just a remainder, when yo run 2 WU at a time the time for EACH WU is a little bigger the when you run one, but remeember you need to count is not only that, the number that realy matter is the number of WU produced per hour/day, so 1 could apear faster but when you count the WU per hour/day agaist 2 you will see the diference.

If you look at the figures quoted you will notice when doing one task it completed in ~750 sec. When doing two tasks they took ~2,000sec.

Now my maths says 2 * 750 is less that 2,000.

Or to put it another way. In 6,000 sec I can either do 8 tasks one at a time or 6 tasks doing two at a time, if the AR is ~0.42. Other AR's may vary.

That´s is wierd, on my 670 that kind of WU run (2 WU at a time) is crunched in aproximately 16 min (about 950 sec each) so 2000 sec is too much. Something else is ussing your host resources you need to work on that.

---

I've got to ask why you are running x41zc cuda42 instead of x41zc cuda50 on that card as cuda42 should be used with GT/GTX 5xx cards and cuda50 with GT/GTX 6xx cards.

Cheers.

I've got to ask why you are running x41zc cuda42 instead of x41zc cuda50 on that card as cuda42 should be used with GT/GTX 5xx cards and cuda50 with GT/GTX 6xx cards.

Cheers.

No "should be" about it. It's a matter of choice, observation and personal preference. There's a general rule of thumb that 42 is ideal for Fermi, and 50 is ideal for Kepler, but both versions (and more) are compatible with both classes of card. YMMV, and so might his.

So far my computer has downloaded about 120 CUDA42's (68 in the first batch) and 2 (TWO) CUDA50's (forced one to completion, not verified)

I've got to ask why you are running x41zc cuda42 instead of x41zc cuda50 on that card as cuda42 should be used with GT/GTX 5xx cards and cuda50 with GT/GTX 6xx cards.

Cheers.

No "should be" about it. It's a matter of choice, observation and personal preference. There's a general rule of thumb that 42 is ideal for Fermi, and 50 is ideal for Kepler, but both versions (and more) are compatible with both classes of card. YMMV, and so might his.

Actually when you look at beta hosts there are some where APR shows practically no difference between the CUDA varieties.

if it was me, I'd let it run stock till APR has established for all the versions and let boinc do the speed calculations for me :D

As for 670 - the one I know (factory OC) runs nicely with 2 tasks at a time.

---

A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. (Mark Twain)

Cuda50 is faster than the others builds on the 670, at least on mine hosts, not too much but you could notice the diference and, that is a personal feeling, it makes the video runs better so you could keep the GPU crunching 2 WU (even vlars) at a time and work in the host with out problem if you run normal windows programs (not games or heavy graphic of course).

One question, where i could verify the APR of the host?

And a sugestion: why not make a simple way to the user choose the cuda variant he prefear? something like <cudaversion> cudaxx <cudaversion> on the config file? That will help us to choose the right version for our hosts.

---

And a sugestion: why not make a simple way to the user choose the cuda variant he prefear?

That's another reason why we're writing an installer ;)

I see my partner in crime is back from other duties - down to the cellar again.....

One question, where i could verify the APR of the host?

From your website list of computers, click on details, then application details for the host you want. By the way, so far 42 has a better apr than 50 on my 670, but VLARs are messing that up with ther sluggish way and their impact on concurrent tasks.

---

Another Fred
Support SETI@home when you search the Web with GoodSearch or shop online with GoodShop.

One question, where i could verify the APR of the host?

The APR is shown on the Computer details page and click on "Application details" Show

Mine for 42 and 50 are

SETI@home v7 7.00 windows_intelx86 (cuda42)
Number of tasks completed 16
Max tasks per day 117
Number of tasks today 130
Consecutive valid tasks 17
Average processing rate 162.6687835048
Average turnaround time 0.14 days
SETI@home v7 7.00 windows_intelx86 (cuda50)
Number of tasks completed 0
Max tasks per day 100
Number of tasks today 2
Consecutive valid tasks 0
Average turnaround time 0.00 days

Note the APR requires tasks to be validated, as I have no 50's validated then the decision cannot be made yet.

APR? I should be wondering about APR?

Not.

I feel truly sorry for the ATI folks.......things are more complicated for you.

My rigs are all running all as they should be.
Although under current circumstances, not all that they could be.
I shall patiently await the new installer for that.

I am actually rather amused and happy with the way thingys are running on 'stock'.

Which is to say, stock modified apps.


Wondering.......are the apps that are going to be tendered in the new instakker suppose to be faster than the stock app? Or the same latest xc thingy?

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

Mark if the CPU apps that are going into the installer were'nt faster than stock we woudln'd be bothering with an installer.

---

A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. (Mark Twain)

Mark if the CPU apps that are going into the installer were'nt faster than stock we woudln'd be bothering with an installer.

LOL......
I know, dear.

The kitties are patiently waiting.
No pressure......things are rather OK as they stand.

You and Richard do the best that you can.

No problems here.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

I forced the other CUDA50 task to run, Murphy strikes again it was a 30 spike overflow.