Attention those failing to getting the Brook app to run. I've posted a revised aistub here. Please give it a try.
We can't update the installer until we've consulted with Eric on this matter (there's a build in beta).

I have updated my app-info file with the supplied xml - then had to wait to actually get a work unit. The task has started running without trashing the work unit immediately. I will let you know if it completes successfully.

Thanks for all you work

AP task has completed and validated against a stock CPU.
Thanks to all at Lunatics

Unfortunately, updating the drivers does not seem to have stemmed the errors on my opti AP tasks.....

What would your next recommendation be, Mike?
When you wake up, of course...LOL.

Its neither the app nor the cards.
All units processed correctly.
Errors allways occurs after processing.
Sounds like a synching issue to me.
Evenso i found you got those errors with r_1316 on all 3 hosts also.

I`m almost certain its the boinc api bug.
Boinc finnsh call not recieved.

Try to run the app with -hp switch.
It increases priority.

Have you freed a CPU core ?
Maybe lack of ressources.

Edit:
All your hosts with errors are quads.
So if you are running 2 GPUs with 2 ap instances all cores are fully utilized.
So its necessary to reduce number of instances.

I'll have to continue to play with things.
It was actually 2 quads and a dual core having problems.
Earlier this morning, I went from 1 free core to 2 on the quads and freed up 1 core on the duo, but that did not seem to do the trick.
So I just went back to 3 cores on one of the quads and put both the dual cores back up, changed the count to 1 again.
The other quad seems to have responded better to having 2 cores free, so I'm going to leave that one as is and monitor it.
I might as time goes on take a whack at running the AP app at high priority and taking count back to .5 at a later date, but I don't have the time right now, and I need to get things under control.

Meanwhile, one of the 295 cores in a 260/295 rig started throwing fits, and I had to cold boot that rig to clear the problem. Might convert that one to a pair of 560s tomorrow.

And this morning, I had most of my day co-opted to help Lori with some more yard chores, as it looks like rain here tomorrow, so I won't be around most of the day.

Hope that the changes will start to get my invalid/error tasks back down to the minor limits I am OK with.

Thanks for the help and suggestions, Mike.
The kitties don't like error tasks.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

All 3 rigs now updated to 314.22 drivers.

We'll give 'er a meow and see how it flies.

I'm running 314.07 here where I had the problem.
<Eccles> Thinks! I should check my other two Win+Nvidia machines <Spanish Inquisition> three Win+Nvidia macines </SI>... <checks> No, no computation errors there, but they are all Win7 while my home machine is XP </checks>. </Eccles>

---

I'm not sure if this belongs in this thread, but I'll start here.
I installed Lunatics on the third and may est run times were way too high, that was expected. V7 est to be over 40 hrs. Actual times are less than 2 hrs. Est times started dropping down to 38, then I got a couple of 14 est. I thought things were going the way they were supposed to but now the est times on new units is back up to 38.
This is a problem because I set my cache for 5 days, so I can only cache 4 or 5 work units which in reality is on 10 hours of work.

---

I'm not sure if this belongs in this thread, but I'll start here.
I installed Lunatics on the third and may est run times were way too high, that was expected. V7 est to be over 40 hrs. Actual times are less than 2 hrs. Est times started dropping down to 38, then I got a couple of 14 est. I thought things were going the way they were supposed to but now the est times on new units is back up to 38.

Depending on how fast your system is, it will take 3-10 days for it to all settle down.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I'm not sure if this belongs in this thread, but I'll start here.
I installed Lunatics on the third and may est run times were way too high, that was expected. V7 est to be over 40 hrs. Actual times are less than 2 hrs. Est times started dropping down to 38, then I got a couple of 14 est. I thought things were going the way they were supposed to but now the est times on new units is back up to 38.
This is a problem because I set my cache for 5 days, so I can only cache 4 or 5 work units which in reality is on 10 hours of work.

You haven't done your 10 validations for CPU v7 anonymous platform yet.

Claggy

Thanks, the system is slow, an old P4 brought out of retirement with the addition of a PCI GT430. On only AP it was cranking out a steady 2500 RAC.

---

I'm not sure if this belongs in this thread, but I'll start here.
I installed Lunatics on the third and may est run times were way too high, that was expected. V7 est to be over 40 hrs. Actual times are less than 2 hrs. Est times started dropping down to 38, then I got a couple of 14 est. I thought things were going the way they were supposed to but now the est times on new units is back up to 38.
This is a problem because I set my cache for 5 days, so I can only cache 4 or 5 work units which in reality is on 10 hours of work.

You haven't done your 10 validations for CPU v7 anonymous platform yet.

Claggy

Oh yes I have. Not counting what has rolled off I show 14.

---

Thanks, the system is slow, an old P4 brought out of retirement with the addition of a PCI GT430. On only AP it was cranking out a steady 2500 RAC.

I'd suggest closer to 10 then, maybe even 14.

I've got an E6600 with a GTX 460.
It hasn't requested any MB CPU work since i upgraded using Lunatics because the completion estimates are so high (20-26hrs, actual times 3-5hrs), at the present rate it's chewing through work it will probably be at least 10 days from when i did the Lunatics upgrade before it does request more MB CPU work. At least that work, when it arrives, will have very close to correct estimates.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Uhh, this AP GPU app still isn't happy, even though on my quad core dual 560 rig I updated the driver, have a core free and set my count back to 1.
It is still ditching AP tasks.

I am out for the evening, but what would be the next suggestion?

EDIT...
Sorry, I forgot about the priority thingy. Will give that a whirl next.

EDIT2
OK, the AP GPU app is now set to high priority on the 3 rigs that were giving the most trouble.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Well...
All I gotta say right now is the Open CL AP app for GPU ain't cuttin' it.
Despite having a core free, only running count at 1, and raising the priority of the app itself to high, I am still throwing errored tasks.
Right now, my opinion is this is a fatal flaw in the app, even though on many of my other rigs it is running with no problems.

And the worst part of it is...
If I understand it correctly the tasks are being processed fully and completely. The error comes when closing out the task when it is done.
This is wasting a lot of my GPU resources.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Unfortunately, updating the drivers does not seem to have stemmed the errors on my opti AP tasks.....

What would your next recommendation be, Mike?
When you wake up, of course...LOL.

Its neither the app nor the cards.
All units processed correctly.
Errors allways occurs after processing.
Sounds like a synching issue to me.
Evenso i found you got those errors with r_1316 on all 3 hosts also.

I`m almost certain its the boinc api bug.
Boinc finnsh call not recieved.

Try to run the app with -hp switch.
It increases priority.

Have you freed a CPU core ?
Maybe lack of ressources.

Edit:
All your hosts with errors are quads.
So if you are running 2 GPUs with 2 ap instances all cores are fully utilized.
So its necessary to reduce number of instances.

I have a quad Mike.

I use app_config.xml.

<app_config>
<app>
<name>astropulse_v6</name>
<max_concurrent>6</max_concurrent>
<gpu_versions>
<gpu_usage>0.5</gpu_usage>
<cpu_usage>0.64</cpu_usage>
</gpu_versions>
</app>
</app_config>

And it works with 6 tasks at once.
Even if cpu is 100% it works.
But I run on ATI.

Uhh, this AP GPU app still isn't happy, even though on my quad core dual 560 rig I updated the driver, have a core free and set my count back to 1.
It is still ditching AP tasks.

I am out for the evening, but what would be the next suggestion?

EDIT...
Sorry, I forgot about the priority thingy. Will give that a whirl next.

EDIT2
OK, the AP GPU app is now set to high priority on the 3 rigs that were giving the most trouble.

Do you Overclock?

Set to default speeds and see if it works.
And run app at default settings as well.

Its different on nvidia cards.
Its always a full CPU core in use on each instance.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Its different on nvidia cards.
Its always a full CPU core in use on each instance.

Does it show 100% usage in windows task manager as well??

//TQ

Uhh, this AP GPU app still isn't happy, even though on my quad core dual 560 rig I updated the driver, have a core free and set my count back to 1.
It is still ditching AP tasks.

I am out for the evening, but what would be the next suggestion?

EDIT...
Sorry, I forgot about the priority thingy. Will give that a whirl next.

EDIT2
OK, the AP GPU app is now set to high priority on the 3 rigs that were giving the most trouble.

Do you Overclock?

Set to default speeds and see if it works.
And run app at default settings as well.

I am not about to change my clock speeds on either CPU or GPU just to accommodate a fragile application. These rigs are stable on everything else, and have been for some time.
The app settings are whatever the Lunatics installer supplied with the app, I have not changed a thing there. I have set them to high priority using Fred's priority tool.

There is a fatal flaw in the manner in which this application wraps things up after the WU is completed. I am sorry if that statement offends some, but I think I have verified what others have seen before me.

And, as I appear to be able to reproduce the problem willingly or unwillingly, I could test any new version if a bug fix can be found.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Uhh, this AP GPU app still isn't happy, even though on my quad core dual 560 rig I updated the driver, have a core free and set my count back to 1.
It is still ditching AP tasks.

I am out for the evening, but what would be the next suggestion?

EDIT...
Sorry, I forgot about the priority thingy. Will give that a whirl next.

EDIT2
OK, the AP GPU app is now set to high priority on the 3 rigs that were giving the most trouble.

Do you Overclock?

Set to default speeds and see if it works.
And run app at default settings as well.

I am not about to change my clock speeds on either CPU or GPU just to accommodate a fragile application. These rigs are stable on everything else, and have been for some time.
The app settings are whatever the Lunatics installer supplied with the app, I have not changed a thing there. I have set them to high priority using Fred's priority tool.

There is a fatal flaw in the manner in which this application wraps things up after the WU is completed. I am sorry if that statement offends some, but I think I have verified what others have seen before me.

And, as I appear to be able to reproduce the problem willingly or unwillingly, I could test any new version if a bug fix can be found.

Just before this all gets a little too parochial.....

The installer team can accept no responsibility for the performance of any particular application. We don't write 'em, we just install what we're given.

If we could perhaps keep this thread clear for installation issues only, please.

Thank you.

The issue being discussed in recent posts perhaps fits better into:

OpenCL AstroPulse crash after processing completion - write here

I understand your point, but the issue does directly relate to the app you have distributed.
I certainly understand that your work was to do the installer and send out the apps you were led to believe by beta testing would be the best. This app just fails to pass muster in it's present form. Not your fault.

If there is enough sentiment about it, I have no problem if you want the mods to try to sift and sort the app issue into the other thread you have mentioned. Although that might be a bit difficult at this point.

EDIT...
And BTW, you folks still get many thanks and kitty kudos for your installer work. I have had no issues with THAT at all.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

I understand your point, but the issue does directly relate to the app you have distributed.
I certainly understand that your work was to do the installer and send out the apps you were led to believe by beta testing would be the best. This app just fails to pass muster in it's present form. Not your fault.

If there is enough sentiment about it, I have no problem if you want the mods to try to sift and sort the app issue into the other thread you have mentioned. Although that might be a bit difficult at this point.

No, no need for that. The issue arose out of the apps distributed by the installer, so having some discussion here will be a useful heads-up for users still waiting to make the decision whether to install optimised apps, and if so, which ones to choose.

But when we move on to the point of offering to test a revised application when available, it seems more appropriate to place that offer in the dedicated thread, since there's one so readily available.

I understand your point, but the issue does directly relate to the app you have distributed.
I certainly understand that your work was to do the installer and send out the apps you were led to believe by beta testing would be the best. This app just fails to pass muster in it's present form. Not your fault.

If there is enough sentiment about it, I have no problem if you want the mods to try to sift and sort the app issue into the other thread you have mentioned. Although that might be a bit difficult at this point.

No, no need for that. The issue arose out of the apps distributed by the installer, so having some discussion here will be a useful heads-up for users still waiting to make the decision whether to install optimised apps, and if so, which ones to choose.

But when we move on to the point of offering to test a revised application when available, it seems more appropriate to place that offer in the dedicated thread, since there's one so readily available.

Well, I had missed that, so another valid reason for me discussing things here.
I shall take a closer look at the other thread and see if there IS something else I should try. Although I am a bit surprised that nobody else explicitly suggested I try a different version of the app.

Thank you once again, Richard.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster