It says 701 in version, in the apps section i read 705 at http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/apps.php

Shouldnt it say 705 in the app_info instead of 701 as in the aistub file?

---

_________________________________________________________________________
Addicted to SETI crunching!
Founder of GPU Users Group

It says 701 in version, in the apps section i read 705 at http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/apps.php

Shouldnt it say 705 in the app_info instead of 701 as in the aistub file?

Argh. I was afraid of that.

First, make sure you are looking at the right application. 705 on the apps page is for NVidia/cuda GPUs only. I don't know what Mike has put in his files - they're on a different machine.

I strongly advise that you change the version number to match what it says on the applications page.

It doesn't matter now, because you'll have no AP v7 work on the machine. But when the installer comes out, it will - as always - try to upgrade easily over the top of any cached work you might have. So it will know about, and use, the stock application version numbers and plan_classes. Any other values are unsupported.

If you use any manual installation technique, and you don't match the supported values, you run the risk that cached work will be lost if you subsequently run the installer, and will need to be re-downloaded - at 8MB a pop. Please try to avoid that - either by running down cache (set NNT), or by using the project supported values in the first place.

I have installed the v7 apps, of course no work yet. Any timeplan for work release?

It says 701 in version, in the apps section i read 705 at http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/apps.php

Shouldnt it say 705 in the app_info instead of 701 as in the aistub file?

Not that important usually in anon platform.
I did run it as 701 at beta.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

It says 701 in version, in the apps section i read 705 at http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/apps.php

Shouldnt it say 705 in the app_info instead of 701 as in the aistub file?

Not that important usually in anon platform.
I did run it as 701 at beta.

It is important if you wish to preserve cached work when (re-) running the installer.

In Mike's installer it says 701 for GPU and 700 for SSE CPU, I've changed it to 705 GPU and 703 CPU, guess that's right.

Got ya.. Thanks all for the clearup.

Yes i have a Nvidia card in this case! :)

---

_________________________________________________________________________
Addicted to SETI crunching!
Founder of GPU Users Group

In Mike's installer it says 701 for GPU and 700 for SSE CPU, I've changed it to 705 GPU and 703 CPU, guess that's right.

The supported version numbers will be:

700 or 703 for CPU
704 for ATI GPU
705 for NVidia GPU
704 for Intel GPU

Make sure the plan_class entry matches one of the ones listed on the applications page for your card type.

If there are no optimized applications available at the moment, then give at least a link to download the standard distribution AP7 application(s) for the anonymous platform users to be prepared. ;)

If Mike and Arkayn could mirror the final release packages for each individual app on their sites, please, it would save me breaking away from trying to knock the whole installer into shape.

I have them up on my site now as well.
http://www.arkayn.us/forum/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=cat105

---

@all who cached NV OpenCL APv7 app with revision lesser than 2721

Please remove older deprecated binaries from your sites and replace with OpenCL NV AP7 r2721 build.

Consider this as "official notice".

@all who cached NV OpenCL APv7 app with revision lesser than 2721

Please remove older deprecated binaries from your sites and replace with OpenCL NV AP7 r2721 build.

Consider this as "official notice".

Roger that. Thanks for the replies.
Now we just need to finish off the remaining V6 CPU tasks and go for V7 with CPU and GPU

Michael

@all who cached NV OpenCL APv7 app with revision lesser than 2721

Please remove older deprecated binaries from your sites and replace with OpenCL NV AP7 r2721 build.

Consider this as "official notice".

"Official" according to whom?

I consider the 'continual work fetch under anonymous platform' bug to be worse than the problem that you hoped it would overcome.

We need to think this through better, before anyone starts making statements like that.

Consider this as "official notice".

"Official" according to whom?

According to me, the author of this build. Also next time I would like to be asked before any of alpha area builds will go public.

I consider the 'continual work fetch under anonymous platform' bug to be worse than the problem that you hoped it would overcome.

App doesn't do fetch at any case. Не надо валить с больной головы на здоровую, as we said. If you think it's bug then work closely with BOINC dev group for as fast fix as possible.

I consider the 'continual work fetch under anonymous platform' bug to be worse than the problem that you hoped it would overcome.

App doesn't do fetch at any case. Не надо валить с больной головы на здоровую, as we said. If you think it's bug then work closely with BOINC dev group for as fast fix as possible.

Taking an overall systems analyst view of the situation, the app - under current BOINC 'release candidate' v7.4.22 - triggers a condition where excessive work fetch takes place. You received a copy of my bug report to the BOINC developers, complete with screenshot and work_fetch_debug log.

Under those conditions, I - the author of the installer - view it as unfit for the purpose for which it was supplied, namely running under BOINC in 'anonymous platform' mode. As I've just written elsewhere, it's fine for running as a stock app, where the server controls work allocation a different way.

When there will be another alternative - new build will be released and current one will be make deprecated. Until then it's the best one can have in this area.
I see no point in continual discussion of this quite apparent fact.

I have updated to nv_r_2721.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

When there will be another alternative - new build will be released and current one will be make deprecated. Until then it's the best one can have in this area.
I see no point in continual discussion of this quite apparent fact.

It seems only to be apparent to you, and I hold the opposite view. Nobody else appears to have tested, or to have expressed an opinion on, an application which you only put forward as a candidate for consideration at lunchtime on Monday - barely more than 48 hours ago.

But as we've both just said in our parallel conversation, let's call a break for tonight and see if things look clearer - maybe even a 'third way' can be found - in the morning.

I have updated to nv_r_2721.

For the benefit of bystanders bemused by the last couple of hours, it should be explained that anyone considering this app should heed @Pre-FERMI nVidia GPU users: Important warning.

Don't run this app - or any other AP/NV app - on any compute capability 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 NVidia card (i.e. an old legacy gas-guzzler) with driver 340.52 - that's the only combination which is causing even the slightest concern. Either a newer card, or an older driver, and everything's fine and dandy.

I have a question to add to all of this talk of new apps..

When we moved over to AP_v6, we were asked to run stock apps for a while so that the server-side estimates and credit balancing could get a proper baseline before going to anonymous platform.

Is that going to be the same case with v7?

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)