Message boards :
Number crunching :
LotzaCores and a GTX 1080 FTW
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 11 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13766 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
Now how the hell did he get 89.94 for a WU that ran for 15.51 seconds when a couple of WUs that ran for around 11,000 secs got 96 & 97 and then 113 for another 11,000sec runtime???? And a 16.5sec WU that pays out 90. Grant Darwin NT |
Al Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1682 Credit: 477,343,364 RAC: 482 |
I think I'll do that, I'll give it till around 10 tomorrow morning to give it 18 straight hours of processing them, (but I had better NNT it bright and early in the morning to clear the cache) and then install the other version and see how things go with that one. |
Al Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1682 Credit: 477,343,364 RAC: 482 |
Now how the hell did he get 89.94 for a WU that ran for 15.51 seconds when a couple of WUs that ran for around 11,000 secs got 96 & 97 and then 113 for another 11,000sec runtime???? Karma? :-D |
jason_gee Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 |
Running all 48 at once. I'll head downstairs now and take a look at it to see if the temps are still in the same range. [Custom-3rd party app behaviour being different:]The stock cpu code optimised paths have a lot of cache+paging aware things going on. The dispatch mechanism is driven by a quick bench at startup. A look with setting the -verbose command line option (iirc) would display more information on which codepaths become selected. In a sense that makes the applications adaptive to system contention (not quite dynamically, but close enough for government work). It's quite possible some functions would be chosen as fast implementations as expected, but then others use other paths, just because they fit better in the remaining resources during bench, then all run more or less equivalently stacked in like different shaped Tetris blocks. For third party/fixed-builds, there's still runtime dispatch in fftw, though less visible. "Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions. |
Al Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1682 Credit: 477,343,364 RAC: 482 |
Looking at my one inconclusive: Task Computer Sent Time reported Status Run time CPU time Credit Application 4956504166 8012837 28 May 2016, 21:59:10 UTC 29 May 2016, 3:34:45 UTC Completed, validation inconclusive 10,076.96 10,056.92 pending SETI@home v8 Anonymous platform (CPU) 4956504167 7187175 28 May 2016, 21:59:11 UTC 29 May 2016, 0:29:12 UTC Completed, validation inconclusive 2,013.66 164.42 pending SETI@home v8 v8.00 (opencl_nvidia_mac) x86_64-apple-darwin Tells me pretty much what I needed to know about the relative speed of CPU vs. GPU processing. My wingman's computer: Computer information Owner jmenard Created 11 Jan 2014, 2:13:10 UTC Total credit 5,204,286 Average credit 9,235.45 Cross project credit BOINCstats.com Free-DC CPU type Genuine Intel Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4771 CPU @ 3.50GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 60 Stepping 3] Number of processors 8 Coprocessors NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (4095MB) driver: 4600.58 OpenCL: 1.2 Operating System Darwin 15.5.0 BOINC version 7.6.22 Memory 16384 MB Cache 976.56 KB Measured floating point 4629.22 million ops/sec Measured integer speed 12818.84 million ops/sec Average upload rate 48.72 KB/sec Average download rate 842.72 KB/sec Average turnaround time 0.18 days Tasks 423 Number of times client has contacted server 63124 Last contact 29 May 2016 Those time differences are nothing short of amazing... 5x faster. Hopefully I will have similar results once I get the GPU installed. |
Al Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1682 Credit: 477,343,364 RAC: 482 |
Running all 48 at once. I'll head downstairs now and take a look at it to see if the temps are still in the same range. Jason, thank you. And I have absolutely _no_ idea what you just said. lol But, if there is anything you'd like me to do or to configure to help you see more of what is going on on this machine, just let me know, I'm glad to help! |
jason_gee Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 |
Jason, thank you. lol, yeah distilling things down is hard :) Worth an attempt in this case: Think of the system as a beanbag, and the applications you stuff in there as the polystyrene beans. With few in there, the beans can assume their natural shape. Stuffing to the brim and sitting on the beanbag (external pressure), and the apps (beans) can change shape a bit (to a point), so leave less air. [That's adaptive behaviour] Good metric to gauge optimal loading might be temperature, or power from the wall. With the beanbag analogy it'd be firmness. "Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions. |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13766 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
(but I had better NNT it bright and early in the morning to clear the cache) As long as you run the Lunatics Installer, and don't play with the app_info.xml file, that isn't necessary. The installer takes care of all the references to the old application. Since the Lunatics Installer came out, the only time I've trashed work is when editing the app_info.xml file by hand when not fully awake. Using the installer I've gone from one application to another & back again later on with no loss of work. AFAIK the installer shuts down BOINC before doing it's thing, but by habit I always shut it down before even starting the installer. Grant Darwin NT |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13766 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
Good metric to gauge optimal loading might be temperature, or power from the wall. With the beanbag analogy it'd be firmness. Keep an eye on temperatures when running the AVX application. On my i7 system it was (barely) able to run the SSE3 application without getting too hot. With the AVX application I had to replace the stock cooler- it worked the CPU that much harder. And the crunching times came down, a lot. Grant Darwin NT |
jason_gee Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 |
Good metric to gauge optimal loading might be temperature, or power from the wall. With the beanbag analogy it'd be firmness. Yeah, don't burst the beanbag. AVX shaped beans are larger and denser, lol. "Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions. |
HAL9000 Send message Joined: 11 Sep 99 Posts: 6534 Credit: 196,805,888 RAC: 57 |
Good metric to gauge optimal loading might be temperature, or power from the wall. With the beanbag analogy it'd be firmness. I suspect that AVX may prove to be slower on that system. With 48 tasks at once that is a lot to stuff down the memory pipeline all at once. It may not be the most correct way to say it, but I think higher level SIMD instructions tend to be more memory intensive. I was already very surprised by the performance of the E5 v2 CPUs versus the E5 previous generation. So I'm split 50/50 on how AVX will compare to SSE3 & will have to find out if they are using DDR3 1600 or 1866 memory. AVX apps proved to be the most efficient on my i5-4670K systems with DDR3 1600 memory. SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[ |
jason_gee Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 |
Good metric to gauge optimal loading might be temperature, or power from the wall. With the beanbag analogy it'd be firmness. Totally agreed, in particular recall chatting with Joe Segur while he was handcrafting some of those kernels. He had correct code for firing up the prefetchers etc, which will probably mean fairly peaked out pipeline and caches (leaving not much left over). Will certainly be interesting to see if a host like this works better with many smaller fluffier beans, or Old Joe's cannonballs, lol. "Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions. |
Stephen "Heretic" Send message Joined: 20 Sep 12 Posts: 5557 Credit: 192,787,363 RAC: 628 |
Probably they really were real overflows. It's now coming in WU's run full time. . . Join the club! :) |
Stephen "Heretic" Send message Joined: 20 Sep 12 Posts: 5557 Credit: 192,787,363 RAC: 628 |
It's finally got some Credit! . . Just lucky I guess ... |
Stephen "Heretic" Send message Joined: 20 Sep 12 Posts: 5557 Credit: 192,787,363 RAC: 628 |
. . I would much prefer wasting my meagre funds buying better hardware to make things crunch faster than feeding some Poker Machine (Slot Machine for those unfamiliar with Aussie parlance). . . I am also very interested in how much success he has with the 1080, I have been reading their specs today. The ASUS GTX 1080 Strix sounded interesting until I read the power bottom line ... 300W ... eeeekk! |
Stephen "Heretic" Send message Joined: 20 Sep 12 Posts: 5557 Credit: 192,787,363 RAC: 628 |
Now how the hell did he get 89.94 for a WU that ran for 15.51 seconds when a couple of WUs that ran for around 11,000 secs got 96 & 97 and then 113 for another 11,000sec runtime???? . . Now don't be jealous! :) |
Stephen "Heretic" Send message Joined: 20 Sep 12 Posts: 5557 Credit: 192,787,363 RAC: 628 |
. . So it's not just me then? I was wondering what language he was speaking. |
Stephen "Heretic" Send message Joined: 20 Sep 12 Posts: 5557 Credit: 192,787,363 RAC: 628 |
. . FWIW On my i5 6400 with DDR4 2333 ram AVX works a treat, almost halving the runtimes and not running that hot, stays mainly in the 50,s. But efficiency drops off sharply if I run crunching on all 4 Cores (all four cores flat line at 100% and runtimes increase). So I just run 3 and live with a happy PC. |
Al Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1682 Credit: 477,343,364 RAC: 482 |
Well, just got up, so I went down, paused and then exited BOINC, uninstalled and then reinstalled Lunatics, and it seemed to start right where it left off, with no drama. Only thing slightly unusual was that windows security asked if it was alright to allow BOINC thru the firewall, I've never seen that one before. I am running Hynix 1866 memory, in singles per bank to allow the system to utilize it at the full speed, as I read that more sticks = slower speeds. And 32 gig is more than enough for what I am running on this. So far, looking at temps, it appears that they may have crept up a few degrees, maybe an average of 3-5, but it looks like they are still for the most part at 50 or below except on 3-4 cores out of 24 on each CPU. But, I suppose that will vary depending on they type of WU is being processed. |
Al Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1682 Credit: 477,343,364 RAC: 482 |
One question that occured to me while looking at them process (on the tasks tab), was that of the list that is all the tasks, about 50% or so of them are actually crunching right now, and the rest are waiting. So, even though my system preferences are set for 8 days worth of work, this in reality has about 4 hours of work, best case, and little over 2 hours worst case. Something seems wrong about this, isn't the program calculating things out properly, to allow the correct sized cache? |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.