Panic Mode On (110) Server Problems?

Message boards : Number crunching : Panic Mode On (110) Server Problems?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 38 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile arkayn
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 May 99
Posts: 4258
Credit: 53,535,652
RAC: 28,881
United States
Message 1914174 - Posted: 20 Jan 2018, 6:09:19 UTC

Finally managed to get some work so I could raise my RAC above 5, so I could start a new thread.

Continue..........

ID: 1914174 · Report as offensive
Stephen "Heretic" Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 12
Posts: 3536
Credit: 75,542,432
RAC: 115,209
Australia
Message 1914230 - Posted: 20 Jan 2018, 15:54:37 UTC - in response to Message 1914174.  

Finally managed to get some work so I could raise my RAC above 5, so I could start a new thread.

Continue..........


. . All that much harder at current credit rates ... :)

Stephen

:)
ID: 1914230 · Report as offensive
Profile Bill G Special Project $75 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Jun 01
Posts: 825
Credit: 133,300,245
RAC: 80,995
United States
Message 1914252 - Posted: 20 Jan 2018, 17:49:09 UTC - in response to Message 1914230.  
Last modified: 20 Jan 2018, 17:53:19 UTC

I was looking at All Tasks and everything was just fine on my TR. When I came back to it a bit later I suddenly had over 3K WUs in progress. I was beginning to panic wondering where all these Ghosts were coming from....also In Progress and Valid were at lestsd 2k more than they should have been.
I then went back to Account and to All Tasks and there is was: 400 In Progress tasks as it should have been. Strange goings on.
https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=8366659

SETI@home classic workunits 4,019
SETI@home classic CPU time 34,348 hours
ID: 1914252 · Report as offensive
Profile JaundicedEye Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 12
Posts: 4249
Credit: 30,533,022
RAC: 958
United States
Message 1914254 - Posted: 20 Jan 2018, 18:12:36 UTC

Credit Screw turning away....since the reduction in RAC should be the same percentage on all rigs.....just wondering if anyone kept track of RAC change to see if it really works that way. I'm not saying anyone monkeyed the numbers just that schemes and programs don't always have the intended results.....what were the intended results again?

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>
ID: 1914254 · Report as offensive
Profile Keith Myers Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Apr 01
Posts: 4989
Credit: 319,948,784
RAC: 833,531
United States
Message 1914256 - Posted: 20 Jan 2018, 18:28:18 UTC - in response to Message 1914254.  

Credit Screw turning away....since the reduction in RAC should be the same percentage on all rigs.....just wondering if anyone kept track of RAC change to see if it really works that way. I'm not saying anyone monkeyed the numbers just that schemes and programs don't always have the intended results.....what were the intended results again?

You can read the CreditNew mission statement here
Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours
ID: 1914256 · Report as offensive
Profile arkayn
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 May 99
Posts: 4258
Credit: 53,535,652
RAC: 28,881
United States
Message 1914272 - Posted: 20 Jan 2018, 20:33:08 UTC - in response to Message 1914230.  

Finally managed to get some work so I could raise my RAC above 5, so I could start a new thread.

Continue..........


. . All that much harder at current credit rates ... :)

Stephen

:)


Those same 9 minutes on Collatz would net me about 28,000 credits as opposed to 52 here.

ID: 1914272 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 7967
Credit: 18,997,519
RAC: 9,482
United States
Message 1914274 - Posted: 20 Jan 2018, 20:40:19 UTC - in response to Message 1914272.  

Those same 9 minutes on Collatz would net me about 28,000 credits as opposed to 52 here.

I crunched Collatz for a short time and I felt stupider than usual.
ID: 1914274 · Report as offensive
Profile Mike Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 01
Posts: 31218
Credit: 64,774,788
RAC: 23,893
Germany
Message 1914286 - Posted: 20 Jan 2018, 21:26:52 UTC - in response to Message 1914274.  
Last modified: 20 Jan 2018, 21:27:38 UTC

Those same 9 minutes on Collatz would net me about 28,000 credits as opposed to 52 here.

I crunched Collatz for a short time and I felt stupider than usual.


Innit, i don`t crunch for credits.
With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.
ID: 1914286 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 10113
Credit: 133,726,683
RAC: 86,385
Australia
Message 1914291 - Posted: 20 Jan 2018, 21:58:28 UTC - in response to Message 1914272.  

Those same 9 minutes on Collatz would net me about 28,000 credits as opposed to 52 here.

Yeah Collatzs' overpaying makes Credit News' underpaying pale in comparison.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1914291 · Report as offensive
Stephen "Heretic" Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 12
Posts: 3536
Credit: 75,542,432
RAC: 115,209
Australia
Message 1914294 - Posted: 20 Jan 2018, 22:16:19 UTC - in response to Message 1914254.  
Last modified: 20 Jan 2018, 22:52:15 UTC

Credit Screw turning away....since the reduction in RAC should be the same percentage on all rigs.....just wondering if anyone kept track of RAC change to see if it really works that way. I'm not saying anyone monkeyed the numbers just that schemes and programs don't always have the intended results.....what were the intended results again?


. . Well as is often the way, the drop in RAC is greatest on my fastest rig ...

. . i5-6600 & 2 x GTX970 was 94,000 now 58,000 (Cuda 80) down to 62 %

. . i5-6400 & GTX950 was 19,200 now 13,600 (SoG r3557) down to 71 %

. . C2D-E7600 & GTX1050ti was 26,000 now 17,500 (Cuda 80) down to 67 %

. . I listed them by CPU but I should have listed them by performance, but you can see that the slowest/least productive unit has the smallest reduction in RAC.

Stephen
ID: 1914294 · Report as offensive
Stephen "Heretic" Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 12
Posts: 3536
Credit: 75,542,432
RAC: 115,209
Australia
Message 1914295 - Posted: 20 Jan 2018, 22:20:42 UTC - in response to Message 1914272.  

Finally managed to get some work so I could raise my RAC above 5, so I could start a new thread.

Continue..........


. . All that much harder at current credit rates ... :)

Stephen

:)


Those same 9 minutes on Collatz would net me about 28,000 credits as opposed to 52 here.


. .Yeah! But it's all about the objective. Is Collatz ever likely to find E.T. ?? :)

Stephen

{Disclaimer - In no way should this be interpreted as denigration of any other BOINC based project}
ID: 1914295 · Report as offensive
Profile Freewill

Send message
Joined: 19 May 99
Posts: 7
Credit: 47,457,919
RAC: 96,926
United States
Message 1914308 - Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 0:33:06 UTC - in response to Message 1914256.  

Credit Screw turning away....since the reduction in RAC should be the same percentage on all rigs.....just wondering if anyone kept track of RAC change to see if it really works that way. I'm not saying anyone monkeyed the numbers just that schemes and programs don't always have the intended results.....what were the intended results again?

You can read the CreditNew mission statement here


That wiki link made my head hurt. Can someone answer a couple of questions? Is there any value in over-clocking CPUs and GPUs to increase RAC? I run the stock SETI apps, not the anonymous programs. Are GPUs still far superior for boosting RAC? I was debating the value of building a xeon rig versus more graphics cards.
ID: 1914308 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 10113
Credit: 133,726,683
RAC: 86,385
Australia
Message 1914310 - Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 0:39:33 UTC - in response to Message 1914308.  
Last modified: 21 Jan 2018, 0:42:59 UTC

Is there any value in over-clocking CPUs and GPUs to increase RAC? I run the stock SETI apps, not the anonymous programs. Are GPUs still far superior for boosting RAC? I was debating the value of building a xeon rig versus more graphics cards.

The more WUs you process the higher your RAC will be (in spite of Credit New). GPUs still outperform CPUs, even with the recent appearance of high core count desktop CPUs (eg AMD ThreadRipper and Intel i9). The more GPUs you have on a given the system, then the faster CPIU clock speed you want, as well as 1CPU core (thread) for each GPU WU being processed to keep those GPUs fed, plus at least 2 other cores for either CPU crunching, or just general system use.
As for overclocking, yes it does produce more work (as long as you're not producing errors). However using 10% more power to get a 5% boost in output doesn't add up in my book.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1914310 · Report as offensive
Profile Freewill

Send message
Joined: 19 May 99
Posts: 7
Credit: 47,457,919
RAC: 96,926
United States
Message 1914313 - Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 0:51:57 UTC - in response to Message 1914310.  

Grant, thanks for the quick answer! I've stayed away from the overclocking because I don't want to deal with those errors or system instability. Like everyone, I do wish the graphics cards were cheaper. I have a 4th one on the way for my main box, so I'll need to build a new one if I get another card.
ID: 1914313 · Report as offensive
Profile Dr.Diesel Special Project $75 donor

Send message
Joined: 14 May 99
Posts: 36
Credit: 42,934,825
RAC: 61,602
United States
Message 1914318 - Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 1:08:39 UTC - in response to Message 1914310.  

[quote]as well as 1CPU core (thread) for each GPU WU being processed to keep those GPUs fed


Is this necessary with the low CPU CUDA80 apps?
ID: 1914318 · Report as offensive
Profile Keith Myers Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Apr 01
Posts: 4989
Credit: 319,948,784
RAC: 833,531
United States
Message 1914322 - Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 1:37:55 UTC - in response to Message 1914318.  

[quote]as well as 1CPU core (thread) for each GPU WU being processed to keep those GPUs fed


Is this necessary with the low CPU CUDA80 apps?

? ? ? ? The CUDA80/90 apps need and use 1 full cpu core to support the gpu task.
Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours
ID: 1914322 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 10113
Credit: 133,726,683
RAC: 86,385
Australia
Message 1914323 - Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 1:38:39 UTC - in response to Message 1914318.  

[quote]as well as 1CPU core (thread) for each GPU WU being processed to keep those GPUs fed


Is this necessary with the low CPU CUDA80 apps?

It depends. As their performance improves, so does the amount of CPU time required to feed them. It also depends on the GPU hardware- lower end GPU hardware doesn't require as much CPU support as high end.
By default the CPU requirements for supporting the GPU are very low, however for maximum performance from those applications, disabling the blocking sync results in greater GPU output, at the expense of greater CPU load, so the need for a CPU core for each GPU WU being crunched. But the increased output (like with SoG) is worth losing that core from CPU crunching to the GPU support.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1914323 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 10113
Credit: 133,726,683
RAC: 86,385
Australia
Message 1914324 - Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 1:42:55 UTC - in response to Message 1914322.  

? ? ? ? The CUDA80/90 apps need and use 1 full cpu core to support the gpu task.

I thought he default was to use Blocking Sync to keep the CPU load down? Disabling blocking sync bumps up the CPU requirements, but also bumps up the output from the video card.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1914324 · Report as offensive
Profile Keith Myers Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Apr 01
Posts: 4989
Credit: 319,948,784
RAC: 833,531
United States
Message 1914332 - Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 2:13:09 UTC - in response to Message 1914324.  

I've never seen any recommendation for the special app to use anything other than the -nobs no blocking sync flag. The whole reason for the special app is to utilize the maximum potential of the graphics card. Not sure where the -bs blocking sync flag would be useful. Maybe the low end dual core and 1050 class systems?
Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours
ID: 1914332 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 10113
Credit: 133,726,683
RAC: 86,385
Australia
Message 1914337 - Posted: 21 Jan 2018, 2:31:20 UTC - in response to Message 1914332.  
Last modified: 21 Jan 2018, 2:31:37 UTC

I've never seen any recommendation for the special app to use anything other than the -nobs no blocking sync flag. The whole reason for the special app is to utilize the maximum potential of the graphics card. Not sure where the -bs blocking sync flag would be useful. Maybe the low end dual core and 1050 class systems?

Check out the title of thread.
Linux CUDA 'Special' App finally available, featuring Low CPU use
Low CPU use was it's big selling point.
:-)
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1914337 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 38 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Panic Mode On (110) Server Problems?


 
©2018 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.