Posts by HAL9000

log in
1) Message boards : Number crunching : BOINC client isn't downloading new S@H workunits on S6 Android (Message 1805456)
Posted 14 hours ago by Profile HAL9000
I am having this same issue, and the old version will not install on my phone.

Is there another thread to follow, which has updates on progress of a new version?

Possibly on the BOINC Message boards.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : What are acceptable acronymes/terminology for the S@h main forum? (Message 1805455)
Posted 15 hours ago by Profile HAL9000
I'm not sure if the VHAR & VLAR terms came from the staff or if they were terms we started using first to refer to the angle range of specific tasks. Either way the terms refer to the angle range of the work we are doing. The project has currently defined VLAR(Very Low Angle Range) tasks to be a task with angle range of <0.12, it was once <0.013, & adds to .vlar the workunit/task names.
VHAR(Very High Angle Range) tasks, aka "shorties", may not have a strict definition by the project, but an angle range >1.0 is often referred to as a VHAR.
I believe one of the lunatics has generated a time/AR chart several years ago. Which showed a pretty clear change in runtime based on the AR.
It more or less looking something like this:
\ --- \
With time going up and AR going from low to high.
Everything between a VLAR & VHAR is often referred to as mid-range. I think we should be calling them MAR myself. Then when we use the plural form it would be MARs. However saying "you have a bunch of MARs tasks" might be confusing to some. As they might thing we are looking for radio signals from the planet Mars instead of from distance stars.

I believe the AR that the classic project used, when they were paying for the telescope time, was ~0.42. So 0.40-0.44 AR tasks I normally refer to as "normal AR". Which are ideally what you want to use for baseline comparisons, but with the GBT data they will likely be rare.

VHARs >1.0 (aka "Shorties")
Mid-range (0.12 - 0.99) (aka "MARs"?)
VLARs <0.12 (aka "OMG Why are these SO SLOW!")
3) Message boards : Number crunching : What is the % of S@H top computers with Lunatics apps/.exe installed? (Message 1803737)
Posted 8 days ago by Profile HAL9000
Wow! Thanks Shaggie
10,9,1 100,66,34 1000,327,673 10000,1284,8716
So: ~87% (7/8) of the "Top 10,000 hosts by RAC" do nothing to optimize!!!
...and also about two thirds (2/3) in the top 1000 PCs. {I'm in shock}

No wonder it took me almost no effort (and only ~$900can) for me to rise to the 1% club so quickly (even with RAC being as slow as it is to rise).
And I thought it was because I had bought the best gear for the money! ;-} considering that optimizers usually have more than 1 power rig, it could very well be that over 90% (maybe even 95%) of the "Top 10,000 participants" only run stock.

Thanks again Shaggie for crunching those stats!!!

At my peak I was about #30 by RAC with my ~35 hosts running. I think only 4 or 5 were in the top 10,000 list.
With our 138,101 active users, boincstats isn't showing hosts right now, I think we have something like 300,000 active hosts. So to say 0.5% of active hosts have actively installed the lunatics apps doesn't seem to far fetched to me. Considering <1% of users ever visit the fora & would not otherwise have any knowledge the other apps exist.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : SETI@home on older computers (Message 1803727)
Posted 8 days ago by Profile HAL9000

Because you are using Windows' remote desktop connection which replaces the GPU driver with a basic one that doesn't support GPU computing.

OK, that could be an explanation.
But, why the GPU doesn't work immediately after the restart? (there is a auto-login)
There is no remote connection yet.

You have to use something else for remote management.

I need the Windows remote desktop for other reasons.

Chrome Remote Desktop works fine also.

Schleich di mit dem Sauglump. ;-)

BTW: I wouldn't use the GPU, just the 4 cores. Using all cores plus the GPU will produce a lot of heat (possibly throttling the CPU) and you may even end up with less work done because the GPU will use some CPU also. Just my 2 cents.

OK, that's a good point.
At the moment my J1900 is running in turbo mode.

My J1900 system has never had a problem running 4 CPU + iGPU tasks while staying in Boost at 2.41GHz. It is an ASRock Q1900-ITX. Which has a fairly large heatsink.
When using an iGPU sometimes there can be problems when Intel updates the driver. Causing SETI@home apps to no longer work or generate garbage results.

Current temps with 4CPU + iGPU at 100% load.
Room 25ºC
CPU 33ºC
iGPU 39ºC
CPU cores 41-42ºC.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Building a 32 thread xeon system doesn't need to cost a lot (Message 1802708)
Posted 13 days ago by Profile HAL9000
Regarding the E5450 HT, I didn't know that because that would have been a huge miss for me when I was evaluating which procs to put into those boards, so I took a quick look at the Intel site again, and according to it:

Advanced Technologies Intel® Turbo Boost Technology ‡ No Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology ‡ No Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) ‡ Yes Intel® VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT) ‡ No Intel® 64 ‡ Yes Idle States Yes Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology Yes Intel® Demand Based Switching Yes Thermal Monitoring Technologies Yes

looks like it doesn't support it either? Or am I not looking at the right thing?

CPUs using the Intel Core microarchitecture do not support HT.

There are small LGA 771 to 775 adapters that allow using the less expensive Xeon CPUs in 775 boards. Which is great if you happen to have a load of old 775 boards that support Xeon CPUs. Most recently it is easier to find 771 boards vs compatible 775 boards.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU FLOPS: Theory vs Reality (Message 1801072)
Posted 23 days ago by Profile HAL9000
I scanned the host export and found about a dozen hosts with Ellesmere cards (the RX 480 is the only released Ellesmere card I think). I can't tell if they're doing unusual things like running multiple tasks but the numbers aren't that far apart so I doubt it.

Host Id: Credits/Hr 7492259 420.6506388 7431180 647.7853343 8034949 367.8899388 8037810 498.1638136 Average 483.6224314

I also scanned for Fiji parts; there's quite a few in the db and I can't tell what version they are (Nano, Fury, Fury X, etc)

Host Id: Credits/Hr 8001648 341.4652324 8001994 557.7983477 8003231 661.4473237 8003833 413.5674201 8013353 551.747657 8014347 385.3597423 8029489 336.9615636 Average 464.0496124

Note that RueiKe's R9 Nano's do a lot better than these do on average -- my guess is his water-cooling setup helps a lot because the Nanos are reputed to throttle when they get hot as I'm sure they do when left crunching for hours.

Personally I've been disappointed in the performance of the Fury cards compared to my R9 390X. With less than 70% of the shaders of a Fury Nano or Fury X it still manages to churn through MB tasks in ~6 minutes. With the fans set to auto it does run up to 68ºC but they are still silent at ~40%. THe only config settings I use are -hp -cpu_lock & I think that -cpu_lock might be depreciated in the current version app. So it might not be doing anything.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU FLOPS: Theory vs Reality (Message 1800809)
Posted 24 days ago by Profile HAL9000
My single EVGA GTX 750 Ti FTW had a RAC in 9-10k with two tasks running at once. Power consumption was in the 40-45W range.
At the moment I'm planning on sticking it in my Celeron J1900 system to see how well that CPU can run the GPU.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : What is the % of S@H top computers with Lunatics apps/.exe installed? (Message 1800805)
Posted 24 days ago by Profile HAL9000
Even seeing "Anonymous platform" in someone app detail or task list doesn't tell you if they are using the optimized lunatics apps. It only tell you that host is using an app_info.xml.
Someone might want to use the stock apps but limit which apps run or pick specific combinations of apps. Rather than run everything the server sends them.
Thanks HAL for that info.
In most cases, I'm guessing "Anonymous platform" will be from having installed Lunatics since customizing app_info.xml is much more complex than simply installing Lunatics. Am I wrong?

Since no one else replied, I did some preliminary stats.
I looked at some individual computer's Application details for host webpage from a few of the pages from top 10,000 computers by RAC to see if there's an anonymous platform entry.
Here are my findings for 3 pages:

hosts with "Anonymous platform"
host rank 1-20 : 18
host rank 241-260: 9
host rank 741-760: 6
host rank 1241-1260: 5
host rank 2541-2560: 1
host rank 5000-5020: 2

I started with the 1st and last entry and then filed in the ones in between from the lowest (2541-2560) to the highest (241-260).
I'm a bit shocked that so few have installed Lunatics!!!

Some things to keep in mind:
-The "stock" GPU app is a lunatics app. So every GPU system out there is actually running a lunatics app.
-All the app tuning options for GPUs are available without using an app_info.xml now. The addition of app_config.xml & the specific GPU config files let all users tune the apps as they need.
-There are some users that run GPU only systems. So the optimized CPU apps are not needed on their systems & they are OK with not having the most up to date build of the GPU apps.

When I had ~35 machines running. They were almost all CPU only hosts. Most never made it into the top 10,000 hosts list, but they all had the best optimized CPU application for their architecture.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU FLOPS: Theory vs Reality (Message 1800351)
Posted 25 days ago by Profile HAL9000
I'm trying to collect data to make the best computation/power-usage choices possible for upgrading my modest farm. I was hoping to get some help to fill in the blanks.

Here's my observed / theoretical performance for my cards on SETI@home tasks:

  • 980 TI ~1000GF / 5632GF (18%)
  • 780 ~650GF / 3977GF (16%)
  • 960 ~385GF / 2308GF (17%)

The theoretical FLOPS is from the Wikipedia entries for the GeForce 700 and 900 series parts and I compared it to the observed FLOPS in a bunch of my completed work-units.

I trawled through recent stats submitted by other people and found one for a GeForce 1080 that suggests the ratio is much higher for those parts: ~2400GF / 8873GF (27%). Could it really be that a 1080 can crunch more than 2x the tasks as a 980Ti? This seems unlikely to me.

If you have a single GeForce 1080 crunching SETI tasks and have more data-points to share I'd really appreciate getting more numbers.

I was also quite excited by the news of AMD's RX 480 because it's a relatively low-power part and priced at a point that makes fitting 2 or 3 of them in a PC cheaper than a single high-end part of lower theoretical performance.

There's just one problem: the theoretical FLOPS on Wikipedia are evidently calculated differently for AMD parts than NVidia parts.

So again, if you have a single RX 480 crunching SETI tasks I'd love to see your work-unit numbers.

I'm not sure using Device peak FLOPS in a task result is the best way to determine the application efficiency. Taking the value displayed in Flopcounter: and diving by the number of seconds the task took might be a more accurate value to compare to the manufacture mex theoretical FLOPs. If you are running multiple tasks per GPU you would also want to correct for that.

I don't see anything in the Radeon 400 series wiki page that points out they will be using a different way to calculate Single Precision FLOPs. For many years (Shaders*2)*clock has been used for Nvidia & Radeon GPUs.
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Say goodbye to SETI@home v7. (Message 1800340)
Posted 26 days ago by Profile HAL9000
Only 4 tasks left

We're getting there, but it will take time :-)

It's like a NYE countdown, but a bit slower.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : What is the % of S@H top computers with Lunatics apps/.exe installed? (Message 1800170)
Posted 26 days ago by Profile HAL9000
Even seeing "Anonymous platform" in someone app detail or task list doesn't tell you if they are using the optimized lunatics apps. It only tell you that host is using an app_info.xml.

Someone might want to use the stock apps but limit which apps run or pick specific combinations of apps. Rather than run everything the server sends them.
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Average Credit Decreasing? (Message 1799912)
Posted 27 days ago by Profile HAL9000

But still feeling contradicting emotions towards SETi@home & it's releasing an app (v8 SoG & sah), which hangs on some nVidia cards...didn't they use BETA for sthg?!

With limited users & hardware participating in SETI@home Beta some issue will not be found until the apps are released to the main project.
13) Message boards : Number crunching : BOINC client isn't downloading new S@H workunits on S6 Android (Message 1799754)
Posted 28 days ago by Profile HAL9000
I checked the BOINC fora for your issue & didn't find anything.
I would guess the missing CPU information for the host is likely the cause.
14) Message boards : Number crunching : USB Risers (Message 1799508)
Posted 29 days ago by Profile HAL9000
You definitely want to power that as well, because the card is expecting (I believe, correct me if I am wrong on the amount) 75 watts to come thru the PCI-E bus itself, and get the rest of what it needs from the external connectors you mentioned.

But aren't those 75 Watts already supplied "through" the 1X slot on the Mobo and "carried" by the USB 3.0 cable to the card, or is the USB cable responsible only for data transfer between the MoBo and the GPU's ?

PCIe specification states
x16 slots may provide up to 75W
x8/x4 slots may provide up to 25W
x1 slots should initially provide 10W & full-height cards may request up to 25W

Some motherboard manufactures design their boards to provide a full 75W to every slot. No matter if it is an x16 or x1 slot.
Some manufactures do not even provide the power specified in the PCIe bus specification to their slots.
It is safest to always use the power connector provided by the adapter or extension cable.
15) Message boards : Number crunching : BOINC 7.4.51 on a Droid. (Message 1799141)
Posted 28 Jun 2016 by Profile HAL9000
Wish Amazon and the BOINC developers would coordinate better on the released apps for Amazon Fire tablets. Last version that will work on my Fire HDX is 7.4.14. Any newer release tries to install but fails with an incompatible version error message.

Is your Kindle Fire a 2nd generation one? The OS for that version of Kindle looks to only go to 4.0.3 & the current release of BOINC requires Android 4.1 or higher.
16) Message boards : Number crunching : BOINC 7.4.51 on a Droid. (Message 1798939)
Posted 27 Jun 2016 by Profile HAL9000
I rebooted my phone 7615058 in the past hour, and noticed Google Play updated BOINC from 7.4.43 to 7.4.51. Looking at says x.41 is "stable" and x.43 is, essentially, a test version...

Where could I find info on x.51?
Does the BOINC page need an update?

(As far as I know I'm not signed up for alpha or beta BOINC testing.)

I would expect the primary release mechanism for BOINC on Android to be via Google Play. Rather than the BOINC website.
As the BOINC site states "We recommend that, rather than downloading BOINC from here, you get it from the Google Play Store or the Amazon app store (for Kindle Fire)"

You can find the release notes for the posted version of BOINC for Android
under the section What's New section for the app in the Play store.
New to 7.4.51:
* Add support for new processor types.
* Update support libraries.

The "new processor types" likely refers to the added support for aarch64 ARM CPUs.

Looking in the BOINC download directory versions 7.4.44 to 7.4.52 have been made available for test recently.
It looks like BOINC v7.4.51 was built on Friday. Then likely given a test over the weekend before being deployed to the app stores for release Monday.

Additionally you may find this post helpful
17) Message boards : Number crunching : Building a 32 thread xeon system doesn't need to cost a lot (Message 1798008)
Posted 22 Jun 2016 by Profile HAL9000
Funny guy... :-p

Wait, that article wasn't published on April 1? Hmmm

I have a few issues with their statement.
"The 1,000 processors can execute 115 billion instructions per second while dissipating only 0.7 Watts which mean it can be powered by a single AA battery."

Power dissipation is not the same as power consumption. A device could have a power input of 10w & dissipate 0.7w. Which would make it ~93% efficient.

With all of the power wires going into the device I imagine it might consume a fair bit more juice at full oomph.

I would guess that the press release information may have an error. It it likely the chip can execute 115 billion instructions per second & it may also be able to run with 0.7w of power input. I imagine it is not both at the same time unless it is some kind of RISC architecture running very specific instructions. Like those coin miners running hashes.
18) Message boards : Number crunching : CPU time difference (Message 1797959)
Posted 22 Jun 2016 by Profile HAL9000
Both i5's are laptops, so lower powered makes sense.

I hear you as to your last point, and I understand it. Due to edits of existing posts, you may have missed what I added to my 22 Jun 2016, 0:07:40 UTC post (last 1.5 paragraphs). Maybe I'm just failing to understand, but I don't see how I can compare my times for two different tasks in any meaningful way. I don't know of any indicator of the "size" of a task other than the CPU time itself.

When you are looking at your Task List
Select the Task ID for a completed task.
Then within the Stderr output you sell see a line WU true angle range is :. You want to compare task where that value is similar. "Normal" tasks, which you ideally want to use as a baseline, fall in the 0.42-0.44 range. So if you are comparing a task with a value of 0.431888 to one with a value of 0.008735 it doesn't really tell you anything.
19) Message boards : Number crunching : CPU time difference (Message 1797825)
Posted 22 Jun 2016 by Profile HAL9000
I think that's been the general conclusion of most people that have given crunching using their Intel on die GPU.

That's been my point throughout this thread. Raistmer said on 5 June: "Try to limit number of cores BOINC use to 2 instead of 4. How this will affect runtime?" Apparently he hadn't received the memo. Now, with any luck, he has.

It is a known issue. I believe all previous tests were performed on i5 CPUs. Where HT was not a factor. So it would make sense to see if HT was a factor. Also checking how the current gen hardware responds with the newest app version is useful information.

The right mix of project CPU & iGPU apps is still an unknown. There are several projects that offer CPU & iGPU apps if you wish to experiment.
20) Message boards : Number crunching : Enabling APU's GPU with installed discrete GPU. Mobo is MSI FM2-A75MA-E35 (Message 1797311)
Posted 19 Jun 2016 by Profile HAL9000
Thanks for links and comments.

It seems that I need another AMD-only GPU indeed :/

Currently, AMD Radeon™ Dual Graphics is supported on the AMD A-Series APUs in conjunction with select AMD Radeon™ R7 series and AMD Radeon™ HD 6000 series graphics cards used under the Microsoft Windows 7 operating system.

Not the right OS also...

Well, will try to find "better home" for NV GTX260 then :)

That is true. Windows Server 2008 is the same level as Windows Vista.

Next 20

Copyright © 2016 University of California