Could someone tell me what the correct class plan is for

Linux/x86_64 8.07 (opencl_nvidia_SoG) 11 Mar 2016, 22:39:59 UTC

I thought it would be "opencl_nvidia_SoG" but boinc is not happy with that.

Could someone tell me what the correct class plan is for

Linux/x86_64 8.07 (opencl_nvidia_SoG) 11 Mar 2016, 22:39:59 UTC

I thought it would be "opencl_nvidia_SoG" but boinc is not happy with that.

Perhaps the reason for no responses is that I have asked the wrong question. I want to test the Linux SoG app so I assume I should configure the app_config.xml file to reflect that. I have attempted to do that with the following.

<app_config>
        <app_version>
                <app_name>setiathome_v8</app_name>
                <version_num>807</version_num>
                <plan_class>opencl_nvidia_SoG</plan_class>
        </app_version>
</app_config>

The result is the following in stdoutdae.txt.

Entry in app_config.xml for app 'setiathome_v8', plan class 'opencl_nvidia_SoG' doesn't match any app versions

Perhaps the right question is what is wrong with the syntax of the app_config.xml above?

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/apps.php

http://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/Client_configuration#Application_configuration

Does version_num belong there ?

---

_\|/_
U r s

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/apps.php

http://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/Client_configuration#Application_configuration

Does version_num belong there ?

No, not currently. I sometimes wonder if we should ask for the specification - and behaviour - to be extended.

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/apps.php

http://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/Client_configuration#Application_configuration


Does version_num belong there ?

Good catch. I think I carried that over from app_info.xml on main without really thinking about it. Unfortunately removing the version number did not help.


Here is my current app_config.xml

<app_config>
        <app_version>
                <app_name>setiathome_v8</app_name>
                <plan_class>opencl_nvidia_SoG</plan_class>
        </app_version>
</app_config>

And I still receive this message in stdoutdae.txt.

Entry in app_config.xml for app 'setiathome_v8', plan class 'opencl_nvidia_SoG' doesn't match any app versions

What are you actually trying to configure with that file? At the moment, it doesn't modify any parameter.

At the moment, with your computer(s) hidden, I can't even tell whether you're running stock or anonymous platform.

If stock, app_config.xml will step in and start configuring the application (and remove the "doesn't match" notification) when the server issues the first task with that app_version/plan_class combination (and issues the required application files with it).

If anonymous platform, you can't have installed the application with those values.

What are you actually trying to configure with that file? At the moment, it doesn't modify any parameter.

I was trying to specify that the application I wanted to use was "opencl_nvidia_SoG" and not "opencl_nvidia_sah".

At the moment, with your computer(s) hidden, I can't even tell whether you're running stock or anonymous platform.

I was not aware of that. If it is not the default, I must have set it that way some time ago. You should be able to view it now.

If stock, app_config.xml will step in and start configuring the application (and remove the "doesn't match" notification) when the server issues the first task with that app_version/plan_class combination (and issues the required application files with it).

If anonymous platform, you can't have installed the application with those values.

I would call it stock, but I am no expert. The only thing currently in the "setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu_beta" directory is the "app_config.xml. There is no app_info.xml.

Let's try a different question.


If the only thing I have installed is BOINC 7.2.42, what do I have to do to install


Linux/x86_64 8.10 (opencl_nvidia_SoG) 7 Apr 2016, 1:01:54 UTC

If the only thing I have installed is BOINC 7.2.42, what do I have to do to install

Linux/x86_64 8.10 (opencl_nvidia_SoG) 7 Apr 2016, 1:01:54 UTC

Earlier you asked

I was trying to specify that the application I wanted to use was "opencl_nvidia_SoG" and not "opencl_nvidia_sah".

You can't do that with app_config.xml . When using stock apps the server assigns tasks for whichever app version it likes, you have no control over that. If you want to decide yourself which app version to use you need use anonymous platform mechanism, that is, use app_info.xml .

If the only thing I have installed is BOINC 7.2.42, what do I have to do to install

Linux/x86_64 8.10 (opencl_nvidia_SoG) 7 Apr 2016, 1:01:54 UTC

Earlier you asked

I was trying to specify that the application I wanted to use was "opencl_nvidia_SoG" and not "opencl_nvidia_sah".

You can't do that with app_config.xml . When using stock apps the server assigns tasks for whichever app version it likes, you have no control over that. If you want to decide yourself which app version to use you need use anonymous platform mechanism, that is, use app_info.xml .

I thought I had tried info.xml earlier in the process before I started posting, but I will repeat the test starting form scratch and report back. Perhaps I typed something wrong. If it doesn't work this time as well, I will post my info.xml. Thanks for your help

If the only thing I have installed is BOINC 7.2.42, what do I have to do to install

Linux/x86_64 8.10 (opencl_nvidia_SoG) 7 Apr 2016, 1:01:54 UTC

Earlier you asked

I was trying to specify that the application I wanted to use was "opencl_nvidia_SoG" and not "opencl_nvidia_sah".

You can't do that with app_config.xml . When using stock apps the server assigns tasks for whichever app version it likes, you have no control over that. If you want to decide yourself which app version to use you need use anonymous platform mechanism, that is, use app_info.xml .

I thought I had tried info.xml earlier in the process before I started posting, but I will repeat the test starting form scratch and report back. Perhaps I typed something wrong. If it doesn't work this time as well, I will post my info.xml. Thanks for your help

Here is what I tried for an app_info.xml

# Beta opencl_nvidia_SoG
<app_info>
        <app>
                <name>opencl_nvidia_SoG</name>
        </app>
        <app_version>
                <app_name>opencl_nvidia_SoG</app_name>
                <version_num>810</version_num>
                <platform>x86_64-pc-linux-gnu</platform>
        </app_version>
</app_info>

And the pertinent messages in stdoutdae.txt are as follows.

Unknown app name opencl_nvidia_SoG in app_info.xml
Your app_info.xml file doesn't have a usable version of SETI@home v8.


I also tried

<platform>Linux/x86_64</platform>

since that is what is shown for platform on the beta apps page with the same result.

Obviously something is wrong, but what?

First of all, documentation.

You are getting the error message because there is no application called "opencl_nvidia_SoG". The applications called "setiathome_v8" and "astropulse_v7".

In case you didn't know you need to download the program files yourself from the server. And when new versions are released you are responsible for downloading the new versions. When you use app_info.xml BOINC doesn't do anything automatically.

It would probably be easiest for you to hunt the Main forums for a working app_info.xml and then edit it if necessary.

Is there a reason why you want to select the app version yourself and not let the server decide?

There's a skeleton working file at Main board message 1753198

Keep the framework intact, but change (both) the <file_info> and the <file_ref> names - they must match - to suit the executable (binary) file name that you plan to use. As Juha says, you must download and supply the file(s) yourself, and you may also have to set the execute bit. If the application has other dependencies (files needed at runtime), you'll have to download those too and add <file_info> and <file_ref> sections for them. The app developer should have included all relevant information in the documentation accompanying the application.

opencl_nvidia_SoG would appear in the app_version as a <plan_class>, and you would need to specify the <coproc> to be used, as per the documentation.

First of all, documentation.
You are getting the error message because there is no application called "opencl_nvidia_SoG". The applications called "setiathome_v8" and "astropulse_v7".

OK. Thanks. I will make note of that.

In case you didn't know you need to download the program files yourself from the server. And when new versions are released you are responsible for downloading the new versions. When you use app_info.xml BOINC doesn't do anything automatically.

I have run into this road block before both here and on main. How do you go about download the apps manually? There is nothing to click on at
https://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/apps.php. Is there another URL that I should be using?

It would probably be easiest for you to hunt the Main forums for a working app_info.xml and then edit it if necessary.

I did start with my working app_info.xml on main but just changed it poorly :).

Is there a reason why you want to select the app version yourself and not let the server decide?

Yes, I want to try all the versions and see which one produces the best results.

Now to read Richard's post

There's a skeleton working file at Main board message 1753198

Keep the framework intact, but change (both) the <file_info> and the <file_ref> names - they must match - to suit the executable (binary) file name that you plan to use. As Juha says, you must download and supply the file(s) yourself, and you may also have to set the execute bit. If the application has other dependencies (files needed at runtime), you'll have to download those too and add <file_info> and <file_ref> sections for them. The app developer should have included all relevant information in the documentation accompanying the application.

opencl_nvidia_SoG would appear in the app_version as a <plan_class>, and you would need to specify the <coproc> to be used, as per the documentation.

Thanks. Those are all good points and I will make use of them when I create my app_info.xml, but again I am not sure where you get the app files. There is no way that I can see to download them from https://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/apps.php. Is there another URL?

If you are looking to run applications provided as stock by the project, you can always retrieve them from the download fanout of the project in question. For SETI Beta, that's:

http://boinc2.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/download/

But you'll find that directory listing of that url is blocked. You have to know, or be able to guess, the exact name of the file you need. For adapting a stock download for testing under app_info, the usual way is to wait for the server to allocate one task in the ordinary course of events, then backup the files and retrieve the rest of what you need from the contents of client_state.xml - the format of client state is similar enough to the format of app_info.xml for that to be relatively obvious.

Anonymous Platform (app_info.xml) is designed for running applications you compile yourself, so of course you would know what files they were without all that guesswork.

If you are looking to run applications provided as stock by the project, you can always retrieve them from the download fanout of the project in question. For SETI Beta, that's:

http://boinc2.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/download/

But you'll find that directory listing of that url is blocked. You have to know, or be able to guess, the exact name of the file you need. For adapting a stock download for testing under app_info, the usual way is to wait for the server to allocate one task in the ordinary course of events, then backup the files and retrieve the rest of what you need from the contents of client_state.xml - the format of client state is similar enough to the format of app_info.xml for that to be relatively obvious.

Anonymous Platform (app_info.xml) is designed for running applications you compile yourself, so of course you would know what files they were without all that guesswork.

On the https://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/apps.php page it lists the application -

Linux/x86_64 8.10 (opencl_nvidia_SoG) 7 Apr 2016, 1:01:54 UTC

If it is on that page I would assume that it is there for testing so how is one supposed to test it with out a method of doing so?

Do the powers to be expect you to spend hours trying to guess the name so you can download it? That does not make a whole lot of sense.

If they do not expect you to test it, why bother listing it on the applications page as if it were?

Do the powers to be expect you to spend hours trying to guess the name so you can download it? That does not make a whole lot of sense.

If they do not expect you to test it, why bother listing it on the applications page as if it were?

The "powers" expect automatic downloads of apps in testing to participants PCs. All above that are users own expectations.
There are cases when particular binary testing required. Usually dev provides test pack as separate download with some instructions how to use.

What you trying to do is your own test protocol, not Urs or my. And when reasons of actions questioned those questions ignored (at least I read this thread so).

What you try to achieve?
Currently we testing relative performance of apps so your actions directly contradict with at least one dev intentions. It's OK for particular host to go own line, but at least avoid to blame others...

Also, there is an option for offline benchmarking.

---

News about SETI opt app releases: https://twitter.com/Raistmer

Do the powers to be expect you to spend hours trying to guess the name so you can download it? That does not make a whole lot of sense.

If they do not expect you to test it, why bother listing it on the applications page as if it were?

The "powers" expect automatic downloads of apps in testing to participants PCs. All above that are users own expectations.
There are cases when particular binary testing required. Usually dev provides test pack as separate download with some instructions how to use.

What you trying to do is your own test protocol, not Urs or my. And when reasons of actions questioned those questions ignored (at least I read this thread so).

What you try to achieve?
Currently we testing relative performance of apps so your actions directly contradict with at least one dev intentions. It's OK for particular host to go own line, but at least avoid to blame others...

Also, there is an option for offline benchmarking.

Let me address your points in order,.

1. This all started because I could not do the “automatic downloads of apps in testing to participants PCs” you mention. If the developers “expect automatic downloads of apps” it would help if they provided instructions on how to accomplish that or what to do if that doesn’t occur. The apps page only indicates that “the current version of the application will be downloaded to your computer. This happens automatically; you don't have to do anything.” There is no instruction on how to proceed when the download of your selected application doesn’t download automatically so your only option is to ask.

2. Does your statement “”Usually dev provides test pack as separate download with some instructions how to use” mean that testing of apps is by invitation only and that the apps page is not where users should find apps to test?

3. I was not aware I was trying to do “my own test protocol”. There is no special test protocols shown anywhere that I can find. All I did was note that there was a Linux “SoG” application listed on the apps page and try to download it for testing. I thought the whole idea of listing the beta apps on that page was to let beta testers know that it was available for testing and to test it. If there is a particular protocol we should be following other than testing it and reporting problems here, it would help if there was a note on the apps page explaining that.

4. I am not sure what you mean by “And when reasons of actions questioned those questions ignored”. As far as I know I did not ignore any questions in this thread and I believe I tried everything that was suggested. If I missed something it was not intentional.

5. What I am trying to achieve is what I have stated in reply to a similar questions in this thread. I am trying to determine if the SoG app is better or worse that other apps for Nvidia V8 MB. In doing so I would also be determining if there any problems with the app which I thought I was whole idea of beta testing. I also thought the more people that tested the better.

6. I really do not see how my actions contradict with those of the developers. I thought the developers developed apps and the testers tested apps with same goal of arriving at a working application for main. I was only trying to do that and questioning why there seems to be road blocks to testing when the whole idea of beta testing is to test.

7. I was not blaming anyone for anything. I was simply asking if whoever is responsible for the applications page, and I really have no idea who that is, expected users to guess the download name if they do not provide any instruction or method to do so. It didn't and still does not make sense to me. That was all I was trying to convey.

8. I have no idea what the "option for offline benchmarking" is or how you would even do it without an application to test off-line. ????

I apologize if my tone seemed harsh in my last post, but since I am already falling from grace, I might as well hit bottom and explain where I am coming from.

First of all I know all the developers are doing this on a volunteer basis, and I am thankful for that. I also know that developers owe nothing to the users of their apps.

That being said, I saw from your Feb 5th post on main that a Windows “SoG” version was available for use on main but no similar application for Linux. I made a conscious decision at that point to just wait patiently and not bother anyone about it. Even after seeing updates for the Windows version being discussed on the main NC group, when there was not even a first Linux version, I said nothing.

It was only when a Linux version appeared on the beta apps page in March for testing, at least I thought it was for testing, did I post something and that was only to see what I had to do to download it when everything I had tried had failed. Even then I tried to be polite and thanked everyone for their suggestions. It was only when Richard seemed to indicate that I was trying to do the impossible which seemed contradictory to the reason for beta testing did I become frustrated.

To be honest, I am still frustrated. I can understand that there are not as many Linux users as Windows users so Linux users have to be patient but I really do not understand why it has to be so difficult to test a beta version on the beta site when it does become available when the whole purpose of the site is to test. I would also think that the more people that test, the quicker testing will be accomplished and the sooner it can be used by everyone on main. That is what is frustrating and what showed through on my last post.

The apps page only lists apps and app version that are installed on the server. This lets you to check any project's apps page that they have an app for your operating system before you join the project.

You test apps here simply by joining the project and then sitting and waiting for the server to hand you different app version. Since the server has a few choices available you might not get the SoG version every time. This however, combined with the fact that Beta tasks aren't purged from the database after 24 hours, makes it very easy to compare the performance of different app versions.