Worked a treat !!
Thanks Ozzfan and Joe for your help

Brodo

[edit] I've seen the app_info in Ozz's previous post, would a cut and paste with the correct section be sufficient? [/edit]

As long as you also download the new AP v5.05 application as well, then yes, it would work.

---

From the top post in this thread

6. Browse your client_state.xml file (its in the BOINC data directory) and look for the entry <p_flops>. We need to use this number. Do NOT change this file.

7. Browse the BOINC log file to get the estimated speed of your GPU. This is usually given at the top of the log in Gflops. My 9800GT was estimated at 60Gflops.

8. For each of the apps multiply the p_flops value by the factor below and put this into the appropiate flops entry in the app_info given below. For multibeam 608 you need the estimated Gflops.

Astropulse 500 flops = p_flops x 2.25
Astropulse 503 flops = p_flops x 2.6
Multibeam 603 flops = p_flops x 1.75
Multibeam 608 flops = Est.Gflops x 0.2 (eg 60,000,000,000 x 0.2 = 12,000,000,000)

9. Make sure you have all the programs listed above in the projects\Setiathome.berkeley.edu folder. If not copy them there.

10. Save your app_info in the projects\Setiathome.berkeley.edu folder.

Question re the p-flops/fpops value in the client_state.xml file
I believe this is calculated by the client. Is it an average taken over X number of days or is it the value at the last shutdown of the client ?

The reason I'm asking is that I've just upgraded the processor in one of my CUDA machines and so have to change the value in the app_info file. But I've also been using ReSchedule to move CPU tasks to the GPU and need to know if the value has been influenced by doing this as I'm trying correct for the resulting imbalance

Regards
Brodo

Question re the p-flops/fpops value in the client_state.xml file
I believe this is calculated by the client. Is it an average taken over X number of days or is it the value at the last shutdown of the client ?

The reason I'm asking is that I've just upgraded the processor in one of my CUDA machines and so have to change the value in the app_info file. But I've also been using ReSchedule to move CPU tasks to the GPU and need to know if the value has been influenced by doing this as I'm trying correct for the resulting imbalance

Regards
Brodo

The <p_fpops> value in the <host_info> section at the top of client_state.xml. is taken from the BOINC benchmarks. They are run once every five days, and once every time you change BOINC version. If you change your CPU, it would probably be best to run the benchmarks manually once you've made sure that the new CPU is working properly - made any speed and bus timing changes necessary in the BIOS. And I suggest you run the benchmarks at a time of your own choosing, after all the Windows startup processes have finished, and when you know that the CPU isn't doing any hard work except BOINC.

Your CUDA card shouldn't change speed (unless you change the card too!).

When you're running with an app_info.xml, I don't think BOINC calculates anything to do with speed as tasks finish (except DCF): and I haven't had any problems with estimates after rebranding, though I've only tried moving from CUDA to CPU, not the other way round.

And finally, to add to the original advice: use the same speed estimate for Astropulse v505 as you did for v503.

I've updated the instructions on my blog, now that AP 505 is with us.

I have also installed the V12 optimised cuda app without the VLARkill as I am also running ReSchedule to shift the VLAR's from cuda to cpu. I have yet to add that to my instructions/app_info. Perhaps its time to start a new thread called "app_info for AP503, AP505, MB603 and MB608" :-)

---

BOINC blog

Should I change flops value for 6.08 when running with CUDA 2.3 dlls? GPU run times have dropped 30 to 50 per cent! Rebranded VLARs' estimates are half of what they should be.

---

Should I change flops value for 6.08 when running with CUDA 2.3 dlls? GPU run times have dropped 30 to 50 per cent! Rebranded VLARs' estimates are half of what they should be.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. In fact, the original multipliers MarkJ and I posted back in March were, IIRC, based on the original RT and FFT, not even the v2.2 upgrade which was pretty good as well. I haven't done the maths yet, but you may need to declare that the speed of your CUDA card is double what it currently says. When I get a chance to watch a steady flow for a while, I'll try and get a better estimate.

Mark let me know when it is ready, we can then put a copy in the FAQ

I've updated the instructions on my blog, now that AP 505 is with us.

I have also installed the V12 optimised cuda app without the VLARkill as I am also running ReSchedule to shift the VLAR's from cuda to cpu. I have yet to add that to my instructions/app_info. Perhaps its time to start a new thread called "app_info for AP503, AP505, MB603 and MB608" :-)

Regards

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Should I change flops value for 6.08 when running with CUDA 2.3 dlls? GPU run times have dropped 30 to 50 per cent! Rebranded VLARs' estimates are half of what they should be.

Will the 2.3 dll's work with older cards? I run a couple of 8600GT's which IRC are built on CUDA V1.1. Information I've read says CUDA V1 cards cannot handle V2.x

Brodo

Should I change flops value for 6.08 when running with CUDA 2.3 dlls? GPU run times have dropped 30 to 50 per cent! Rebranded VLARs' estimates are half of what they should be.

Will the 2.3 dll's work with older cards? I run a couple of 8600GT's which IRC are built on CUDA V1.1. Information I've read says CUDA V1 cards cannot handle V2.x

Brodo

The only v1.1 I know about is the 'Compute capability', as reported by BOINC.

My 9800GT cards are also compute capability 1.1, and they take the new driver and 2.3 DLLs just fine - knocked about 30% off the processing time.

Thanks Richard - It was an error on my part. I misunderstood samuel7's post and thought he was referring to the CUDA version, not the dll version in the video card drivers. :-S

Brodo

Should I change flops value for 6.08 when running with CUDA 2.3 dlls? GPU run times have dropped 30 to 50 per cent! Rebranded VLARs' estimates are half of what they should be.

@ Richard
We also need to factor in the new extra-sensitive MB's as the flops values are presumably no longer correct for them. Is there a way of telling the new ones from the old ones (apart from flops estimate)?

Unfortunately I can't get to cuda 2.3 yet as GPUgrid app doesn't behave with later drivers. They are currently on cuda 2.1 and were trying to get to 2.2. Then cuda 2.3 got released this week :)

---

BOINC blog

Should I change flops value for 6.08 when running with CUDA 2.3 dlls? GPU run times have dropped 30 to 50 per cent! Rebranded VLARs' estimates are half of what they should be.

@ Richard
We also need to factor in the new extra-sensitive MB's as the flops values are presumably no longer correct for them. Is there a way of telling the new ones from the old ones (apart from flops estimate)?

Unfortunately I can't get to cuda 2.3 yet as GPUgrid app doesn't behave with later drivers. They are currently on cuda 2.1 and were trying to get to 2.2. Then cuda 2.3 got released this week :)

1) No, actually we don't. The speed of the application hasn't changed (it can't have, it's the same application). And because the the fpops estimate has been properly doubled to reflect the doubled actual work, it should all balance out. Joe has pointed out that because the CPU setup phase only has to be carried out once per double-length WU, there's a small gain - especially for CUDA - but he estimates no more than 5%.

2) I don't know what the B***S*** about drivers is at GPUGrid, but it's not true. All my tasks there have been run under 185.85, on the same machines with 2.2 DLLs in the SETI directory, and with no sign of distress - until, that is, task 1006526, just reported and run throughout with drivers 190.38: no sign of distress there either. I suspect it's similar to the threads we saw at Lunatics about crashes - eventually we were able to conclude that the majority were marginal hardware or cooling problems. I'm off to post along the same lines at GPUGrid now.

where can you download the cuda 2.3 dlls

---

where can you download the cuda 2.3 dlls

http://lunatics.kwsn.net/index.php?module=Downloads;sa=dlview;id=208

Wow. CUDA 2.3 gives a whole new meaning to the term "shortie". My 20% UNDERclocked GTX295 is now chewing through VHAR's in under 2 mins each (best so far is 1 min 40 sec).

Way t' go...

F.

---

thanks richard, installing new driver now and downloading dlls. thanks again.

---

2) I don't know what the B***S*** about drivers is at GPUGrid, but it's not true. All my tasks there have been run under 185.85, on the same machines with 2.2 DLLs in the SETI directory, and with no sign of distress - until, that is, task 1006526, just reported and run throughout with drivers 190.38: no sign of distress there either. I suspect it's similar to the threads we saw at Lunatics about crashes - eventually we were able to conclude that the majority were marginal hardware or cooling problems. I'm off to post along the same lines at GPUGrid now.

I've updated the drivers and cuda dlls for seti before with no problem. The issue is the GPUgrid app doesn't seem to behave with later drivers. At one point they claimed it was a bug with the cuda fft routines (which have been updated in cuda 2.3).

I will be trying the latest and greatest (190.38) drivers once i've knocked over my last lot of cuda work on one machine and see how it all hangs together this time.

---

BOINC blog

.... The issue is the GPUgrid app doesn't seem to behave with later drivers....

So some people seem to be saying, but it doesn't seem to be true for me - just completed task 1010279 on a second machine. The current GPUGrid thread on the subject seems to be covering some genuine issues with Linux drivers, but the Win 32 allegations just seem to be re-hashes of old archaeology without evidence. We had something similar at Lunatics, with people blaming applications, drivers, anything but their own hardware - which was where the problem turned out to be.

If people want to play safe and not update CUDA drivers while a long GPUGrid task is in progress, that would make sense: but not to upgrade at all because of this rumour would be shortsighted.

Wow. CUDA 2.3 gives a whole new meaning to the term "shortie". My 20% UNDERclocked GTX295 is now chewing through VHAR's in under 2 mins each (best so far is 1 min 40 sec).

Way t' go...

F.

WOW indeed !!
My GS250 is currently going through a batch of old "single" length shorties in around 1 min 57 sec. It was taking around 6 mins before.

Brodo