Message boards :
Number crunching :
AP V7
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 . . . 20 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19158 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
In my case a v6 AP task was taking circa 1 hour to do, so with 2xGPU along with 2 instances running per GPU I was pumping through nearly 100 v6 AP per day per i7 puter. The Qs run a bit less than that with their GPUs. I was only talking about 7006214, and about tasks done since 22:00 UTC, which was less than 20 tasks. If you had looked closely you would have seen the ones before 22:00 were all reported at the same time as a result of the maint period. Since 22:00 the average is now 407.155 at average run time of 1740 sec, so 842/hr. edit] As you brought up my sons computer, that only runs BOINC when he's up and not playing games or watching vids, the three results reported Today got 413 (1823s), 428 (1799s) and 424 (1814s) credits. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19158 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
Update to my last. The results of last 20 AP V7 tasks is Ave Runtime Ave Credit Credit/Hr 1739.323 413.615 856.1 My last 15 AP V6 (thats all I have) 3362.705 744.499 797.0 |
Zalster Send message Joined: 27 May 99 Posts: 5517 Credit: 528,817,460 RAC: 242 |
Looking over 2 of my crunchers, looks like they just past thousand combined for APv7 validated. Credit seems to stabilized between 380-425 per AP. There are occasionally much higher and much lower credits but they are very few and not that often. All AstroPulse v7 Task for State: All (1041) · In progress (220) · Validation pending (264) · Validation inconclusive (7) · Valid (550) · Invalid (0) · Error (0) I took this from the applications page of 1 computer AstroPulse v7 (anonymous platform, NVIDIA GPU) Number of tasks completed 87 Max tasks per day 150 Number of tasks today 58 Consecutive valid tasks 117 Average processing rate 522.27 GFLOPS Average turnaround time 0.53 days Here the other one State: All (854) · In progress (183) · Validation pending (186) · Validation inconclusive (4) · Valid (481) · Invalid (0) · Error (0) AstroPulse v7 (anonymous platform, NVIDIA GPU) Number of tasks completed 21 Max tasks per day 57 Number of tasks today 121 Consecutive valid tasks 24 Average processing rate 557.53 GFLOPS Average turnaround time 0.53 days I haven't figured out how to convert GFLOPS to credits (any help would be appreciated) but this appears to be where it has stabilized out at. However, on 1 machine I've noticed the results of the new APv7 dealing with highly blanked. Usually they only take about 4-6 secs and give 0.8-1 credits but then there are a few that run for 10-15 minutes with result of 80-90 credits. I've seen at least 100 so far. Interesting. Happy Crunching... Zalster Edit Thought I would compare stock AP v7 to Lunatics AstroPulse v7 7.05 windows_intelx86 (opencl_nvidia_100) Number of tasks completed 325 Max tasks per day 555 Number of tasks today 0 Consecutive valid tasks 522 Average processing rate 1,102.21 GFLOPS Average turnaround time 0.92 days AstroPulse v7 (anonymous platform, NVIDIA GPU) Number of tasks completed 87 Max tasks per day 150 Number of tasks today 58 Consecutive valid tasks 117 Average processing rate 522.27 GFLOPS Average turnaround time 0.53 days other machine AstroPulse v7 7.05 windows_intelx86 (opencl_nvidia_100) Number of tasks completed 347 Max tasks per day 561 Number of tasks today 0 Consecutive valid tasks 454 Average processing rate 611.39 GFLOPS Average turnaround time 1.33 days AstroPulse v7 (anonymous platform, NVIDIA GPU) Number of tasks completed 21 Max tasks per day 57 Number of tasks today 121 Consecutive valid tasks 24 Average processing rate 557.53 GFLOPS Average turnaround time 0.53 days Well, we all knew the lunatics would speed up the process.. Ok back to work... |
Raistmer Send message Joined: 16 Jun 01 Posts: 6325 Credit: 106,370,077 RAC: 121 |
And taking into account that OpenCL AP7 apps are the same for "Lunatics" and "stock" (cause GPU stock are Lunatics) that comparison compares something another instead of application speed (maybe, selection of tuning options chosen?) |
TBar Send message Joined: 22 May 99 Posts: 5204 Credit: 840,779,836 RAC: 2,768 |
My very first v7 AP WU had a credit of 1400, after that they all cratered. In looking at various peoples results, you occasionally get a result at 400+ however, the average appears to be hovering around 350. I can't really see any indication in anyone's data at present that it is going to get any better. The best it appears to be doing is heading towards equalibrium with MB. Many 400+ scores now, http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=6796479&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid= APv7 continues it's consistent march toward APv6. Considering v7 has close to the same APR & RunTime as v6, there isn't any reason it would not obtain parity... |
Zalster Send message Joined: 27 May 99 Posts: 5517 Credit: 528,817,460 RAC: 242 |
And taking into account that OpenCL AP7 apps are the same for "Lunatics" and "stock" (cause GPU stock are Lunatics) that comparison compares something another instead of application speed (maybe, selection of tuning options chosen?) Opps, you are right about that as well Raistmer. I forgot about the commandline that I installed. I blame it on lack of sleep, lol. |
Speedy Send message Joined: 26 Jun 04 Posts: 1643 Credit: 12,921,799 RAC: 89 |
Are non-outlier tasks classed as tasks that run for less than 30 seconds because they are 100% blanked? Sorry if this is a very basic question I have no idea Thanks Richard. |
Lionel Send message Joined: 25 Mar 00 Posts: 680 Credit: 563,640,304 RAC: 597 |
Update to my last. --------------------------------------------------- In looking at your results, I see that in your last 20 they are mainly high 300s low-mid 400s, with a couple peaking over 500. In looking at Ulrich Metzner's results I see (last 20) there are many in the 200s, so filtering these out and looking at the last 9, they range from 320+ to ~447. In looking at TBar's busiest machine (and neglecting the high numbers of 2 second WUs), credit ranges from 335 to 486. In looking at ExchangeMan's busiest machine I see (over the last 20) credit ranging from 393 to 670. The run time on the 670 credit was 3474 seconds. Whilst I haven't compiled all the numbers related to the above in a spreadsheet (run times, credit, user, etc), it would appear that parity (circa 369 credits average) with MBv7 may have been achieved or that it is near parity at the moment. It also depends on whether the increase that is seen to date is sustained rather than a peaking. cheers L. |
Lionel Send message Joined: 25 Mar 00 Posts: 680 Credit: 563,640,304 RAC: 597 |
I have just flipped MB off and APv7 on, on both the i7s to observe impact. cheers L. |
cliff Send message Joined: 16 Dec 07 Posts: 625 Credit: 3,590,440 RAC: 0 |
Hi Folks, Anyone have any idea why when running an AP GPU task with a Cuda50 WU on the same GPU the CUDA50 WU would take 3 times its normal running time to complete? I've had this occur 3 times so far and a 4th instance is currently running the same way. Regards, Cliff, Been there, Done that, Still no damm T shirt! |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19158 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
I don't know where you are looking, the only computer to look at is Host 700621 I told you before the other computer is my sons and used infrequently for BOINC/Seti, it still has tasks sent on the 11th to process. My computers oldest in the "in progress" selection is from the 14th 1793.71 1762.69 441.02 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1788.93 1760.44 433.77 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1767.97 1747.41 411.62 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1756.2 1734.47 398.39 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 2010.36 1946.03 507.85 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 2078.84 1751 567.42 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1795.16 1742.11 448.19 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1776.35 1728.13 447.58 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1790.92 1744.93 383.78 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1764.13 1743.67 432.65 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1766.11 1747.63 400.07 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1771.14 1743.37 445.37 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 6.24 1.31 0.68 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1754.33 1736.88 398.55 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1753.16 1736.74 374.29 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1763.1 1746.68 415.11 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1761.77 1741.85 413.22 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1771.91 1752.19 480.57 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1764 1746.79 477.9 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 1766.58 1741.46 412.41 AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) These are the last 20 tasks as at time of posting. there are only 4 tasks below 400 credits (just) and 4 over 470. |
Speedy Send message Joined: 26 Jun 04 Posts: 1643 Credit: 12,921,799 RAC: 89 |
Hi Folks, I am completely guessing perhaps it could be the fact that the MB work unit is getting starved of CPU time. |
cliff Send message Joined: 16 Dec 07 Posts: 625 Credit: 3,590,440 RAC: 0 |
Hi Folks, Ref running times:- The AP task ran 27 mins 11 secs and the CUDA50 task ran for 27 mins 54 secs The CUDA50 would normally take sub 17 min to run. Both on a GTX760. AP:- ap_08jl11ad_B0_P1_00279_20141014_19199.wu_3 C50:- 30au13ac.25621.305975.438086664206.12.146_2 Regards, Cliff, Been there, Done that, Still no damm T shirt! |
HAL9000 Send message Joined: 11 Sep 99 Posts: 6534 Credit: 196,805,888 RAC: 57 |
I don't know where you are looking, the only computer to look at is Host 700621 It looks like my average credit for normal tasks goes up about 40 each day since we started doing AP v7. Even the highly blanked tasks are tracking up as well. SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[ |
woohoo Send message Joined: 30 Oct 13 Posts: 972 Credit: 165,671,404 RAC: 5 |
maybe nvidia pays better than ati |
Lionel Send message Joined: 25 Mar 00 Posts: 680 Credit: 563,640,304 RAC: 597 |
I don't know where you are looking, the only computer to look at is Host 700621 As I said ... and here is one of the WUs that I was referring to on that machine (and only that machine), you know, one of the over 500s: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1615669580 |
Lionel Send message Joined: 25 Mar 00 Posts: 680 Credit: 563,640,304 RAC: 597 |
Hi Folks, Yes, it happens with me as well but not by 3x I think. I suspect it is a resourcing issue. I've never worried about it myself. cheers L. |
Lionel Send message Joined: 25 Mar 00 Posts: 680 Credit: 563,640,304 RAC: 597 |
I don't know where you are looking, the only computer to look at is Host 700621 Just had a look at your machine 5255585. Good numbers. cheers L. |
Raistmer Send message Joined: 16 Jun 01 Posts: 6325 Credit: 106,370,077 RAC: 121 |
Hi Folks, One possibility is the nature of GPU. GPU is not preemptive system. kernel will run to completion. If one app (AP in this case) has bigger kernels and less gaps between kernel launches it will occupy more GPU and often. And GPU capabilities are limited hence to give more to one is to give less to other. |
cliff Send message Joined: 16 Dec 07 Posts: 625 Credit: 3,590,440 RAC: 0 |
Hi, OK, so AP is a greedy hog:-) So now in order to prevent it suffocating other GPU tasks a way to ensure that AP tasks work by themselves on the GPU or only with other AP tasks in rigs with multi GPU and more than one task per GPU But I wont hold my breath waiting for THAT to happen:-) Regards, Cliff, Been there, Done that, Still no damm T shirt! |
©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.