33min estimated, more like 60min actual run time.

Some as long as 1hr 27min.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

And now I'm getting sticky downloads and slow Scheduler responses (2 min for the last one).

---

Grant
Darwin NT

33min estimated, more like 60min actual run time.

Some as long as 1hr 27min.

That pretty much corresponds to what I saw over on beta.

As a result, it's counter productive to try and run more than 1-2 at a time on your GPUs.

The time to complete gets really long for each additional VLAR that you try to add to the GPU.

Don't know if they are just testing us to see if the results will be the same here on Main as they were on Beta or if they have decided they want the GPUs to start crunching them full time.

The kitties seem to have received some rather long running GPU tasks here as well...dunno if they are flying just under the radar, so to speak, to get by the threshold of don't send VLARs to nvidia GPUs, or if that server limitation has been broken.
ATI cards, if I recall, don't fare as badly with them as nvidia cards do.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

The kitties seem to have received some rather long running GPU tasks here as well...dunno if they are flying just under the radar, so to speak, to get by the threshold of don't send VLARs to nvidia GPUs, or if that server limitation has been broken.
ATI cards, if I recall, don't fare as badly with them as nvidia cards do.

My NVidia doesn't like 'em : just test ran 2 of them and they completed in 1 hour 22 minutes compared to the usual 20 min. (2 instances on 1 GTX750ti)

---

Well, .vlar's on my ATI HD7870 isn't so bad at all. They run just OK, just a little bit slower than "normal" AR's.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=3971749971

Edit: I can absolutely live with .vlar's on my GPU.

Edit 2: and another one, even lower AR: WU true angle range is : 0.011847
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=3971819529

Not bad at all, this one running with another .vlar on the GPU at the same time.

Nom nom nom, gimme more .vlars for my GPU. A third one, running fine and fast(ish):

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=3971899701

That's it, my conclusion is .vlar's for at least some ATI GPU setups, is no problems whatsoever, just a little bit slower.

End of story.

My ATI GPUs were perfectly happy to run VLARs back when there were not VLAR filter for GPUs.

As I recall there were some NV cards that really REALLY didn't like VLARs & could cause a system to lock up. I want to say that those with 500 series NV cards reported little or no problems with VLAR tasks, but it might have been the 600 series.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

I thought that AP is off for now?

13/02/2015 21:43:38 | SETI@home | Finished download of ap_28jn10ac_B1_P0_00298_20150119_25293.wu

None of my GTX 5xx's or GTX 6xx's have ever liked doing VLAR's, but then I've always run multiple tasks on them though singly they maybe OK.

I hate aborting work, but I will abort any VLAR heading to my GPU's and I've aborted some over the last 24hrs. :-(

Grant, if you get enough of them to constantly run for some time then keep an eye on your system resources, you may find them being used up and a reboot needed to them back. ;-)

Cheers.

None of my GTX 5xx's or GTX 6xx's have ever liked doing VLAR's, but then I've always run multiple tasks on them though singly they maybe OK.

I hate aborting work, but I will abort any VLAR heading to my GPU's and I've aborted some over the last 24hrs. :-(

Grant, if you get enough of them to constantly run for some time then keep an eye on your system resources, you may find them being used up and a reboot needed to them back. ;-)

Cheers.

I aborted one AP on my Xeon Win 7 machine with an NV GT640, had run for 155 hours and was estimating another 200 to go..........

Wiggo, I just did the latest updates on my Win8 machines and my tablet 'threw up' on reboot, couldn't initiate the desktop...........once again I HATE WIN8!

Took 5 restarts before the desktop would load. Grrrrrrrrrrr.

:Dg

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Grant, if you get enough of them to constantly run for some time then keep an eye on your system resources, you may find them being used up and a reboot needed to them back. ;-)

So far, so good.
The only issue so far being they take 3 times longer to run than their estimated run times, and they slow down the processing of other WUs while they're running.

EDIT- If I do run in to issues it'll most likely be on my Vista system. It's got 4GB of RAM, but it's a 32 bit installation. So with 2 * 2GB video cards in there, there's only 2.8GB of RAM available to the system.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Interesting cricket data. Anyone know what the regular intervals of 100 and 200+ Mbps results from?

Interesting cricket data. Anyone know what the regular intervals of 100 and 200+ Mbps results from?

Not a clue, it's been doing it for about 24hours now.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I thought that AP is off for now?

13/02/2015 21:43:38 | SETI@home | Finished download of ap_28jn10ac_B1_P0_00298_20150119_25293.wu

That would be a resend of a task that timed/errored out on someone.

---

What is the angle which separates a VLAR from a VHAR?

---

I thought that AP is off for now?

13/02/2015 21:43:38 | SETI@home | Finished download of ap_28jn10ac_B1_P0_00298_20150119_25293.wu

That would be a resend of a task that timed/errored out on someone.

As in WU 1681957536.

What is the angle which separates a VLAR from a VHAR?

From Joe Segur, three years ago:

VHAR range is > 1.127429 (Spike, Pulse, Triplet)
IAR range = 0.225486 – 1.127429 (Gaussian, Spike, Pulse, Triplet)
LAR range is = 0.00 – 0.225485 (Spike, Pulse, Triplet)

VLAR subrange is = 0.00 – 0.12 (get vlar extensions not for cuda)
VLAR subrange is = 0.00 – 0.05 (all <= one beam width)

@Grant, I was referring to the fact that there was over 3 million results waiting to be deleted there was no backlog in the servers weren't running behind. I think the purging totals are higher moment because there are/were shorter work units going through. As I write
11 Feb 2015, 7:20:03 UTC looks like parts of the server running about 3 hours behind in displaying information.

I looked at the graphs at the time you posted, and there were no WUs at all waiting to be deleted- none. Hence my question.
The only thing that came close to the 3 million you mentioned were the number of results (WUs) that were in progress at the time.
And they are what they sound like- all the WUs people have downloaded, the system waiting for results to be returned. They aren't there waiting for deletion.

Grant the numbers I was referring to was the number of work units results waiting to be purged there was nothing in backlog

---

Thanks guys. I couldn't check myself as when clicking on "your results" got "page can't be displayed" so gave up, not thinking to check tasks via computer page :-(

Grant the numbers I was referring to was the number of work units results waiting to be purged there was nothing in backlog

OK. You posted WUs waiting on deleting, so that's what I looked at. Purging is a different kettle of fish.


Deleting and purging, while similar, are different.
With a database when you delete something, it isn't actually deleted. All that happens is it is marked for deletion, and so will no longer show up when you look at those records. The advantage of this is that if you later change your mind when you realise you didn't really want to delete that record it is still there & can be restored just by changing it's deleted status back to null.
Purging a database is where all the records marked for deletion are actually removed from the database.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

As I recall there were some NV cards that really REALLY didn't like VLARs & could cause a system to lock up. I want to say that those with 500 series NV cards reported little or no problems with VLAR tasks, but it might have been the 600 series.

Yep, my 470's, they can handle 1 VLAR at a time, 2 causes slowdowns etc and 3 will cause lockups.

I have reverted back to 1 task at a time.

---

Kevin