Sounds about right Petri. Gaussian Search requires a drift over a spot on the sky. i.e. pass the telescope beam over a specific direction and get a bell shaped signal from a constant source. VLAR targeted searches (unblinking eye at one spot) don't pass over a spot, but travel with it.

Yes, I know what a gaussian is and how it is formed in to the signal.

I have noticed the same negative value in test wu PG009.

I wonder if ths is a bug in cuda code base or in all sw versions. See edit in my other message.

The way I understand it, and bear in mind Joe Segur was my goto guru with this stuff, The angle range is kindof an average of the telescope possibly moving all over the place during the observation period. Sometimes he presented coordinates as though the person driving the receiver was playing space invaders. In this sense IMO, if you are looking at erratic behaviour under some conditions, you are definitely looking at noise floor and non-determinism as being factored in.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

I suspect they are not doing gaussian searching: Sigma > GaussTOffsetStop: 498 > -434

And it's just correct. Gaussian search doesn't performed on VLAR at all.
What bug and what fix then?

EDIT: w/o boundary checking your change will cause out of range error and result in exception for protected memory range.

I suspect they are not doing gaussian searching: Sigma > GaussTOffsetStop: 498 > -434

And it's just correct. Gaussian search doesn't performed on VLAR at all.
What bug and what fix then?

EDIT: w/o boundary checking your change will cause out of range error and result in exception for protected memory range.

Yes, I know. I thought a moment and found out that if the angle rate is low enough there will be no gaussian, since the telescope movement + earth rotation is not enough in a given time window to form a gaussian.

So no error.

---

To overcome Heisenbergs:
"You can't always get what you want / but if you try sometimes you just might find / you get what you need." -- Rolling Stones

So far I've had only one guppi .vlar in SETI Beta on my Linux box with its AMD HD 7770. It took a far shorter time than those crunched on the faster Windows 10 PC with its GTX 750 Ti OC. But you cannot make a statistic out of a single case.
Tullio

---

Have finnished my first guppi tasks here at main.

Approx 30 minutes each running 2 instances on my R9 380.

Example

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=4923313255

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Have finnished my first guppi tasks here at main.

Approx 30 minutes each running 2 instances on my R9 380.

Example

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=4923313255

About 1750 seconds for the guppi VLAR, against 950 seconds for mid-AR Arecibo work. Rather less than double - is that a fair summary?

Edit - by comparison, my GTX 670 - also 2 instances - is taking about 3900 seconds for guppi VLAR, 1050 for Arecibo mid-AR. A rather wider ratio.

Have finnished my first guppi tasks here at main.

Approx 30 minutes each running 2 instances on my R9 380.

Example

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=4923313255

About 1750 seconds for the guppi VLAR, against 950 seconds for mid-AR Arecibo work. Rather less than double - is that a fair summary?

I have finnished 10 guppis so far.
None of them took longer.

Of course i use highly optimized params.

Not a sign of any lags with period_iterations_num 40.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

So just checking some of the GUPPI from yesterday for validation.

I'm noticing a large swing in credit from 199 down to 29.

When I look at the low credit work, it looks like I'm always paired with an ATI user

They take about 1000 sec longer to process but the value is at least 50-100 credits lower when I'm paired with a non-ATI user.

Can that be right? I didn't think that was supposed to do that.

I hope I am looking at this wrong, lack of sleep and such...

So just checking some of the GUPPI from yesterday for validation.

I'm noticing a large swing in credit from 199 down to 29.

...

Can that be right? I didn't think that was supposed to do that.

I hope I am looking at this wrong, lack of sleep and such...

It looks that way; my RAC, which was rising, has tanked 3K since yesterday, so now we have both this and CreditEw/Pew/Screw dragging it down. And since we are finally getting GUPPI Kepler candidates on our NVidia GPUs, I'm overjoyed! :^D

Edit: This may be due to the longer processing time causing a longer return time for wingies. RAC may rise again.

---

So just checking some of the GUPPI from yesterday for validation.

I'm noticing a large swing in credit from 199 down to 29.

When I look at the low credit work, it looks like I'm always paired with an ATI user

They take about 1000 sec longer to process but the value is at least 50-100 credits lower when I'm paired with a non-ATI user.

Can that be right? I didn't think that was supposed to do that.

I hope I am looking at this wrong, lack of sleep and such...

I`m sure its to early for such an assumption.

This happens to me when paired to a CPU task.

We should give it a few days to level out.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

So far, the kitties are not amused.
RAC down 1k already.

Meowsigh.

---

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

I'm getting 3 at a time in about 30 minutes on my Mac Pro with D700 cards. Waiting for some to make it to my Windows machine with a AMD 7990. My 750Ti's in my other mac are around 23 min running 1 at a time.

Chris

---

These things are taking over 2 hours on a 780....slower than the CPU?
Meow?

---

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

Can that be right? I didn't think that was supposed to do that.

Probably right, and no it's not 'supposed to' work like that.

Probably the numbers need to settle (as much as they can) for a while (like 3 weeks), then time for autopsy will be afterwards. In the meantime could bounce back a bit, but probably will still look 'messy'

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

Mark, how many tasks are you running?

I tried 2 at a time on my 750Ti's runtime was 1:00 to 1:05.

Mark, how many tasks are you running?

I tried 2 at a time on my 750Ti's runtime was 1:00 to 1:05.

Running 3/per on all GPUs.
Also noticed on the Killawatts that power usage is way down as well.

---

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

These things are taking over 2 hours on a 780....slower than the CPU?
Meow?

Leafing through looks like the 780 in my Mac Pro was asleep after the power outages here (storms), and before that I see some Guppi-MESSIERSs at 3 second overflows

Kicked the box back up to see if it'll snag any to compare.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

I noticed my GPU temps dropped about 4.5c, and CPU temps went up about the same, could explain the power usage change.

Running 'guppi' 3 at a time on my i7 4770 using avx optimized code i take 42-45 min.
Running 1 at time on my GTX 960 using Petri's cuda code i take 17-18 min.

This means that i7 with 'guppi' is 20% more efficient than GTX 960 and uses 36% less power!

Gianfranco

---

I don't want to believe, I want to know!

Running 'guppi' 3 at a time on my i7 4770 using avx optimized code i take 42-45 min.
Running 1 at time on my GTX 960 using Petri's cuda code i take 17-18 min.

This means that i7 with 'guppi' is 20% more efficient than GTX 960 and uses 36% less power!

Gianfranco

That information will help the next hard development choices a lot :D

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.