Message boards :
Number crunching :
Open Beta test: SoG for NVidia, Lunatics v0.45 - Beta6 (RC again)
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 . . . 32 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Stephen "Heretic" Send message Joined: 20 Sep 12 Posts: 5557 Credit: 192,787,363 RAC: 628 |
see "did i miss the memo" . . OK I will look for it, thanks. Stephen . |
Stephen "Heretic" Send message Joined: 20 Sep 12 Posts: 5557 Credit: 192,787,363 RAC: 628 |
. . Hello Richard, . . Since Raistmer has announced that V8.19 has been released does that mean you can also release the Lunatics update? . . I have been looking forward to it. Only thing missing will be SSE4.2 support :) Stephen . |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14679 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
. . Hello Richard, As already hinted at in message 1823688. |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14679 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
As the title says. Beta test only, try at your own risk. A (hopefully) final Beta5 update, containing the r3528 applications released to the Main project as v8.19 this morning. The ATI 'discrete GPU', NVidia SoG, and Intel GPU applications have all been updated, though the iGPU app still hasn't eliminated the problems with Skylake-class GPUs. That's the next job... This build can be considered a Release Candidate as far as the applications and app_info segments are concerned: I've only had to add 69 <app_version> statements this afternoon, to cover all the new version numbers and upgrade paths. Please check as many of them as you can. This version should upgrade cleanly from 8.19 (opencl_nvidia_SoG) 8.12 (opencl_nvidia_sah) 8.12 (opencl_nvidia_SoG) 8.00 (opencl_nvidia_sah) 8.00 (opencl_nvidia_SoG) 8.00 (cuda50) 8.00 (cuda42) 8.00 (cuda32) 8.00 (cuda23) and similarly for ATI and iGPU. Fortunately, we've lost some of the experimental ATI apps since May, so the list can start shrinking again next time round. I need to work through the ReadMe files while y'all test that it works, and then we should be good for a public release. Download url remains: https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=8D83BF774A4A86F5!979&authkey=!AK7t-36P9nAec2Y&ithint=folder%2cexe |
Harri Liljeroos Send message Joined: 29 May 99 Posts: 4825 Credit: 85,281,665 RAC: 126 |
Firefox, Chrome and IE are all trying to block this download. IE allowed me to bypass the warnings and download it anyway. When scanned wit Avast no problems were found. After I installed this it didn't restart Boinc but I started it manually. All are running normally now but I was already running these applications (SoG r3528 as 8.12) so that's no surprise. |
Oddbjornik Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 220 Credit: 349,610,548 RAC: 1,728 |
Firefox, Chrome and IE are all trying to block this download. IE allowed me to bypass the warnings and download it anyway. When scanned wit Avast no problems were found. Same here, with Firefox. Firefox also allowed me to bypass the warning, and Eset Nod32 says the file is ok. Looks like it might need some sort of signature or whatnot to avoid these dire warnings. |
Jeff Buck Send message Joined: 11 Feb 00 Posts: 1441 Credit: 148,764,870 RAC: 0 |
Firefox, Chrome and IE are all trying to block this download. I ran into the same problem with Firefox, both with the Win32 and Win64 versions. It actually seems to be the browser that's trying to block it, rather than McAfee. I can't say I've ever seen that before. However, Firefox does allow me to unblock the download, at which point McAfee promptly scans the file and says everything's fine. Later scans of the extracted files are fine, too. |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14679 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
We often get problems like this when a file is first made available for download. I can't even download it myself using Chrome, but I suspect the reason is, in Google's words, If your site's downloads are identified as "Uncommonly downloaded" So, have a good night's sleep everyone, and we'll try again in the morning. |
AMDave Send message Joined: 9 Mar 01 Posts: 234 Credit: 11,671,730 RAC: 0 |
Using Firefox 49.0.1, and Avast 11.2.2262.
•  To download Lunatics_Win32_v0.45_Beta5-for-SoG_setup.exe, I had to do as above, and disable "Web Shield" in Avast.
|
Keith Myers Send message Joined: 29 Apr 01 Posts: 13164 Credit: 1,160,866,277 RAC: 1,873 |
Chrome 54 downloaded it and then complained it was malicious. It wanted an acknowledgement to Discard the file at the bottom banner area. Before I closed Chrome I found the downloaded file in my Download directory and moved it elsewhere, then closed Chrome. I renamed the file to what Richard originally named it and everything is fine. One way around the false positive. It tests fine in Kaspersky. Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association) |
mr.mac52 Send message Joined: 18 Mar 03 Posts: 67 Credit: 245,882,461 RAC: 0 |
I was able to download the 64 bit version with a simple over ride of Chrome's warning. On my system it is running well with no errors. |
robertmiles Send message Joined: 16 Jan 12 Posts: 213 Credit: 4,117,756 RAC: 6 |
Using Firefox 49.0.1, and Avast 11.2.2262. I was able to download the Win64 version with Firefox 49.0.1 without that setting, but it took opening the downloads window of Firefox, seeing that it was marked as possibly malicious, and telling Firefox to download it anyway. Without that last step, it was a .exe.part file instead of a .exe file, and Windows didn't know how to run it. Scanned with both Windows Defender (under Windows 10) and Microsoft Security Essentials (under Windows Vista); no problems found. Now installed on both computers. A problem seen with beta4 - r3500 told BOINC Manager it only used 0.16 of a CPU, but it actually used closer to 1.00 of a CPU. Beta5 makes the same claim but also uses much more than it claims. This causes slow console response. at least under 64-bit Windows Vista, if you expect 1 CPU core to be shared between GPU tasks and any console operations. |
Zalster Send message Joined: 27 May 99 Posts: 5517 Credit: 528,817,460 RAC: 242 |
I was able to download the 64 bit version with a simple over ride of Chrome's warning. On my system it is running well with no errors. I too was able to download it using the above mentioned override. Installed and running. |
Stephen "Heretic" Send message Joined: 20 Sep 12 Posts: 5557 Credit: 192,787,363 RAC: 628 |
. . Thanks Richard, . . But what is it with Windows10/Avast lately? I had to wrestle them to the ground to get that download. They reported that "this app is disguised as a friendly app but could make unexpected changes to your system" or words to that effect. It seems anything that is not Microsoft is a virus :( Stephen . |
Stephen "Heretic" Send message Joined: 20 Sep 12 Posts: 5557 Credit: 192,787,363 RAC: 628 |
. . There is a lot of information about this in Raistmers threads. . . But if you use sleep, ie: add the following command to your commandline file, this will break the CPU hold and let it run only parttime to support the GPU task. -high_prec_timer -use_sleep . . I hope that helps. Stephen . |
EdwardPF Send message Joined: 26 Jul 99 Posts: 389 Credit: 236,772,605 RAC: 374 |
downloaded via Opera through McAfee no prob's reported. running on Win-7 core-7 (gen 1) on a nvidia 770 Will report anything if I see it. Ed F Edit First observation: WU startup takes 141 sec's compared to r3500's 28 sec's |
Jeff Buck Send message Joined: 11 Feb 00 Posts: 1441 Credit: 148,764,870 RAC: 0 |
I suppose I'm beating a dead horse here (although I sincerely hope not), but once again the device-specific configuration files appear to have been omitted from the installer. I've previously raised this inconsistency in the treatment of configuration and command line files regarding AP, but with SoG we now have the same problem with Multibeam. A relevant section of one of the Multibeam OpenCL ReadMe files states: For device-specific settings in multi-GPU systems it's possible to override some of command-line options via IIRC, dummy configuration files get distributed with the stock applications, but so far those files haven't carried into the Lunatics installer. The upshot of that is, if you're already using one of those files, it'll get wiped out of the app_info by the installer. Or, if you're not yet using one but decide to do so in the future, you'll have to manually edit it into the appropriate places in your app_info. That negates what, to me, is the main benefit of the installer, avoiding having to manually edit app_info, a sometimes dark and scary experience. |
robertmiles Send message Joined: 16 Jan 12 Posts: 213 Credit: 4,117,756 RAC: 6 |
I'll try that. Currently, Beta5 appears to be trying to use more than a whole CPU core, and therefore cannot keep the GPU busy. |
Stephen "Heretic" Send message Joined: 20 Sep 12 Posts: 5557 Credit: 192,787,363 RAC: 628 |
. . I find app_config.xml a much less scary place to do configuring. Stephen . |
Stephen "Heretic" Send message Joined: 20 Sep 12 Posts: 5557 Credit: 192,787,363 RAC: 628 |
. . If you address your concerns in the SoG_v8.19(r3528) support thread Raistmer has started he may answer your concerns when he is able. But most of the info you need is covered in the now closed, but still readable, thread V8.12 support. Look for messages with command line options to tweak the performace of the app. The defaults are pretty successful but there are things like -period_iterations num and -tt. The default for the iterations is 50 but you can try dropping it to boost the GPU utilisation, or increase -tt from 500 up to 1500 but it can cause lag in your user interface doing these things. . . But there is a great deal of info in those threads. Stephen . |
©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.