Message boards :
Number crunching :
Linux CUDA 'Special' App finally available, featuring Low CPU use
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 71 · 72 · 73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 . . . 83 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
TBar Send message Joined: 22 May 99 Posts: 5204 Credit: 840,779,836 RAC: 2,768 ![]() ![]() |
Same on this one, https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=2756289395 setiathome v8 enhanced x41p_zi3v, Cuda 8.00 special Spike count: 0 Autocorr count: 0 Pulse count: 2 Triplet count: 5 Gaussian count: 0 setiathome v8 enhanced x41p_zi3v, Cuda 9.00 special Spike count: 0 Autocorr count: 0 Pulse count: 3 Triplet count: 5 Gaussian count: 0 SSE4.1xjf OS X 64bit Build 3344 Spike count: 0 Autocorr count: 0 Pulse count: 3 Triplet count: 5 Gaussian count: 0 |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 16 Jun 01 Posts: 6325 Credit: 106,370,077 RAC: 121 ![]() ![]() |
Same on this one, https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=2756289395 Not quite the same cause it's non-overflow. Pulse missing for CUDA8. It's same is reported before indeed. And this makes 4th issue in list (only for particular build it seems). SETI apps news We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them. |
JohnDK ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 28 May 00 Posts: 1222 Credit: 451,243,443 RAC: 1,127 ![]() ![]() |
You may want to move to a newer version of Mint, say 18.2. Some Machines and OSes don't respond well to the CUDA 9.0 drivers. I still can't use the CUDA 9 drivers with my older machines using Kernel 4.10. They work fine with Kernels below 4.10 with the CUDA 9 drivers. Your case may be the opposite, you may need to use a newer Kernel with your newer CPU. Even if there might be problems with cuda9 and mint18.1, shouldn't BOINC still detect the GPUs? |
rob smith ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22675 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 ![]() ![]() |
It should, provided the version of the drivers have all the appropriate computational stuff in them. Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
JohnDK ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 28 May 00 Posts: 1222 Credit: 451,243,443 RAC: 1,127 ![]() ![]() |
It would be nice to know if anybody using Mint 18.2 and repo 384.90 drives runs OK... I hate updating version/kernel since I have had trouble several times in the past with Linux not booting afterwards. |
JohnDK ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 28 May 00 Posts: 1222 Credit: 451,243,443 RAC: 1,127 ![]() ![]() |
Don't know why but when I started the PC just now, BOINC did detect both GPUs. Yesterday I rebooted several times with no luck. Seems to run the cuda8 tasks OK, will try installing cuda9 app... |
TBar Send message Joined: 22 May 99 Posts: 5204 Credit: 840,779,836 RAC: 2,768 ![]() ![]() |
Now that you mention it, I think a couple of us have had the same problem when going back to the repo driver from the nVidia driver in Mint. I think I installed the repo driver 4 times before it found the GPUs. So, that's not uncommon. I've also seen people have problems getting BOINC running again after stopping it in Mint, that was my main reason for going back to Ubuntu on that one machine of mine. Don't be surprised if you also see that problem. I've never had those problems in Ubuntu. |
TBar Send message Joined: 22 May 99 Posts: 5204 Credit: 840,779,836 RAC: 2,768 ![]() ![]() |
Thanks TBar, I was about to shoot you a PM asking about the sigsegv errors with the r3711 app. Never had an issue with either the r3345 or r3306 apps previously. Just installed the made for AMD version. Will continue to monitor.It's looking good so far, maybe that solved it. Has anyone tried an AVX2 App on those CPUs? It's possible it may work better than the AVX version. It wouldn't be difficult to make the App, just change the SSE41 flags to AVX2. I already have FFTW installed with the AVX2 flag, that's why the AMD App is a little larger than the last SSE41 App, the FFTW library has AVX2 as well as just AVX as in the last App. Of course, someone else would have to test the App. |
JohnDK ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 28 May 00 Posts: 1222 Credit: 451,243,443 RAC: 1,127 ![]() ![]() |
I'm up and running the cuda9 app, so far so good :) |
![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 29 Apr 01 Posts: 13164 Credit: 1,160,866,277 RAC: 1,873 ![]() ![]() |
Thanks TBar, I was about to shoot you a PM asking about the sigsegv errors with the r3711 app. Never had an issue with either the r3345 or r3306 apps previously. Just installed the made for AMD version. Will continue to monitor.It's looking good so far, maybe that solved it. Has anyone tried an AVX2 App on those CPUs? It's possible it may work better than the AVX version. It wouldn't be difficult to make the App, just change the SSE41 flags to AVX2. I already have FFTW installed with the AVX2 flag, that's why the AMD App is a little larger than the last SSE41 App, the FFTW library has AVX2 as well as just AVX as in the last App. Of course, someone else would have to test the App. I can be your guinea pig to try out an AVX2 app. I noticed the larger size of the AMD specific r3711 app compared to the original one. Good to know it was because of the FFTW library change. Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours ![]() ![]() A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 11 Feb 00 Posts: 1441 Credit: 148,764,870 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Here's one that might be worth making an offline run with. It's a case where the Cuda 9 zi3v reported an extra Pulse, which seems like a good thing when it's matched with a Cuda 8 app. However, in this case it was up against a CPU app, so it may not be the better result on this one. Workunit 2756468548 (blc25_2bit_guppi_57895_47387_HIP91358_0034.24610.818.23.46.191.vlar) Task 6187707993 (S=5, A=0, P=10, T=3, G=0, BS=26.4327, BG=0) v8.08 (alt) windows_x86_64 Task 6187707994 (S=5, A=0, P=11, T=3, G=0, BS=26.43272, BG=0) x41p_zi3v, Cuda 9.00 special I'm currently running an offline test on another interesting WU, which will probably take at least a few hours, so I wouldn't have time to run this one until this afternoon, at the earliest. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 11 Feb 00 Posts: 1441 Credit: 148,764,870 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I also noted something on an Inconclusive due to a "bad" Best Pulse. Yes, I know that's an old issue, which is why I don't think I've ever reported on one, and I've certainly never looked closely at any of them before. Workunit 2756468564 (blc25_2bit_guppi_57895_47387_HIP91358_0034.24610.818.23.46.193.vlar) Task 6187708167 (S=0, A=0, P=7, T=1, G=0, BS=23.86436, BG=0) x41p_zi3v, Cuda 9.00 special Task 6187708168 (S=0, A=0, P=7, T=1, G=0, BS=23.86423, BG=0) v8.08 (alt) windows_x86_64 Each app identified a different one of the 7 reported Pulses as Best. Zeroing in on those 2 Pulses, the Special App chose the first one of these two: Pulse: peak=4.518389, time=45.9, period=10.26, d_freq=2082869054.8, score=1.042, chirp=-71.733, fft_len=2k Pulse: peak=8.279277, time=45.84, period=18.76, d_freq=2082875244.64, score=1.041, chirp=96.855, fft_len=512 ...whereas the CPU app chose the second one of these two: Pulse: peak=4.518386, time=45.9, period=10.26, d_freq=2082869054.8, score=1.041, chirp=-71.733, fft_len=2k Pulse: peak=8.279298, time=45.84, period=18.76, d_freq=2082875244.64, score=1.041, chirp=96.855, fft_len=512 To me, it looks like a simple precision/rounding issue in the Pulse's "score" value. The Special App picked the one with the barely perceptible higher score, while the CPU app picked the last of two with apparently identical scores. The thing is, from a "score" standpoint, I would expect either of these two Pulses to be acceptable to the validator as the Best Pulse. So I'm guessing that, although "score" is used to choose the Best Pulse, perhaps the validator is using the "peak" value to decide whether or not they match. Can anybody confirm that? EDIT: And then, too, is this WU representative of other WUs where the so-called "bad" Best Pulse issue has surfaced with the Special App? Or was it just pure luck that I happened to notice one with nearly identical score values? (As I said, I hadn't really been paying much attention to these.) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 11 Feb 00 Posts: 1441 Credit: 148,764,870 RAC: 0 ![]() |
A couple months ago I reported (in Message 1889868) on an Inconclusive where one host reported 30 signals (a -9 overflow) and the other reported 29 signals (not an overflow) . This morning I spotted another one, and this ties into the observation that the Cuda9 zi3v appears to be correctly finding some Pulses that other apps have missed. (Yes, I know the other host in this example is an Intel GPU, but I'm not sure that's relevant to this situation, unless it actually missed more than the single Pulse.) Workunit 2756518670 (03mr07aa.18236.13978.15.42.121) Task 6187812028 (S=25, A=2, P=3, T=0, G=0, BS=27.79362, BG=4.143701) x41p_zi3v, Cuda 9.00 special Task 6187812029 (S=25, A=2, P=2, T=0, G=0, BS=27.79354, BG=4.143687) v8.00 (opencl_intel_gpu_sah) x86_64-apple-darwin I just finished confirming the Cuda9 zi3v results with an offline Windows CPU run. Assuming that the tiebreaker for this WU does the same, this means that the zi3v will likely be designated the canonical result, as it should be. But.......that one extra Pulse changes the result from non-overflow to overflow, simply because it now has 30 signals instead of 29. Does that make it worthless, inasmuch as it's become an overflow because it's more accurate? I don't see how, unless a higher cut-off would somehow also result in more than 30 reported signals from the zi3v and CPU apps. It doesn't seem likely, but would be difficult to know for sure. I think that the only possibility would be to run this WU through some sort of modified app with a cut-off higher than 30 built in. That's something that a developer could perhaps take a crack at. EDIT: Added a link to my earlier post. |
TBar Send message Joined: 22 May 99 Posts: 5204 Credit: 840,779,836 RAC: 2,768 ![]() ![]() |
Hey, the New Repository version of 384.90 seems to have solved the problem my machines were having with Kernel 4.10 and the nVidia driver 384. With the repository driver it now works in Ubuntu 16.04 & 17.04, nice. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 11 Feb 00 Posts: 1441 Credit: 148,764,870 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Here's one that might be worth making an offline run with. It's a case where the Cuda 9 zi3v reported an extra Pulse, which seems like a good thing when it's matched with a Cuda 8 app. However, in this case it was up against a CPU app, so it may not be the better result on this one.Okay, i finally got around to making an offline run for this one, using the stock Windows CPU app (setiathome_8.00_windows_intelx86). It matches the Cuda9 zi3v result. The Pulse that v8.08 (alt) didn't report was: Pulse: peak=6.338756, time=45.9, period=18.07, d_freq=2082851430.83, score=1, chirp=27.732, fft_len=2k Could the fact that the score value was exactly "1" (at least as reported by zi3v) offer an explanation? The result file from the offline run just has a value of "0" for the score. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 16 Jun 01 Posts: 6325 Credit: 106,370,077 RAC: 121 ![]() ![]() |
Seems so. At leastPEtri's app choice is logical with given score it computed. [quote The thing is, from a "score" standpoint, I would expect either of these two Pulses to be acceptable to the validator as the Best Pulse. So I'm guessing that, although "score" is used to choose the Best Pulse, perhaps the validator is using the "peak" value to decide whether or not they match. Can anybody confirm that? [/quote] Validator looks for many properties of reported pulse, peak and its position including.
[/quote] No, this caseisn't representative. Best often one of reported but usually this issue shows itself w/o such good correlation with scores. SETI apps news We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 16 Jun 01 Posts: 6325 Credit: 106,370,077 RAC: 121 ![]() ![]() |
Seems so. At leastPEtri's app choice is logical with given score it computed. [quote The thing is, from a "score" standpoint, I would expect either of these two Pulses to be acceptable to the validator as the Best Pulse. So I'm guessing that, although "score" is used to choose the Best Pulse, perhaps the validator is using the "peak" value to decide whether or not they match. Can anybody confirm that? [/quote] Validator looks for many properties of reported pulse, peak and its position including.
[/quote] No, this caseisn't representative. Best often one of reported but usually this issue shows itself w/o such good correlation with scores. SETI apps news We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 16 Jun 01 Posts: 6325 Credit: 106,370,077 RAC: 121 ![]() ![]() |
Here's one that might be worth making an offline run with. It's a case where the Cuda 9 zi3v reported an extra Pulse, which seems like a good thing when it's matched with a Cuda 8 app. However, in this case it was up against a CPU app, so it may not be the better result on this one.Okay, i finally got around to making an offline run for this one, using the stock Windows CPU app (setiathome_8.00_windows_intelx86). It matches the Cuda9 zi3v result. The Pulse that v8.08 (alt) didn't report was: Could you give download link to this task (it removed from SETI server already). BTW, OpenCL apps have additional featureto print threshold valuesforpulses if -v 2 switch provided. Useful for offline tasks . SETI apps news We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 11 Feb 00 Posts: 1441 Credit: 148,764,870 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Could you give download link to this task (it removed from SETI server already).Here you go: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3i4763b26c463xc/WU%202756468548.7z?dl=0 File contains WU and output from my Windows CPU offline run. And thanks for your reply about the Best Pulse example. I was hoping there might be a clue in that one, but apparently not. :^) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 11 Feb 00 Posts: 1441 Credit: 148,764,870 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I don't believe I've seen this type of Inconclusive previously. The v8.08 (alt) Windows CPU app reported a Triplet that the Special App doesn't seem to have recognized at all. Even the Best Triplet reported by the Special App shows "peak=0". Workunit 2757131579 (blc25_2bit_guppi_57895_51266_HIP2_0039.24131.818.24.47.42.vlar) Task 6189093728 (S=6, A=1, P=6, T=0, G=0, BS=26.20532, BG=0) x41p_zi3v, Cuda 9.00 special Task 6189093729 (S=6, A=1, P=6, T=1, G=0, BS=26.20529, BG=0) v8.08 (alt) windows_x86_64 The missing signal is: Triplet: peak=10.93743, time=34.56, period=20.22, d_freq=2201264522.54, chirp=-14.715, fft_len=512 It looks like the tiebreaker will also run with v8.08 (alt), so it would be helpful if someone can run this WU with one or more other apps. I can probably run it with the stock Windows CPU app tomorrow but, theoretically, that should agree with the alternate Windows CPU app. |
©2025 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.