Hi gt40,

Since you are running on Linux you might be interested in TBar's OneForAll or smthg solution. You could easily threefold your daily output when compared to 'old' CUDA or SoG for NVIDIA on Linux.

The link to the software is ... http://www.arkayn.us/lunatics/BOINC.7z

--
Petri

I decided to test offline the -pfb argument for values of 16 and 32. Observed absolutely no difference running with or without the argument. The difference in run_times were hundredths of a second. Likely measurement error.

I think I will experiment with -unroll values of 2 next.

. . As Ian said, Petri stated that for 0.98 10.1 there was negigible difference between unroll 1 and unroll 2, so your data will help clarify that. But that would indicate that higher values are relatively meaningless as your posted data verifies.

Stephen

. .

The key is what Petri said in this quote.

The pulse find algorithm search stage was completely rewritten . It does not need any buffer for temporary values.
The scan is fully unrolled to all SM units but does not require any memory to store data.

That is why playing around with -pfb and -unroll is fruitless.

Please don't add the 750 Ti's to that rig Tom as I'll be taking a benchmark from it.

After I get my old wagon done for another 12mths on the road (by the end of this month) I'm getting a couple of SSD's to dual boot these 2 rigs of mine.to get a bit more heat out of them this quickly coming up winter here. ;-)

Cheers.

I will finish the troubleshooting and wait a bit before I install the 750Ti for production type testing. Part of the question is will this MB run 7 gpus for production or not? It clearly will run 6. And the gui fails with some kind of bus error when I run 8 gpus. But maybe it will run 7.

Tom

thanks for the info Petri.

can you comment on CUDA 10 vs 10.1? was it implemented just to be current? or was there another reason?

Petri you continue to amaze me with what you have done with the Cuda code optimizations.

zi3v was fast.
v97b2 came with ~40% increase in computing.
Now 33% more on top of that.

Just WOW!

. . @ Petri

. . Apologies for the pm, in my eagerness I forgot about your policy. My bad! But I am still interested in learning the process ...

. . Also, anytime you want a guinea pig for the new special sauce extra picante, my hand is raised :)

Stephen

:)

I don't think nvidia-smi shows the average. I think it is just a 1 second snapshot at time of invocation. You still can use a power limit if concerned about power usage with the new beta. Since it has far less memory transfers going on, the beta spends more time crunching than pushing data in an out of the memory array, so higher overall average power usage.

Looking forward for general release of the 0.98 special app.

+1

20% of crunching speed gain over the already fast old build is impressive.

best bang for buck is a tossup between 2060 and 2070 in my opinion. with the 2070 being faster, but costs more too. I've been slowly swapping my 1080tis for 2070s, and i can reliably sell the 1080tis for $525-550, and reliably buy the 2070s for $420-450 on ebay. it's been working out great. I have no worries buying used EVGA cards because of the excellent warranty from EVGA.

Do the 20x0 series cards work on any version of the special app or is there a required or preferred (higher performing) version? I've got some older cards (980, 1060) that I'm looking to upgrade and want at least 1080 ti performance. Sounds like 2070 may be a sweet spot and perhaps more power efficient.

yes the 20 series cards work well on the special app. you can use them on any of the recent releases, but I've found the 20-series to work best on the CUDA 10 version from my testing.

as far as performance, 2070 = 1080ti, but uses about 15% less power.

Looking to improve the performance for the special app, I have a question. Probably mainly for Petri:

As far as I can see on my hosts, there is an interval of a couple of seconds from a task completes until the next one is fully loaded and up and running.

Would it be possible to reduce the wasted time by setting Boinc up to run two tasks at a time, and then use semaphores to let two instances of the special app synchronize between themselves approximately in the following manner:

- Instance 1 starts, aquires the semaphore, loads stuff and starts working.
- Instance 2 starts, does all possible initialization but does not start working with such activities as load the GPU.
- Instance 1 completes its work on the GPU, signals instance 2 to start working (releases the semaphore), and then finishes up such tasks as do not load the GPU.
- Instance 2 aquires the semaphore and immediately starts working while instance 1 is finishing up.
- Instance 1 then starts, does all possible initialization etc... step 2 from above.

Could there be anything to gain from such an approach?

some explanations about tensor core in French indeed :D ( search for 4.3.7 chapter ) http://www.info.univ-angers.fr/pub/richer/cuda_crs4.php

. . tant pis, je ne parle pas bien Francais. :(

Etienne

:(

maybe this https://translate.google.fr/ could help ? ;o)

. . Merci bien! I have tried some online translators before (including, I thought, Google) but generally they produce unintelligible rubbish. That worked really well and produced clear coherent English. The article certainly makes that much more sense now :) I could understand the gist of it before (especially the parts with numbers :} ) but now it all makes excellent sense :)

Stephen

:)

There is also a BIG file in the list... This one will take a while to split

blc34_2bit_guppi_58389_22167_FRB121102_DIAG_0013 180.04 GB

Ffs!! You rock!

Now if anyone could port it to Wintendo too, but for my part it doesn't matter nowadays.
Hats off to the achievement!

As we all know, make sure that it validates thoroughly towards old 0.97 version, and the main cpu executable (s@h original).
Valid work is crucial at this rate it completes work.

Btw, is it possible to "look" at the cpu portion of the code to see if other optimisations can be done there. In my case i use old cpus to feed new gpus. So less "cpu" is wanted if possible :) Lol.