I think the performance tab is not updating for a couple of days.

Yes🎃

Thanks for letting us know. We'll look into it!

Is it updated now? The database is showing me the same results as you see in performance tab.

Is it updated now? The database is showing me the same results as you see in performance tab.

My GTX 980 host is sooooo fast, that it took the first and the second place at the same time on the performance ranking:




EDIT: workunit 10529667 and 10571801 are not in the same batch.

Haha, I guess it's never too late to discover new bugs :D It seems to me that as you have two WU with exactly the same computing time, mySQL decides to reward you with the two first positions. KUDOS!

Haha, I guess it's never too late to discover new bugs :D It seems to me that as you have two WU with exactly the same computing time, mySQL decides to reward you with the two first positions. KUDOS!

Top performers per batch- please update this section -)

I did a GERARD_FXCXCL12_LIG_1214901 on my oc 780ti in 7.71 Hrs but does not show up in THE TOP PERFORMERS IN BATCH list even though thats faster than any on the list (so far).

Also the Top average performers (last week long runs) has the same user in 8 9 and 10 spot?

The "Top performers per batch" section takes the "GPU description" from the host's properties.
This results in misleading information for hosts which have mixed GPUs, or a recently changed GPU.
Could this behavior be changed to take the GPU description form the task the "WU id" column refers to?
Even this column should be changed to show the task, not the WU id.
Also there should be a timestamp on this page.

Thanks for your feedback! I'll look into it in the following days.

(a) I have added a timestamp.

(b) I now link to task instead of WU id.

(c) Could you post an example of such description misleading information? I have checked couple of examples and host description is consistent with the log file of the task.

(a) I have added a timestamp.

(b) I now link to task instead of WU id.

(c) Could you post an example of such description misleading information? I have checked couple of examples and host description is consistent with the log file of the task.

Hmm... I will have to investigate further. Do you guys set the Computer Information manually or it gets automatically updated every time you make a change in the computer? I ignore this particular behavior or BOINC. If the update occurs automatically, I suspect it takes some time to become effective.

Do you guys set the Computer Information manually

or it gets automatically updated every time you make a change in the computer?

I ignore this particular behavior or BOINC. If the update occurs automatically, I suspect it takes some time to become effective.

I'm afraid there's no easy way to set this up correctly... I guess users interested in particular systems will still have to inspect the standard output if they want to know the exact details of the configuration.

Best,

Gerard

I'm afraid there's no easy way to set this up correctly...

I guess users interested in particular systems will still have to inspect the standard output if they want to know the exact details of the configuration.

One might say that history repeats itself, but it's simply a bug which is more hard to fix than you thought.
This time my GTX 980 Ti host is sooooo fast, that it took the first and the second place at the same time on the performance ranking:


Just as for the first time, these workunits are not in the same batch.
14511591: e3s13_e2s8p1f553-GERARD_FXCXCL12_LIG_8902112-0-1-RND1917_0 and
14528607: e5s9_e2s5p1f150-GERARD_FXCXCL12_LIG_6067831-0-1-RND5688_0
(I've found it under GERARD_FXCXCL12_LIG_606783)
To be honest, I think it's sooo incredibly fast, that it could even take the first three places at the same time ;)

Thank you Gerard for putting a scrollbar to the list of batches.

Yes, I was going to notify you the changes introduced.

I can't figure out why there's an outlier in the ranking. Let's keep an eye on it to see whether the error is reproducible and traceable.

After I've crunched one short workunit on my GTX 980 Ti (just to get to the top of that list too ;) ) I've disappeared from the "Top average performers (last week long runs)" list. I think this is a sign of the presence of another bug...

Thanks for noticing. Should be fixed and reliable now.

Please do not hesitate to post any error you find. When we released the performance tab we were also busy with our scientific projects and therefore we didn't have time to do a proper testing.

Thanks for noticing. Should be fixed and reliable now.

Hi Gerard, it's the performance tab fetishist again.
My astonishingly fast GTX 980 Ti host did another impossible trick now:
It got to the top of two batch with the same workunit:
GERARD_CXCL12_CHLKDER_mol4: Result ID=14910783


GERARD_CXCL12_CHLKDER_mol42: Result ID=14910783


Next time I will show you that it's trained to jump thru a ring of fire :)

or it gets automatically updated every time you make a change in the computer?

Yes.
But for hosts with mixed GPUs only the best one is showed (and used by default) by the BOINC manager

That is a weird artifact indeed. Possibily caused by the "parsing" engine I'm using. I am not able to isolate the problem right now because the database got updated, if it happens again please let me know.

1) Multiple GPUs

This is a well-known oversimplification by BOINC. The BOINC client used by volunteers identifies GPUs individually. By default it only uses the 'best' GPU of each vendor (plus close matches): in a computer with mixed GPUs from the same vendor, the user can (and most activists do) direct BOINC to 'Use all GPUs'.

The over-simplification occurs on the BOINC server. Rather than listing each GPU separately, the server database summarises all the GPUs from each vendor into a single record - it displays the identification of the 'best' GPU, and a count of all GPUs, but discards the fine detail of multiple GPUs. This is an acknowledged weakness of the BOINC infrastructure, but there is no timetable yet for a re-write.

2) 4 GB memory displayed

Much of the CUDA support code is 32-bit only, and can't process numbers larger than 4GB.

I think 'best' GPU is based on the GPU models Device ID [hex] or BIOS version. GFlops was argued as a better option, but the opportunity to change these things has gone. The OS doesn't always get it right either, especially if you start swapping cards around, without un-installing, wiping and reinstalling the drivers. You can even end up with different drivers for similar cards.

And the 2nd runner up is....

exactly the first runner up.

I'm getting excited now.

Since I have not been cleared from the 3rd place when the numbers have changed, it could mean that I can occupy all 10 places simultaneously someday.

...but it won't happen very soon.

For some reason I'm not being ranked at all on the performance tab. This WU I did in 10.93 hours according to the performance tab, which according to the rankings, should be good enough for 25th place, yet 25th place on the WU chart itself is listed as belonging to (Ryle) with 11.02 hours. I completed said WU almost a week ago, so there should have been plenty of time to update, yet I'm not listed

I think it's because you've completed this WU a little over its deadline, and it has been assigned to a different host.

For some reason I'm not being ranked at all on the performance tab. This WU I did in 10.93 hours according to the performance tab, which according to the rankings, should be good enough for 25th place, yet 25th place on the WU chart itself is listed as belonging to (Ryle) with 11.02 hours. I completed said WU almost a week ago, so there should have been plenty of time to update, yet I'm not listed

[quote]For some reason I'm not being ranked at all on the performance tab. This WU I did in 10.93 hours according to the performance tab, which according to the rankings, should be good enough for 25th place, yet 25th place on the WU chart itself is listed as belonging to (Ryle) with 11.02 hours. I completed said WU almost a week ago, so there should have been plenty of time to update, yet I'm not listed

[quote]For some reason I'm not being ranked at all on the performance tab. This WU I did in 10.93 hours according to the performance tab, which according to the rankings, should be good enough for 25th place, yet 25th place on the WU chart itself is listed as belonging to (Ryle) with 11.02 hours. I completed said WU almost a week ago, so there should have been plenty of time to update, yet I'm not listed

The performance tab doesn't always update immediately you return a WU

I have had the same issues and thought I was being blackballed. lol I noticed a GIANNI task with 28 hours that I should have been in 18th for a while, then down to 24, then off the page. Then I started looking for my other tasks and could not find my name on any of them until I got to this one https://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=11694725. I should have been on several of those listings going by my personal stats at the top right on the page, but only the one could be found in the lists. Some of these tasks are hours, days, and over a week old, but not as many as only one in one type have been duplicate top 30 times.

I'm ranked second on the ADRIA_FAAH_WT_ (super-long workunit) list with this task (done in 19.86 hours),
while in the "Your personal records" table I see this task (done in 17.65 hours),
which is faster than the present 1st ranked result (done in 17.86 hours).