Advanced search

Message boards : News : WU: BNBS

Author Message
Stefan
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 5 Mar 13
Posts: 258
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 45808 - Posted: 21 Dec 2016 | 9:51:46 UTC
Last modified: 21 Dec 2016 | 9:51:54 UTC

In case anyone is wondering what these WUs are, we are running some extra simulations on the Barnase Barstar system (previously called BARNA: http://gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=3709#36142 ) to answer some questions of the reviewers. If the results get us through the review process this will be a major publication :)

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 1073
Credit: 4,464,792,279
RAC: 416,697
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 45817 - Posted: 21 Dec 2016 | 16:39:29 UTC

Fingers crossed, knock on wood... ;-)

Gunde
Send message
Joined: 6 Jan 15
Posts: 35
Credit: 2,343,059,098
RAC: 3,400,108
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwat
Message 45819 - Posted: 21 Dec 2016 | 19:43:33 UTC

We hope so...

Thanks Stefan

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,803,940,389
RAC: 502,063
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 45822 - Posted: 21 Dec 2016 | 20:19:00 UTC - in response to Message 45819.

Always good to answer the questions up front!
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

PappaLitto
Send message
Joined: 21 Mar 16
Posts: 240
Credit: 966,606,281
RAC: 3,585,961
Level
Glu
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 45823 - Posted: 21 Dec 2016 | 22:04:42 UTC
Last modified: 21 Dec 2016 | 22:05:27 UTC

How long are these supposed to take? My 680s have been crunching on it for about 27 hours and they're at 98% and my 980ti is at 9 hours and 70%

Profile koschi
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Aug 08
Posts: 121
Credit: 85,481,183
RAC: 9
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 45824 - Posted: 21 Dec 2016 | 22:19:21 UTC

1060 3GB: 55% done so far at a rate of 6.12% per hour, so my first BNBS should complete in ~16.3 hours...

Jim1348
Send message
Joined: 28 Jul 12
Posts: 446
Credit: 1,102,915,752
RAC: 2,480,741
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 45825 - Posted: 21 Dec 2016 | 23:38:19 UTC - in response to Message 45823.

On my GTX 960 running under Linux, at 2 hours 10 minutes it is 7.965% complete, or 22.45 hours total. So it will get in just under the wire, considering the usual hangs at download.

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 09
Posts: 775
Credit: 1,314,197,470
RAC: 1,423,197
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 45826 - Posted: 22 Dec 2016 | 0:08:08 UTC - in response to Message 45825.

Windows on GTX 970: task 15850957

Run time 66,657.64 seconds (18.5 hours)
Credit 492,000.00

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 1073
Credit: 4,464,792,279
RAC: 416,697
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 45827 - Posted: 22 Dec 2016 | 0:39:32 UTC

Have had 2 finish so far. One on a 1060 in 71,824 seconds and another on a 670 in 100,793 seconds. These are not going to finish on the slower GPUs and should be in a separate 3rd queue. 14 of my 750Ti GPUs have them and it looks like about 40 hours completion (which is acceptable). There are a whole lot of GPUs on the project that are WAY slower (and less efficient) than the 750Ti.

Bedrich Hajek
Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 09
Posts: 332
Credit: 3,759,688,409
RAC: 392,906
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 45829 - Posted: 22 Dec 2016 | 1:13:08 UTC

I managed to get my first 2 of these tasks done.

Name ARG59ALA_S5F7_C2-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND4466_0
Workunit 12214546
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 10:38:53 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 10:40:06 UTC
Received 22 Dec 2016 | 0:57:29 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Success
Client state Done
Exit status 0 (0x0)
Computer ID 30790
Report deadline 26 Dec 2016 | 10:40:06 UTC
Run time 40,101.94
CPU time 37,868.64
Validate state Valid
Credit 492,000.00
Application version Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65)

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15852421


On my windows xp, GPU usage is 97%, power usage is 91%, and over 11 hours to finish.

On my windows 10, GPU usage is 92%, power usage is 89% and 11 hours to finish.

Name ARG59ALA_S0F6_C2-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND1278_0
Workunit 12214024
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 10:23:47 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 10:23:54 UTC
Received 22 Dec 2016 | 1:00:49 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Success
Client state Done
Exit status 0 (0x0)
Computer ID 263612
Report deadline 26 Dec 2016 | 10:23:54 UTC
Run time 39,596.54
CPU time 39,512.66
Validate state Valid
Credit 492,000.00
Application version Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65)

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15851889


These are good! Give us more of these tasks.



Erich56
Send message
Joined: 1 Jan 15
Posts: 346
Credit: 1,453,743,877
RAC: 2,693,645
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwat
Message 45833 - Posted: 22 Dec 2016 | 5:43:00 UTC - in response to Message 45827.

14 of my 750Ti GPUs have them and it looks like about 40 hours completion (which is acceptable).

same experience here. 40 hours is a rather long time, though.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,952,045,994
RAC: 6,316,474
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 45836 - Posted: 22 Dec 2016 | 9:08:04 UTC

I can't get new tasks on my Linux host (with a GTX 1080), while there's a plenty of workunits in the queue.
It seems that the scheduler is lying about the number of available workunits in the long queue:

2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:10 CET | GPUGRID | Sending scheduler request: Requested by project. 2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:10 CET | GPUGRID | Requesting new tasks for CPU and NVIDIA GPU 2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:12 CET | GPUGRID | Scheduler request completed: got 0 new tasks 2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:12 CET | GPUGRID | No tasks sent 2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:12 CET | GPUGRID | No tasks are available for Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card)

("csütörtök"= thursday)

kain
Send message
Joined: 3 Sep 14
Posts: 104
Credit: 127,669,166
RAC: 18,278
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 45837 - Posted: 22 Dec 2016 | 11:24:32 UTC

[OT]
"csütörtök"= thursday

When I was in Budapest two years ago I had a very, very big problem with this dots above almost every letter. Still have no idea how to spell name of the street on which I was staying :P
But I had great time, city is beautiful but what is the most important - people are very kind :)
[/OT]

Trotador
Send message
Joined: 25 Mar 12
Posts: 82
Credit: 1,057,293,920
RAC: 990,396
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 45845 - Posted: 22 Dec 2016 | 20:22:37 UTC - in response to Message 45836.

I can't get new tasks on my Linux host (with a GTX 1080), while there's a plenty of workunits in the queue.
It seems that the scheduler is lying about the number of available workunits in the long queue:

2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:10 CET | GPUGRID | Sending scheduler request: Requested by project. 2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:10 CET | GPUGRID | Requesting new tasks for CPU and NVIDIA GPU 2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:12 CET | GPUGRID | Scheduler request completed: got 0 new tasks 2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:12 CET | GPUGRID | No tasks sent 2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:12 CET | GPUGRID | No tasks are available for Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card)

("csütörtök"= thursday)


same here

Jacob Klein
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 08
Posts: 1049
Credit: 1,061,410,614
RAC: 825,487
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 45894 - Posted: 24 Dec 2016 | 13:50:36 UTC
Last modified: 24 Dec 2016 | 13:57:22 UTC

Here are some data points for my BNBS results, see below.

Note: I run GPUGrid 2-tasks-per-GPU, alongside a full boat of CPU tasks, on Windows 10 x64. My main rig has 2 GTX 980 Ti GPUs, but only runs GPUGrid part of the time. My secondary rig has 1 GTX 970 and 2 GTX 660 Ti GPUs, and runs GPUGrid at all times.

I did have 1 "Validate error" that I cannot explain:

Validate error
ARG59ALA_S8F6_C2-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND0619_0
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15852757
GeForce GTX 980 Ti
Validate state Invalid

But I did have several successful runs, with healthy GPU usage, fans a-blazing! :)

ARG59ALA_S14F6_C3-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND6925_1
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15854987
GeForce GTX 980 Ti
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 11:56:24 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 12:06:08 UTC
Received 24 Dec 2016 | 9:57:30 UTC
Run time 83,311.57
CPU time 12,704.97
Credit 328,000.00

ARG59ALA_S3F20_C0-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND0205_1
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15854167
GeForce GTX 980 Ti
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 11:33:32 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 12:06:08 UTC
Received 24 Dec 2016 | 9:44:08 UTC
Run time 82,628.58
CPU time 13,144.57
Credit 328,000.00

GLU73ALA_S0F12_C0-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND8050_0
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15853511
GeForce GTX 980 Ti
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 11:14:40 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 12:06:08 UTC
Received 24 Dec 2016 | 10:00:43 UTC
Run time 83,428.28
CPU time 12,700.48
Credit 328,000.00

ARG59ALA_S10F18_C2-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND2903_0
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15852984
GeForce GTX 970
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 10:54:59 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 11:12:43 UTC
Received 22 Dec 2016 | 23:49:16 UTC
Run time 126,085.77
CPU time 14,746.36
Credit 410,000.00

ARG59ALA_S12F12_C1-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND1879_0
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15853182
GeForce GTX 660 Ti
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 11:00:20 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 11:12:43 UTC
Received 24 Dec 2016 | 4:28:13 UTC
Run time 226,766.66
CPU time 14,399.27
Credit 328,000.00

ARG59ALA_S10F15_C3-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND3170_0
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15852977
GeForce GTX 660 Ti
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 10:54:44 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 11:12:43 UTC
Received 24 Dec 2016 | 4:12:56 UTC
Run time 226,686.38
CPU time 14,523.08
Credit 328,000.00

Profile Logan Carr
Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 15
Posts: 193
Credit: 25,979,525
RAC: 19
Level
Val
Scientific publications
wat
Message 45900 - Posted: 24 Dec 2016 | 17:59:07 UTC - in response to Message 45894.

Here is my result for a BNBS Project

Took about 2 days on a gtx 960 with windows xp.

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15854803
____________
Cruncher/Learner in progress.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,952,045,994
RAC: 6,316,474
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 45903 - Posted: 25 Dec 2016 | 0:22:23 UTC - in response to Message 45900.

Here is my result for a BNBS Project

Took about 2 days on a gtx 960 with windows xp.

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15854803

It would be much shorter if you would have a PCIe3.0 capable MB/CPU pair (at least a 3rd gen i5, or a 4th gen i3, Pentium or Celeron CPU)

Profile Logan Carr
Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 15
Posts: 193
Credit: 25,979,525
RAC: 19
Level
Val
Scientific publications
wat
Message 45904 - Posted: 25 Dec 2016 | 1:24:21 UTC - in response to Message 45903.

Here is my result for a BNBS Project

Took about 2 days on a gtx 960 with windows xp.

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15854803

It would be much shorter if you would have a PCIe3.0 capable MB/CPU pair (at least a 3rd gen i5, or a 4th gen i3, Pentium or Celeron CPU)



How much faster do you think it would be? If you aren't sure, I understand. I also understand what you mean about the pcie 3.0. I just don't have enough guts to go out and buy a couple hundred dollar PC at the moment when my current works just fine. Just ran a test and no issues, as well as I've cleaned it with new thermal paste.
____________
Cruncher/Learner in progress.

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 1073
Credit: 4,464,792,279
RAC: 416,697
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 45907 - Posted: 25 Dec 2016 | 6:05:00 UTC - in response to Message 45903.

Here is my result for a BNBS Project

Took about 2 days on a gtx 960 with windows xp.

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15854803

It would be much shorter if you would have a PCIe3.0 capable MB/CPU pair (at least a 3rd gen i5, or a 4th gen i3, Pentium or Celeron CPU)

Or an AMD FM2+ system if on a budget. If you're looking for a high end system wait a couple months and look into the AMD Ryzen:

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/amd-ryzen-first-cpu-benchmarks-surface/

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_cpu_benchmarks_emerge/1#.WF6Ow5ghhtk.reddit

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,803,940,389
RAC: 502,063
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 45913 - Posted: 25 Dec 2016 | 16:20:36 UTC - in response to Message 45907.

These tasks are less dependent on fast PCIE and CPU than most tasks are, but there are other WU's about too. Even if I wanted another i5 or whatever supports PCIE3x16 I would still wait for the next round of Intel releases and AMD's next generation (both Q1 2017) as these will be more competitive and drive more people to update & sell on their old systems. On the GPU front AMD/ATI are expected to release another series soon. For the same reasons (competition & cheaper second hand sales expected in Q1 2017) I'm not considering buying any more new GPU's ATM.
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

PappaLitto
Send message
Joined: 21 Mar 16
Posts: 240
Credit: 966,606,281
RAC: 3,585,961
Level
Glu
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 46090 - Posted: 6 Jan 2017 | 11:54:43 UTC

I like that Stefan explains what the WUs are and how they interact. I wish the other researchers would do that, it takes 5 minutes of their time.

JoergF
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Apr 15
Posts: 189
Credit: 224,425,186
RAC: 417,493
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 46091 - Posted: 6 Jan 2017 | 14:09:27 UTC
Last modified: 6 Jan 2017 | 14:12:45 UTC

Here is my result for a BNBS Project

Took about 2 days on a gtx 960 with windows xp.

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15854803

It would be much shorter if you would have a PCIe3.0 capable MB/CPU pair (at least a 3rd gen i5, or a 4th gen i3, Pentium or Celeron CPU)


I dont think so... I have an old PCIe2.0 Mainboard and still it doesn't slow down my gtx 1080 noticeably, maybe 2-3%. PCIe2x16 yields the same speed as PCIe3x8 which is OK for most SLI settings. See multiple reviews in the web which have examined the speed difference in detail.

So IMHO with 2.0x16 there is enough throughput for a middle class GPU like the gtx 960. But I think you do even use PCIe1.0, don't you?
____________
Die Liebe allein versteht das Geheimnis, andere zu beschenken und dabei selbst reich zu werden. [Clemens von Brentano]
Only love understands the secret of giving and getting richer at the same time [Clemens of Brentano]

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,952,045,994
RAC: 6,316,474
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 46162 - Posted: 12 Jan 2017 | 18:56:35 UTC - in response to Message 46091.

It would be much shorter if you would have a PCIe3.0 capable MB/CPU pair (at least a 3rd gen i5, or a 4th gen i3, Pentium or Celeron CPU)

I dont think so... I have an old PCIe2.0 Mainboard and still it doesn't slow down my gtx 1080 noticeably, maybe 2-3%. PCIe2x16 yields the same speed as PCIe3x8 which is OK for most SLI settings. See multiple reviews in the web which have examined the speed difference in detail.
You use operating systems which have WDDM (Windows Vista and later), and this is a much bigger bottleneck than PCIe bandwidth.
The reviews usually about gaming or bitcoin mining which does not need that much interaction between the GPU and the CPU as GPUGrid does, so the WDDM does not hinder their performance as much as GPUGrid's.

Profile [AF>Libristes] hermes
Send message
Joined: 11 Nov 16
Posts: 17
Credit: 148,068,995
RAC: 618,933
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 46175 - Posted: 14 Jan 2017 | 18:05:47 UTC
Last modified: 14 Jan 2017 | 18:14:57 UTC

On my computer (1060 3GB), BNBS works take 17 hours. In general for 410.000 credits, for some 490.000.

First, I am happy to have a recent Pascal card...
In second: before the new server, I had 100.000 credits more by day. We don't do that just for credits but I am sad nevertheless. And the error rate is 30%, it is huge. (always good for me I have to say)
A BNB work (with a huge 50% error rate) finished with error couple days ago. Between 14 and 17 hours for ... nothing; sorry: still, I will always have my electricity bill :-(

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,952,045,994
RAC: 6,316,474
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 46179 - Posted: 14 Jan 2017 | 21:38:24 UTC - in response to Message 46175.

On my computer (1060 3GB), BNBS works take 17 hours. In general for 410.000 credits, for some 490.000.
You should set a short work queue (less than 5 hours = 0.2 days) to achieve 490.000 credits per workunit (this amount includes the bonus for returning the result within 24 hours).

First, I am happy to have a recent Pascal card...
In second: before the new server, I had 100.000 credits more by day. We don't do that just for credits but I am sad nevertheless.
The BNBS workunits are exatly as long as the BNB was, so your PPD will return to the previous level. It's probably lower than before because the project aborted one of your workunits mid-run.

And the error rate is 30%, it is huge. (always good for me I have to say)
The error rate starts at 100% every time, then it is continuously falling, as more and more successful tasks are returned. (now it's down to 29%.)

A BNB work (with a huge 50% error rate) finished with error couple days ago.
The BNB batch had an error (they are not chained correctly, it's explained here), and had to be aborted by the project which explains the huge error rate, and your lost workunit.

Between 14 and 17 hours for ... nothing; sorry: still, I will always have my electricity bill :-(
This is that workunit, it was aborted at 28,686.86 seconds (almost 8 hours).

Profile [AF>Libristes] hermes
Send message
Joined: 11 Nov 16
Posts: 17
Credit: 148,068,995
RAC: 618,933
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 46180 - Posted: 14 Jan 2017 | 21:44:21 UTC - in response to Message 46179.
Last modified: 14 Jan 2017 | 22:12:14 UTC

You should set a short work queue (less than 5 hours = 0.2 days) to achieve 490.000 credits per workunit (this amount includes the bonus for returning the result within 24 hours).

Ok... Good to know, thanks for the advise ! I was still with a "long" queue because it was a time when the download of jobs was... You know... slooowwww
So now: biomolecular simulations for GPUGRID; credits and eternal glory for me !! (too much ??? Nooooope....)

Between 14 and 17 hours for ... nothing; sorry: still, I will always have my electricity bill :-(
This is that workunit, it was aborted at 28,686.86 seconds (almost 8 hours).


Thanks for the exactitude ! Still frustrating (and even if it is my first work in error => French guy) :D

JoergF
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Apr 15
Posts: 189
Credit: 224,425,186
RAC: 417,493
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 46183 - Posted: 15 Jan 2017 | 0:32:23 UTC - in response to Message 46162.

You use operating systems which have WDDM (Windows Vista and later), and this is a much bigger bottleneck than PCIe bandwidth.
The reviews usually about gaming or bitcoin mining which does not need that much interaction between the GPU and the CPU as GPUGrid does, so the WDDM does not hinder their performance as much as GPUGrid's.


Well, even my PCIe2x16 conncected gtx1080 runs at pretty 95% per GPU-Z... which is a very pleasing figure. The BNBS accommodate the fast Pascal I presume and reduces the WDDM influence. Anyway, I am happy with the throughput.
____________
Die Liebe allein versteht das Geheimnis, andere zu beschenken und dabei selbst reich zu werden. [Clemens von Brentano]
Only love understands the secret of giving and getting richer at the same time [Clemens of Brentano]

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,952,045,994
RAC: 6,316,474
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 46185 - Posted: 15 Jan 2017 | 0:52:05 UTC - in response to Message 46183.

Well, even my PCIe2x16 conncected gtx1080 runs at pretty 95% per GPU-Z... which is a very pleasing figure. The BNBS accommodate the fast Pascal I presume and reduces the WDDM influence. Anyway, I am happy with the throughput.

Exactly. There's unusually little interaction between the CPU and the GPU by these workunits.

Erich56
Send message
Joined: 1 Jan 15
Posts: 346
Credit: 1,453,743,877
RAC: 2,693,645
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwat
Message 46285 - Posted: 23 Jan 2017 | 20:01:56 UTC

As far as I could see, all BNBS WUs yield 492.000 credits if crunched within 24 hours.

this evening, for GLU73ALA_S13F6_C2-SDOERR_BNBS2-3-4-RND1150_1 which was crunched in about the same time as all the others before (i.e. approx. 18 hours on my GTX970) I got 328.000 points.
How come?

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 09
Posts: 775
Credit: 1,314,197,470
RAC: 1,423,197
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 46286 - Posted: 23 Jan 2017 | 20:24:37 UTC - in response to Message 46285.

As far as I could see, all BNBS WUs yield 492.000 credits if crunched within 24 hours.

this evening, for GLU73ALA_S13F6_C2-SDOERR_BNBS2-3-4-RND1150_1 which was crunched in about the same time as all the others before (i.e. approx. 18 hours on my GTX970) I got 328.000 points.
How come?

Probably the same way I did with GLU73ALA_S2F7_C0-SDOERR_BNBS2-2-4-RND7864_1.

The first attempt was sent to a user with a slow card (by current standards), who took over 5 days and lots of restarts to complete the task.

When that task passed the initial deadline without response, a second copy was generated and sent to my host. I completed it within 24 hours, but in the meantime, the original task was returned and validated - earning its owner the basic credit score, without any fast completion bonus. That sets the 'tariff' for the workunit, and the second copy to be reported gets the same as the first. That's the way the bonus system has been set up, and it's the same for everyone - nothing personal about it.

Erich56
Send message
Joined: 1 Jan 15
Posts: 346
Credit: 1,453,743,877
RAC: 2,693,645
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwat
Message 46287 - Posted: 23 Jan 2017 | 20:41:11 UTC

Richard, thanks for the quick response. I would never have thought of something like that.
I had a similar case a few days ago already, where I could not explain the low credits either.
Still, a strange system though :-(

Bedrich Hajek
Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 09
Posts: 332
Credit: 3,759,688,409
RAC: 392,906
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 46288 - Posted: 23 Jan 2017 | 23:05:51 UTC - in response to Message 46286.

As far as I could see, all BNBS WUs yield 492.000 credits if crunched within 24 hours.

this evening, for GLU73ALA_S13F6_C2-SDOERR_BNBS2-3-4-RND1150_1 which was crunched in about the same time as all the others before (i.e. approx. 18 hours on my GTX970) I got 328.000 points.
How come?

Probably the same way I did with GLU73ALA_S2F7_C0-SDOERR_BNBS2-2-4-RND7864_1.

The first attempt was sent to a user with a slow card (by current standards), who took over 5 days and lots of restarts to complete the task.

When that task passed the initial deadline without response, a second copy was generated and sent to my host. I completed it within 24 hours, but in the meantime, the original task was returned and validated - earning its owner the basic credit score, without any fast completion bonus. That sets the 'tariff' for the workunit, and the second copy to be reported gets the same as the first. That's the way the bonus system has been set up, and it's the same for everyone - nothing personal about it.


This has been happening for years. See link below:

http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=2795#22917


Erich56
Send message
Joined: 1 Jan 15
Posts: 346
Credit: 1,453,743,877
RAC: 2,693,645
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwat
Message 46291 - Posted: 24 Jan 2017 | 5:35:48 UTC - in response to Message 46288.

This has been happening for years. See link below:
http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=2795#22917

hm, it's obviously never happened to me until few days ago. So I was even lucky :-)

Profile God is Love, JC proves it...
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 11
Posts: 21
Credit: 58,365,427
RAC: 34,470
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 46326 - Posted: 26 Jan 2017 | 4:57:17 UTC
Last modified: 26 Jan 2017 | 5:00:21 UTC

Greetings;
First, I want to say that I really like supporting GPUGRID as a project. The team publishes results. Also, it seems so many other distributed (grid) computing projects are in theoretical math or in astronomy. I LIKE supporting a project which we can hope will improve human health down the road.
I have a pretty modest GPU (GT 640**) compared to many GPUGRID hosts. However, I have been averaging right at 11 WU a month. Also, I imagine that I am far from unique... that there are many BOINC volunteers 'out there' who have a more modest system (not costing a grand or more, and with no external power supply.)
I appreciate that timely turn-around is important, but there is no other BOINC project of which I am aware with such a short time-out limit on WUs (I am active in 15 projects, not counting several which have by now ended). Ten to 20 days is pretty typically the time limit. SETI has a time limit of over 5 weeks.
So, my First question: Is GPUGRID snubbing potential BOINC volunteers who have, say, a GeForce, but not a Titan or whatever? (This part of the post is perhaps better fitted to another forum.)

In the past couple of weeks, the lion's share of WUs have been BNBS -- and they have been running very, very long.
My second and MAIN question is: is the 5 day timeout enforced on tasks, even if they are making progress?
In the past week or so, I have abort a dozen or more BNBS WUs because, while running, they were heading to 300+ hours of compute time.
At this posting I have a WU running with anticipated completion time of jut over 11 days (270 hours). I really would like to run this one, since I have not been able to run any GPUGRID WUs in nearly two weeks. (In the past POEM was a good backup project, but they have recently terminated.)

My uncertainty about the timeout being enforced comes from the fact that the Performance page will list several batches with maximum run time (in the box-plots) of well over 120 hours.
Thanks.
LLP, PhD PE

** Some 6 years ago, I had a system with a 530. A couple of years later, I upgraded to a 640... I didn't go for more so as to keep a reasonable budget, and not to have to buy an external power source.
By the way, I am NOT a gamer at all. I bought the GPU solely to support distributed computing science projects.
____________
I think ∴ I THINK I am
My thinking neither is the source of my being
NOR proves it to you
God Is Love, Jesus proves it! ∴ we are

JoergF
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Apr 15
Posts: 189
Credit: 224,425,186
RAC: 417,493
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 46330 - Posted: 26 Jan 2017 | 10:50:04 UTC
Last modified: 26 Jan 2017 | 10:52:29 UTC

Hi,

Well, for that kind of hardware GPUGRID offers short runs. But I admit that this queue sometimes is barely stuffed. We hope that Stefan and his colleagues can get more work for this queue by opening GPUGRID for lab tutorials, educational purpose or something like that, but this is just guesswork for now and we have to wait for their own considerations and decision.

But in case you consider an GPU upgrade for accessing long runs without buying a new power supply, there is good News. The new Pascal GPU generation is so power efficient that you can triple your crunching speed at the same power usage. Most of the mainstream gtx 1050ti can manage without extra 6pin connector and get their power from the mainboard only. And it is relatively favorable, Zotac, Inno3D, Gigabyte, KFA and Palit offer their Mini/single fan cards from 150€. Alternatively there is the slower gtx1050 for 120€ and up. Still much faster than your gtx640.

In my humble opinion the gtx 1050ti (and probably the speed equivalent but less efficient gtx960 or 660ti; careful: unlike the 1050ti they need extra power) are the most favorable Cards for a long run (here: just one per GPU), it does not make sense to use slower cards. Having said this, even the 1050ti will miss the deadline for receiving the early completion bonus. So don't expect too much.
____________
Die Liebe allein versteht das Geheimnis, andere zu beschenken und dabei selbst reich zu werden. [Clemens von Brentano]
Only love understands the secret of giving and getting richer at the same time [Clemens of Brentano]

PappaLitto
Send message
Joined: 21 Mar 16
Posts: 240
Credit: 966,606,281
RAC: 3,585,961
Level
Glu
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 46332 - Posted: 26 Jan 2017 | 11:36:07 UTC

Having said this, even the 1050ti will miss the deadline for receiving the early completion bonus. So don't expect too much.


You make this sound so much worse than it is. The 24 hour completion bonus for BNBS2 is 492k credits, the non-bonus is 410k. No matter what it is, it is hundreds of times faster than a gt640 and will dramatically contribute compared to it.

JoergF
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Apr 15
Posts: 189
Credit: 224,425,186
RAC: 417,493
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 46333 - Posted: 26 Jan 2017 | 11:43:16 UTC - in response to Message 46332.
Last modified: 26 Jan 2017 | 11:46:46 UTC

Having said this, even the 1050ti will miss the deadline for receiving the early completion bonus. So don't expect too much.


You make this sound so much worse than it is. The 24 hour completion bonus for BNBS2 is 492k credits, the non-bonus is 410k. No matter what it is, it is hundreds of times faster than a gt640 and will dramatically contribute compared to it.


Yes, it will. But I didn't want to create the impression on the other hand that the 1050 goes off like a missile. Seemed worth mentioning to me. And no... it is not hundred times faster than the 640 (in fact it should be about 3x as I wrote) ....but I get your point ;-)
____________
Die Liebe allein versteht das Geheimnis, andere zu beschenken und dabei selbst reich zu werden. [Clemens von Brentano]
Only love understands the secret of giving and getting richer at the same time [Clemens of Brentano]

PappaLitto
Send message
Joined: 21 Mar 16
Posts: 240
Credit: 966,606,281
RAC: 3,585,961
Level
Glu
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 46334 - Posted: 26 Jan 2017 | 11:53:08 UTC

Well it takes him 11 days to complete a BNBS2, now it should take slightly over 24 hours, so over 10 times as fast. I like to exaggerate as well :)

Dave Peachey
Send message
Joined: 16 May 09
Posts: 11
Credit: 130,663,120
RAC: 460
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 46341 - Posted: 26 Jan 2017 | 17:56:39 UTC - in response to Message 46334.

Well it takes him 11 days to complete a BNBS2, now it should take slightly over 24 hours, so over 10 times as fast. I like to exaggerate as well :)

Well, to avoiding extending the exaggerations ... my 1050Ti turns around the big BNBS2 WUs in something of the order of 29 to 30 hours (plus or minus). The current one is on course for the lower value; I've had ones that take longer.

So, yes, I "only" get 410k for such WUs and I miss the 20% bonus for sub-24 hour completion (which I get from the 18 hours my 1060 takes for equivalent WUs) but it's way better than my 750Ti (which has been relegated to the slower box and no longer does GPUGrid except for the occasional short run WUs) as that was taking closer to 40 hours.

Stefan
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 5 Mar 13
Posts: 258
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 46344 - Posted: 27 Jan 2017 | 10:32:21 UTC

It's not a matter of "snubbing" users. It's a matter of doing practical research in practical timeframes. We understand that not everyone can have a 1080 but the most interesting research is done on slow biological processes which need really long simulations.
When we test methods instead we sometimes run short simulations on the short queue like we do these days with Adria and will do more the coming month.

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 09
Posts: 775
Credit: 1,314,197,470
RAC: 1,423,197
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 46345 - Posted: 27 Jan 2017 | 10:57:25 UTC - in response to Message 46344.

I'm sure it must be especially frustrating to you when completed tasks are queued up on volunteers' computers because the server isn't in a position to accept the uploads and/or reports, and then again because the BOINC clients have gone into an extended backoff because of the connection failures.

I've just manually retried and successfully reported two tasks which had completed overnight, and got replacement tasks on both machines: at least they started running almost immediately, so not too much time was lost. But do your IT guys have any idea why the new server seems to become unresponsive so much more often than the old one?

Erich56
Send message
Joined: 1 Jan 15
Posts: 346
Credit: 1,453,743,877
RAC: 2,693,645
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwat
Message 46361 - Posted: 27 Jan 2017 | 17:16:15 UTC - in response to Message 46345.

... But do your IT guys have any idea why the new server seems to become unresponsive so much more often than the old one?
I hope we don't have to get used to server outages happening every other week.
This time we were lucky anyway as it happened on a Thursday evening, so due to the fact that Friday is a workday, the problem was fixed this late morning (while last time the server was down from Friday evening till Monday noon).

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,803,940,389
RAC: 502,063
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 46379 - Posted: 29 Jan 2017 | 11:42:51 UTC - in response to Message 46345.

Well, even my PCIe2x16 conncected gtx1080 runs at pretty 95% per GPU-Z... which is a very pleasing figure. The BNBS accommodate the fast Pascal I presume and reduces the WDDM influence. Anyway, I am happy with the throughput.


Exactly. There's unusually little interaction between the CPU and the GPU by these workunits.

For comparison, I'm seeing 40% PCIe usage on my GTX1060-3GB running a PABLO_adaptive task (with the GDDR@8GHz & GPU at ~1950MHz on Linux; ~95% GPU Utilization. PCIe2 x16, while only running 1 CPU task on a tri-core AMD).

Well it takes him 11 days to complete a BNBS2, now it should take slightly over 24 hours, so over 10 times as fast. I like to exaggerate as well :)

If it takes over 5days there really isn't much point 'contributing'.

I'm sure it must be especially frustrating to you when completed tasks are queued up on volunteers' computers because the server isn't in a position to accept the uploads and/or reports, and then again because the BOINC clients have gone into an extended backoff because of the connection failures.

I've just manually retried and successfully reported two tasks which had completed overnight, and got replacement tasks on both machines: at least they started running almost immediately, so not too much time was lost.

The continuation of this problem calls into question the credit/bonus system, unless of course you don't value it much/at all. When crunchers complete work quickly but can't upload & report they miss the bonus because the server isn't available, & BM backs off the retries. It's not the fault of the cruncher, doesn't help the project get through work, or retain crunchers! GPUGrid Stats regarding the fastest GPU's/systems/contributors become fickle, further frustrating some crunchers.

But don't worry, there's only 2.5min to go!
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

John C MacAlister
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 13
Posts: 177
Credit: 131,725,186
RAC: 0
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 46382 - Posted: 29 Jan 2017 | 14:43:16 UTC

My only disappointment is that my GPUs are showing their age: I cannot use the two GTX 650 Ti beasts any more and the GTX 660 Ti GPUs have very long run times. I can't afford to buy faster GPUs.....
____________
John

PappaLitto
Send message
Joined: 21 Mar 16
Posts: 240
Credit: 966,606,281
RAC: 3,585,961
Level
Glu
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 46386 - Posted: 29 Jan 2017 | 14:59:13 UTC

You could sell them

PappaLitto
Send message
Joined: 21 Mar 16
Posts: 240
Credit: 966,606,281
RAC: 3,585,961
Level
Glu
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 46387 - Posted: 29 Jan 2017 | 15:00:24 UTC

Also, I just posted 3 times because the server was too slow and took my post reply command 3 times. This would normally not be a problem but there is no way for us normal users to delete our own messages.

Post to thread

Message boards : News : WU: BNBS