Advanced search

Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Windows app 6.62

Author Message
Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 6062 - Posted: 27 Jan 2009 | 17:42:02 UTC
Last modified: 27 Jan 2009 | 17:42:54 UTC

We are now testing 6.62 which should reduce substantially CPU usage. Only few WUs will have the new app for testing. If it works we will extend it. Windows XP users please report if it works, as last time we had problems.

gdf

Profile DoctorNow
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 07
Posts: 83
Credit: 115,790,582
RAC: 0
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6063 - Posted: 27 Jan 2009 | 18:37:35 UTC

Very good, my first WU was a 6.62 already. :D

Seems to run very well on my 9600GT. The system isn't that sluggish anymore and it is indeed CPU-recuded, after 1,5% it only has 25 seconds CPU-time. :-)
Temperature of the GPU-core is about 75°C for me, that's okay.

Thank you!
____________
Member of BOINC@Heidelberg and ATA!

Profile formulaman
Send message
Joined: 13 Oct 08
Posts: 4
Credit: 4,071,120
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6064 - Posted: 27 Jan 2009 | 18:45:20 UTC

Positive here too...
CPU-usage in taskmgr under 2% (AMD X2 4200/9600GT) 3 Tasks running as expected.

JAMC
Send message
Joined: 16 Nov 08
Posts: 28
Credit: 12,688,454
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6065 - Posted: 27 Jan 2009 | 19:24:30 UTC
Last modified: 27 Jan 2009 | 19:25:40 UTC

Roll them bad boys out!!! :)

I have one on deck and will report if there are problems...

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6066 - Posted: 27 Jan 2009 | 19:36:32 UTC - in response to Message 6062.
Last modified: 27 Jan 2009 | 19:39:14 UTC

We are now testing 6.62 which should reduce substantially CPU usage. Only few WUs will have the new app for testing. If it works we will extend it. Windows XP users please report if it works, as last time we had problems.

gdf


NOW THAT IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT!

I can't even see CPU usage on the Q9300 as that task runs ... the question will be if the task runs to completion ... at the moment I only have the one task and it was the devils own to get it to run ... but ... running it is now ... sadly it is on the 9800GT so it will be most of the day (well, the time to complete is listed as 25:33:52; internal time for tasks on this machine is 48K seconds or 13 hours) before I can report on success or failure of the task execution ...

Hopefully my other machine would get one as it rummages through the stack as it would complete the task in just a few hours ...

{edit}clarified execution time{/edit}
____________

Profile rebirther
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Jul 07
Posts: 53
Credit: 3,048,781
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 6067 - Posted: 27 Jan 2009 | 20:01:47 UTC

Looks great! Only 2% CPU usage, can now handle one more free core for cpu project :)

localizer
Send message
Joined: 17 Apr 08
Posts: 113
Credit: 1,656,514,857
RAC: 0
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6068 - Posted: 27 Jan 2009 | 20:31:52 UTC - in response to Message 6067.

........... Good stuff GDF - have not returned a result as of yet; but watching them work is a pleasure - 3-5% CPU utilisation on a Quad & i7.
Have an early night - go home via the pub!

P.

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6069 - Posted: 27 Jan 2009 | 21:16:06 UTC
Last modified: 27 Jan 2009 | 21:17:42 UTC

Have not started one on the i7 though I have two queued ... the Q9300 is 12% done with only 1:14 CPU time ... and that is with the task started at about noon (well, 19:39 UTC) sure that UCT is for this post, but that will be the delta...

{edit}

As I calculate it it is less than 2 hours ...

What seems interesting to me is that at this rate of progress the task looks to be done faster too ...

Then again, is this a different type of task that will take a different run time?
____________

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6070 - Posted: 27 Jan 2009 | 23:28:52 UTC

Ok, just started the first 6.62 task on the i7 and it is acting the same as the task on the Q9300, mostly 0 CPU, with occasional flashes to 1% ... very tolerable ...

This is the way it is supposed to work ... now, to wait till the tasks complete to see if they validate ... :)

The one on the Q9300 does look like it will run for about the same amount of time as the prior versions, as in, there does not seem to be a performance penalty for the new 6.62 version. Obviously we won't know for sure until I can get a couple done. The good news is that if past is prologue, I should have one done in 4-5 hours and the second one shortly after that ... and the third not far behind that ...
____________

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 1112
Credit: 6,162,416,256
RAC: 0
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6076 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 1:34:08 UTC - in response to Message 6070.
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 1:43:46 UTC

Why are we still getting only v6.61 WUs? Irritating, the CPU usage is obscene...

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6077 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 5:07:33 UTC - in response to Message 6076.
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 5:10:20 UTC

Why are we still getting only v6.61 WUs? Irritating, the CPU usage is obscene...


*WE* aren't ... though mostly we are ... :)

My *FIRST* 6.62 task reported as a success ...

Elapsed time was 20K seconds ... I have no idea if this is a good time or not. I rummaged a bit in the list of success tasks and if it is a longer run time it is about 3,000 seconds longer which is 50 minutes ... which sounds like a lot, but, giving up a hour to each task on the GPU is worth the release of the CPU time (at least to me) if it is indeed a consequence of the change in the application and is not just an artifact of the particular model ...

Without many more runs, no way to tell for sure ...

{edit}
With more 6.61 tasks filling up my queue I feel like a drug addict in withdrawal ...

I will point out when you make the decision to change there is a thing you can update in the scheduler that will allow all currently issued work to use the new and updated application. So, when you "throw the switch" we don't have to kill current work but can do an update and work already issued will be processed with the new application version ...
____________

Profile IIA2000
Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 5,293,374
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6078 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 5:19:05 UTC
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 5:22:15 UTC

It's really strange now... I got some 6.62 tasks but one 6.61 on the same PC is still running...and...one of the new 6.62 task shows running but CPU and the task itself remains idle and NO computation is done for hours. I've tried to abort it, but with the next downloaded the problem remains, so from the 3 possible units (I have installed 1X9600 GT and 1X9800GX2) on quad core at the moment there are only 2 actually running.....

Maybe it's because there is still 6.61 unit running on the same machine..? With the 6.61 there were always 3 tasks running simultaneously..

Profile IIA2000
Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 5,293,374
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6079 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 5:25:00 UTC

I have aborted the pending 6.62 tasks.....and...

Ha...now I've got again one 6.61 task and at the moment with two 6.61's and one 6.62 I have 3 tasks running...

Profile X-Files 27
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 08
Posts: 95
Credit: 68,023,693
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6080 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 5:28:51 UTC

As GDF said:

Only few WUs will have the new app for testing. If it works we will extend it.


I hope people with xp machines will report a go for launch! I dont like going back 6.61.

BTW, does app_info.xml works here?

Profile IIA2000
Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 5,293,374
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6081 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 5:38:18 UTC
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 5:43:50 UTC

OK the 6.62 unit itself runs OK...GPU time seems the same, low CPU usage, not like the 6.61 ones, but when mixed with the 6.61 there is some incompatibility..

I didn't have the chance to crunch three simultaneous 6.62 units on my machine

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6083 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 5:53:20 UTC

Hmmm, not my experience at all...

I had two 6.62 and one 6.61 in flight and now have the opposite ... of course I have the odd situation of a 295 and 280 card in the machine so have 3 tasks in flight ... might be a different story with two 295 cards ... which is what I dreamed about during my nap ...

My second 6.62 task should complete before midnight and then I am back in 6.61 hades ... sigh ... just one glimpse of the promised land ... sigh ...
____________

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6084 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 5:54:15 UTC - in response to Message 6080.

As GDF said:
Only few WUs will have the new app for testing. If it works we will extend it.


I hope people with xp machines will report a go for launch! I dont like going back 6.61.

BTW, does app_info.xml works here?

that will, in theory, work anywhere ...

You going to try to cheat? :)
____________

localizer
Send message
Joined: 17 Apr 08
Posts: 113
Credit: 1,656,514,857
RAC: 0
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6085 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 6:32:32 UTC

GDF - works and validates very well for me; so I'd be happy to continue with 6.62 WUs - actually, it is a disappointing to be starting a new 6.61 WU this morning now the test pool has gone!

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 6087 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 8:29:52 UTC - in response to Message 6085.
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 8:30:50 UTC

With the first runs it seems to be 17% slower. On Linux the performance seems to be better. More WUs out.

gdf

Profile [AF>HFR>RR] Jim PROFIT
Send message
Joined: 3 Jun 07
Posts: 107
Credit: 31,331,137
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6088 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 8:52:51 UTC
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 8:53:20 UTC

I just got problems with a 9800 GX2 on Server 2003 x64 with drivers 180.48.
Two WU on errors after 10-15 minutes.

But i can't updated to the drivers 1810.20 or 181.22, because after the update i got a BSOD, and the problem seems to be also with XP x64.
SO i have to wait for new drivers.
But right now i have only 6.61 app.

Maybe i am the only one.

Jim PROFIT

STE\/E
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 366
Credit: 268,386,907
RAC: 1,296
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6089 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 9:08:42 UTC - in response to Message 6088.
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 9:17:30 UTC

I just got problems with a 9800 GX2 on Server 2003 x64 with drivers 180.48.
Two WU on errors after 10-15 minutes.

But i can't updated to the drivers 1810.20 or 181.22, because after the update i got a BSOD, and the problem seems to be also with XP x64.
SO i have to wait for new drivers.
But right now i have only 6.61 app.

Maybe i am the only one.

Jim PROFIT


No, your not, I found these 4 Wu's that erred out shortly after starting it looks like on 3 different x64 Box's:

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=256186
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=256301
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=256073
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=256045

I see 5 other 6.62 WU's on my Box's too, I'll try and get the Video Drivers Updated TO 180.22 before they run & see what happens ...

Add another 1 to the List http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=256055it started & erred before I could get to it & change the Drivers, not sure if the will do any good anyway. I Suspended the rest so I can have a little time to Update the V-Drivers and will start them up after I do & see if they run longer.

Vid Vidmar*
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 08
Posts: 18
Credit: 1,146,374
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 6090 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 9:17:01 UTC - in response to Message 6088.

I just got problems with a 9800 GX2 on Server 2003 x64 with drivers 180.48.
Two WU on errors after 10-15 minutes.

But i can't updated to the drivers 1810.20 or 181.22, because after the update i got a BSOD, and the problem seems to be also with XP x64.
SO i have to wait for new drivers.
But right now i have only 6.61 app.

Maybe i am the only one.

Jim PROFIT


Hi.
Did you try 180.84 drivers (note .84, not .48)?
BR,

____________

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6091 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 9:18:07 UTC - in response to Message 6087.
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 9:26:29 UTC

With the first runs it seems to be 17% slower. On Linux the performance seems to be better. More WUs out.

gdf


I guess that is my http://www.gpugrid.net/results.php?hostid=19410]experience, because of the variability on the time for the tasks I can't say for sure. But I did two tasks, pretty easy to see which ones ... both validated ...

{edit Add} for my other computer has reported and validated its first 6.62 task with another in the queue behind 2 6.61 tasks (sigh) {/edit}

From my perspective, I think that 17% loss on the GPU side is an Ok cost ... lower heat among other things ... not sure about system responsiveness as I did not have three at one time to really see what it does on the i7 ... sadly I am down now to only 6.61 tasks ...

Can you tell us what made such a *POSITIVE* change?

If it was merely "tuning" the polling loop, it might be useful to consider my suggestion that you allow a "Performance" setting to allow people that are GPU Grid only to allow for the higher CPU use to get the maximum GPU performance out of their systems. The 6.6.1 operation as presented would be the default which I would term "Nice" and even better if you added a third option between the two of "Hybrid" which would attempt to balance the two with a loss on the CPU side but an increase on the GPU side though not as much as with "Performance" ...

Personally I *LOVE* projects that allow me to choose how my systems are used so I can set things up to *MY* considerations and concerns ...
____________

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2705
Credit: 1,311,122,549
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6092 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 9:21:27 UTC

Is there any recommended driver for XP64, one which surely works?

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

STE\/E
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 366
Credit: 268,386,907
RAC: 1,296
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6093 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 9:27:31 UTC
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 10:07:07 UTC

From my perspective, I think that 17% loss on the GPU side is an Ok cost ... lower heat among other things ... not sure about system responsiveness as I did not have three at one time to really see what it does on the i7 ... sadly I am down now to only 6.61 tasks ... Can you tell us what made such a *POSITIVE* change?


What are you Smoking this morning Paul, how can you say that 17% slower is better for the same amount of Credit & that it's a Positive thing, not in my book it isn't. We already have had our Credits slashed here and now it looks like with a longer run time for the same Credit we will have it slashed again.

STE\/E
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 366
Credit: 268,386,907
RAC: 1,296
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6094 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 10:06:40 UTC - in response to Message 6092.
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 11:04:56 UTC

Is there any recommended driver for XP64, one which surely works?

MrS


180.84 doesn't work for 6.62 & Windows x64, at least not on my Box's anyway, the WU's error after 10-15 Minutes running time. The 180.84 Driver works okay with v6.61 though, I'm trying 1 now with the 181.22 Drivers, if that doesn't work I'll try & get a copy of the 180.48 Drivers & see what happens ...

The 181.22 Driver seems to be working on my Box's, I have 1 6.62 running for 65 minutes now without giving an error, if anything changes on it I Post it. The 181.22 Driver doesn't have any Memory issues either for me anyway.

It looks like about 1% to 2% CPU Usage, I've always ran 3&1 so when I finish a few that way I'll switch to 4&1 so I can see the difference in run times. I have a few 6.62's still that haven't started running yet so I can do that when the first ones finish for me.

Profile [AF>HFR>RR] Jim PROFIT
Send message
Joined: 3 Jun 07
Posts: 107
Credit: 31,331,137
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6095 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 10:54:07 UTC - in response to Message 6090.

I just got problems with a 9800 GX2 on Server 2003 x64 with drivers 180.48.
Two WU on errors after 10-15 minutes.

But i can't updated to the drivers 1810.20 or 181.22, because after the update i got a BSOD, and the problem seems to be also with XP x64.
SO i have to wait for new drivers.
But right now i have only 6.61 app.

Maybe i am the only one.

Jim PROFIT


Hi.
Did you try 180.84 drivers (note .84, not .48)?
BR,


I have the 180.48 before trying to update, and since i just have 6.61, so right now i have the 180.84, but can't try the new app!

Jim PROFIT

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6098 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 11:23:47 UTC - in response to Message 6093.

From my perspective, I think that 17% loss on the GPU side is an Ok cost ... lower heat among other things ... not sure about system responsiveness as I did not have three at one time to really see what it does on the i7 ... sadly I am down now to only 6.61 tasks ... Can you tell us what made such a *POSITIVE* change?


What are you Smoking this morning Paul, how can you say that 17% slower is better for the same amount of Credit & that it's a Positive thing, not in my book it isn't. We already have had our Credits slashed here and now it looks like with a longer run time for the same Credit we will have it slashed again.


Because I am interesting in total system performance ... not GPU Grid performance over all of my other projects. So, for me the loss of 17% performance on GPU Grid is more than paid back with 21% improved performance on the i7 cores ...

Were I only interested in supporting GPU Grid I would be upset at the loss of 17% performance ... which is why I suggested the triple setting in preferences ... you would go for Performance to get the most GPU Grid throughput and I would opt for Nice to get the best system performance ... different strokes for different folks ...

You should know me well enough to know that I have always supported maximum possible options being made by the projects for the participants to be able to make the systems support the project the way the participant wants yet not degrade the project's ability to obtain their own goals ...

In my case, I can easily make deadlines with the new application even though my RAC and throughput will drop some because my other projects will not be affected... and to compensate I will go buy a second GTX 295 meaning that because the project responded to me desires to not impact other projects, in the long run they make out too because I get my cake and i can eat it too ... another project supported, higher numbers of tasks done and yet GPU Grid is not misusing my systems (at least not to my eyes... sorry, I feel a polling loop that is just doing idle checking of the GPU is a poor investment) ...

So, yes, GPU Grid losses some efficiency and processing speed and yet, I think, with lower CPU costs they will in the long run stand to gain more ... heck their load on the CPU is less than SaH ... and that would incline me to stay here ...

Besides, though I am as addicted to my credit score as the next fanatic (well, maybe not as much as some) for me it is about getting the science done and the credit is only the reflection of the fact that I have done the work... and as such, highest RAC/credit is not what I am about ... if it were, I would only be supporting those projects that pay the most ... and I would ignore the rest ... yet my signature shows that I am about supporting ALL science and to a lesser amount all projects ...

Anyway, that is why I proposed that the project consider the compromise application so that you and I can both be happy here ... if they go back to only a high performance option then I will only be here for the time it takes for a project like Einstein to come along with a GPU application (or Milky Way if you have seen the news, though the first cut looks to be a version of ATI cards) and then I will leave if other projects offer lower CPU loads ... in any case, if the load goes back up to levels I consider rediculous I will certainly not be adding more GPUs until I can use them and my CPUs efficiently ...

Just my opinion, long winded as usual ... :)
____________

Profile Fish
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Oct 08
Posts: 7
Credit: 2,515,001
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 6103 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 12:32:13 UTC

No go here also. XPpro 64, GTX260 6.5.0/180.84

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=255873
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=254948


Fish

STE\/E
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 366
Credit: 268,386,907
RAC: 1,296
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6105 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 12:46:21 UTC - in response to Message 6103.
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 12:50:21 UTC

No go here also. XPpro 64, GTX260 6.5.0/180.84

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=255873
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=254948


Fish


Try the 181.22 if they will install for you, I have Two 6.62's running @over 50% done now. The 181.22's installed on 9 XP Pro 64-Bit Box's of mine with no problems at all so they should for you too ...

STE\/E
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 366
Credit: 268,386,907
RAC: 1,296
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6106 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 12:49:22 UTC
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 12:53:09 UTC

Because I am interesting in total system performance ... not GPU Grid performance over all of my other projects. So, for me the loss of 17% performance on GPU Grid is more than paid back with 21% improved performance on the i7 cores ...


Maybe GDF can slow them down another 88% & that would give you 88% more Performance for your Precious i7 ... :P ... The Option is already there if you want more Performance for your GPU WU's or the Regular WU's, just run 3 & 1 for GPU Performance or 4 & 1 for Regular WU Performance so there's no need or reason to make them run longer just so they use less CPU% ...

Profile X1900AIW
Send message
Joined: 12 Sep 08
Posts: 74
Credit: 23,566,124
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6107 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 13:08:54 UTC - in response to Message 6062.

First 6.62-WU finished (257219), unusual slow 47,7 ms (GTX 260/216), but maybe GPU usage overlapped with crunching a WU for folding@home.

Windows XP users please report if it works, as last time we had problems.

gdf

I have an eye on it, three WUs (hostID 23101, GTX 260/192) are in queue, calculation time with manager 6.4.5 seems to be (too) long (22h, 25h, 49h).

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6108 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 14:07:37 UTC - in response to Message 6106.

Because I am interesting in total system performance ... not GPU Grid performance over all of my other projects. So, for me the loss of 17% performance on GPU Grid is more than paid back with 21% improved performance on the i7 cores ...


Maybe GDF can slow them down another 88% & that would give you 88% more Performance for your Precious i7 ... :P ... The Option is already there if you want more Performance for your GPU WU's or the Regular WU's, just run 3 & 1 for GPU Performance or 4 & 1 for Regular WU Performance so there's no need or reason to make them run longer just so they use less CPU% ...


Hate to accuse you of not reading my posts, but, you didn't read it carefully.

I feel that a 21% CPU load is too high and the exchange of 21% drop in CPU load for a 17% drop in GPU performance is a good trade-off for *ME* because I now have only a 1% CPU load per core on both my systems instead of a complete waste of 21% for 3 cores on the i7 to support 3 GPU cores and 22% on the Q9300 to support only one core.

The *IDEA* of GPU processing is that it would be in parallel with CPU processing with minimal impact on normal system processing. The old GPU application had a very high load, one which my memory says that you objected to also ...

We can debate the consequences of the change and how we would prefer the system to operate and again, this is the point of having OPTIONS ... were I desireous of maximum GPU Grid performance I would also agree with you that this is a bad change, or at least I am interpreting what you are saying is that this is a bad change ... but, I think that this is a good change. Again, were we to have the option you could run the application as 6.61 where you have the 17% GPU performance because you don't mind the impact on the CPU side ... and I would be able to run it as 6.62 because I do not think that the performance loss is necessacerily that bad.

Especially because it is entirely possible that they can take another step forward and still keeping the CPU load low that they can regain part or all of that performance loss ...
____________

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6109 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 14:08:37 UTC

On another note I had a weird screen come up and it is unclear if it is my LCD dying or the GPUs going out to lunch, or something completely unrelated ... scary though ...
____________

STE\/E
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 366
Credit: 268,386,907
RAC: 1,296
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6110 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 14:17:09 UTC

I feel that a 21% CPU load is too high and the exchange of 21% drop in CPU load for a 17% drop in GPU performance is a good trade-off for *ME* because I now have only a 1% CPU load per core on both my systems instead of a complete waste of 21% for 3 cores on the i7 to support 3 GPU cores and 22% on the Q9300 to support only one core.


Run in Linux then & you don't get any Performance loss, Oh thats right you don't do Linux :P hahahaha J/K ... ;)

JAMC
Send message
Joined: 16 Nov 08
Posts: 28
Credit: 12,688,454
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6111 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 14:52:17 UTC

I am having a weird problem when running 6.62 apps- the other project running as 4+1 will not fetch new work until the very last of it's WU's has completed... then it fetches the max number possible and then runs them all down to zero and repeats...this happens on all quads (XP Home)... as soon as a 6.61 WU runs the other project fetches work normally... I run the same preferences on all machines- network connection set to '0' and .5 day cache...

Profile Jack Shaftoe
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 08
Posts: 27
Credit: 1,813,606
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 6112 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 14:59:22 UTC - in response to Message 6108.
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 15:01:46 UTC

The *IDEA* of GPU processing is that it would be in parallel with CPU processing with minimal impact on normal system processing.


If it reduces CPU load to 1% but takes 17% longer to run, I'd rather stick with 6.61. My GPU's crank out way more work than my CPU's - so I say screw one core and run the GPU's fast until we can find a fix that doesn't slow them down.

Paul, any chance you can reduce the size of your sig? It's a PITA when trying to read threads cause you post it every time.

Vid Vidmar*
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 08
Posts: 18
Credit: 1,146,374
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 6113 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 15:05:28 UTC - in response to Message 6105.

No go here also. XPpro 64, GTX260 6.5.0/180.84

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=255873
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=254948


Fish


Try the 181.22 if they will install for you, I have Two 6.62's running @over 50% done now. The 181.22's installed on 9 XP Pro 64-Bit Box's of mine with no problems at all so they should for you too ...


Heck, I thought 180.84 was the sweet driver (for XP64) until this. Will try 181.22 or newer.
BR,

____________

hzels
Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 08
Posts: 7
Credit: 52,864,406
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6114 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 15:17:43 UTC - in response to Message 6112.

some shredded 6.62 WUs here:

http://www.ps3grid.net/result.php?resultid=258055

http://www.ps3grid.net/result.php?resultid=258049

http://www.ps3grid.net/result.php?resultid=257563

XP x64 with 180.84 beta drivers, made no changes to system, suddenly produced this errors

Profile Bender10
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Dec 07
Posts: 167
Credit: 8,368,897
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6115 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 15:23:41 UTC - in response to Message 6112.

Paul, any chance you can reduce the size of your sig? It's a PITA when trying to read threads cause you post it every time.


Don't get your hopes up. He just about had an aneurysm trying to get someone to fix the site so he could post that sig...
____________


Consciousness: That annoying time between naps......

Experience is a wonderful thing: it enables you to recognize a mistake every time you repeat it.

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 6116 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 15:37:49 UTC - in response to Message 6115.

Please report timing here from 6.61 to 6.62 possible on same WU name. So that we can better estimate performance.
Also, let us know if any Win Xp driver works.
gdf

STE\/E
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 366
Credit: 268,386,907
RAC: 1,296
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6117 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 15:38:00 UTC

Paul, any chance you can reduce the size of your sig? It's a PITA when trying to read threads cause you post it every time.


Just go into your Account/Message boards and private messages/Hide signatures & put a check there and you won't see Signatures ...

STE\/E
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 366
Credit: 268,386,907
RAC: 1,296
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6118 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 15:42:48 UTC - in response to Message 6116.
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 15:44:01 UTC

Please report timing here from 6.61 to 6.62 possible on same WU name. So that we can better estimate performance.
Also, let us know if any Win Xp driver works.
gdf


I finished a WU HERE using v181.22 V-Card Driver & 6.3.21 BOINC Client on a Win XP Pro x64 Box & have several other almost done with the same setups. The Work unit took about 8-10 Minutes longer than Normal for that Type of WU running with 3 & 1 Settings.

I'm going to switch the Box to 4 & 1 & run another 6.62 on it to see if there's a difference & how much. Will report on it later this afternoon after it finishes.

Profile X-Files 27
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 08
Posts: 95
Credit: 68,023,693
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6119 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 16:11:00 UTC

Got 1 error.

OS:Vista x64
Driver: 180.48


<core_client_version>6.6.0</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
Incorrect function. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
# Using CUDA device 0
# Device 0: "GeForce GTX 260"
# Clock rate: 1515000 kilohertz
# Total amount of global memory: 939524096 bytes
# Number of multiprocessors: 27
# Number of cores: 216
MDIO ERROR: cannot open file "restart.coor"
Cuda error: Kernel [reduce4_kernel] failed in file 'reduction.cu' in line 171 : unknown error.

</stderr_txt>
]]>

Rabinovitch
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 08
Posts: 143
Credit: 64,937,578
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6120 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 16:14:01 UTC

Ohh, 6.62 is so sweet thing! Thanks to all developers!! 4-6% load on one core! At last we can crunch with pleasure! Even while gaming...
____________
From Siberia with love!

STE\/E
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 366
Credit: 268,386,907
RAC: 1,296
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6121 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 16:37:36 UTC - in response to Message 6120.

Ohh, 6.62 is so sweet thing! Thanks to all developers!! 4-6% load on one core! At last we can crunch with pleasure! Even while gaming...


Yeah but whats your Gaming going to be like if the GPU is Crunching WU's ... ???

Temujin
Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 07
Posts: 100
Credit: 21,848,502
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6122 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 16:42:06 UTC - in response to Message 6117.

Just go into your Account/Message boards and private messages/Hide signatures & put a check there and you won't see Signatures ...

Yep, I've never seen Pauls sig or anyone elses :)

Phoneman1
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 08
Posts: 51
Credit: 980,186
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 6123 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 16:49:05 UTC - in response to Message 6118.

Please report timing here from 6.61 to 6.62 possible on same WU name. So that we can better estimate performance.
Also, let us know if any Win Xp driver works.
gdf


Last 6.61 WU (an SH2 type) on my machine with the GTX260 (192 shader) card took 6 hours 36 minutes.

First 6.62 WU - also an SH2 type has reached 35.5% in 2 hours 25 minutes. Extroplating that indicates an elapsed time of 6 hours 48 minutes is likely.

One key difference with 6.62 - I am back running in 1 plus 4 mode on this machine with just a 12 minute time penalty per GPU task compared to version 6.61.

Both runs are on Vista HP 32 bit, Boinc 6.5.0 and Nvidia drivers 178.24. No games on the machine but Firefox surfing and Outlook e-mails are still responsive unlike when I tried 6.61 in 1 plus 4 mode.

I've just got to wait now until my machine with the slower card completes its last 6.61 WU in about 15 hours.

Phoneman1

Profile Jack Shaftoe
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 08
Posts: 27
Credit: 1,813,606
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 6124 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 18:00:39 UTC - in response to Message 6123.

Ah... much better. PoorBoy: thank you.

Profile X1900AIW
Send message
Joined: 12 Sep 08
Posts: 74
Credit: 23,566,124
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6127 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 18:35:13 UTC - in response to Message 6116.
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 18:42:03 UTC

Please report timing here from 6.61 to 6.62 possible on same WU name. So that we can better estimate performance.
Also, let us know if any Win Xp driver works.
gdf

Sorry, have not the same WU name.

First 6.62-WU with WinXP/32, nVidia 181.22: 241966 - 2478 credits
- GTX 260/192 @666/1512/1150
- CPU time: 366.7031 (3+1 configuration)
- Time per step: 43.210 ms
- Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 21605.234 s

"Old" 6.61-WU with WinXP/32, nVidia 181.20 (think so): 243068 - 2478 credits
- GTX 260/192 @666/1512/1150
- CPU time: 9720.516 (3+1 configuration)
- Time per step: 35.068 ms
- Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 17534.094 s

Profile Fish
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Oct 08
Posts: 7
Credit: 2,515,001
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 6128 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 19:30:37 UTC - in response to Message 6105.

No go here also. XPpro 64, GTX260 6.5.0/180.84

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=255873
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=254948


Fish


Try the 181.22 if they will install for you, I have Two 6.62's running @over 50% done now. The 181.22's installed on 9 XP Pro 64-Bit Box's of mine with no problems at all so they should for you too ...


That did the trick, seems to work fine with seti also. Thanks PoorBoy


Fish

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6130 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 20:03:45 UTC - in response to Message 6110.

Run in Linux then & you don't get any Performance loss, Oh thats right you don't do Linux :P hahahaha J/K ... ;)


Actually I do have one Linux system, and I could not get any work on that system with two different GPU cards ...

When I have had never had problems keeping the WIndows XP systems with work (since the server has been fixed) I decided to stay on Windows for now.

When I hear what are the project plans for 6.62 for sure I am leaning towards getting another 295 card to put into the i7 and that will let me bump cards down so I can put the 9800 GT into the Linux box ... at that point I can fiddle with it for a couple days to see if I can get the Linux system to download work and keep busy ...
____________

Phoneman1
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 08
Posts: 51
Credit: 980,186
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 6131 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 20:59:04 UTC - in response to Message 6123.

Well, my first 6.62 has just completed 3 minutes quicker than I had calculated when I posted earlier in this thread.

Compare the CPU times, elapsed times and credits for this

my last 6.61 WU

and this

my first 6.62 WU.

Remember this 6.62 WU was running the whole 6 hours 45 minutes in 1 plus 4 mode whilst the 6.6.1 was running for its 6 hours 36 minutes in 1 plus 3 mode.

Question to the developers: What was the 6.61 code doing to use 5.5 times more CPU time for the same job type????

Phoneman1

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6133 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 21:05:51 UTC - in response to Message 6131.

Question to the developers: What was the 6.61 code doing to use 5.5 times more CPU time for the same job type????

Phoneman1


A poll loop ...

All it did was to to check to see if the GPU needed the next block of data.

Because of the timing of the OS, and it gets deep quickly, one of the ways to detect an idle GPU is to ask it if it is done; loop, rinse, repeat ... as fast as the CPU can make the test ...

When the program loosens the timing on the CPU it is possible that the GPU goes idle for a short time. This is why the GPU application takes a little longer running on the GPU with the decreased load on the CPU ...

This is the argument on what is the "proper" organization and CPU load ...
____________

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2705
Credit: 1,311,122,549
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6135 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 21:23:16 UTC - in response to Message 6131.

Question to the developers: What was the 6.61 code doing to use 5.5 times more CPU time for the same job type?


The polling loop, actively asking the GPU "are you finished yet?", like almost every other previous client.

The more interesting question would be "How is 6.62 doing it?"

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6137 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009 | 21:28:53 UTC - in response to Message 6135.
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009 | 21:30:00 UTC

Question to the developers: What was the 6.61 code doing to use 5.5 times more CPU time for the same job type?


The polling loop, actively asking the GPU "are you finished yet?", like almost every other previous client.

The more interesting question would be "How is 6.62 doing it?"

MrS


Which is a question I asked ... :)

Sherman H.
Send message
Joined: 28 Sep 08
Posts: 27
Credit: 1,396,949,676
RAC: 808
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 6148 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009 | 3:00:12 UTC

On one of my XP machines (my first 6.62 WU):

App 6.61:
J15721-SH2_US_3-4-40-SH2_US_31980000_0
Time per step: 77.946 ms
Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 58459.452 s
Granted credit: 3718.47800925926

App 6.62:
VS20854-SH2_US_3-1-40-SH2_US_3640000_2
Time per step: 80.904 ms
Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 60677.902 s
Granted credit: 3718.47800925926

Both were run with Realtime priority (set manually). App 6.61 used ~40% CPU (dual core), app 6.62 used between 0 to 2%. The 4% penalty is well worth the drastic reduction in CPU usage for me!

Rabinovitch
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 08
Posts: 143
Credit: 64,937,578
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6152 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009 | 3:36:57 UTC

Well, one of 6.62 WUs has been finished already...

For 6.61 app there was Time per step: 43.362 ms (45-50 on average), but now - 69.198 ms.

Athlon x2 5200+, WinXP x64, 181.22, BOINC 6.5.0...

What does it mean - WU processing is 1.5 times slowly than before? Or what?


____________
From Siberia with love!

Neil A
Send message
Joined: 9 Oct 08
Posts: 50
Credit: 12,676,739
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6154 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009 | 4:06:04 UTC

Running 6.62 on a Q9550 w/ 2xGTX 260 Core 216's superclocked, WIN XP Pro 32bit, Nvidia drivers 180.48 successfully and getting CPU times +/- 3-4 mins per WU. Since upgrading to BOINC 6.6.3 earlier this evening I've been monitoring this box with taskmgr and the CPU utilization barely registers on these WU's. The WCC tasks are humming along nicely at 24-25% each... Amazing.

Time per GPU Grid WU step is approx. mid 30's.

-----------------------------------------

On a second box at home, Q6600 G0 @ 3.3Ghz w/ 8800GT and Nvidia 185.20 beta driver, Win XP Pro 32 Bit and BOINC 6.6.3 still chunking through 6.61 WU's is working fine.
____________
Crunching for the benefit of humanity and in memory of my dad and other family members.

Vid Vidmar*
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 08
Posts: 18
Credit: 1,146,374
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 6159 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009 | 7:55:30 UTC - in response to Message 6128.

No go here also. XPpro 64, GTX260 6.5.0/180.84

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=255873
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=254948


Fish


Try the 181.22 if they will install for you, I have Two 6.62's running @over 50% done now. The 181.22's installed on 9 XP Pro 64-Bit Box's of mine with no problems at all so they should for you too ...


That did the trick, seems to work fine with seti also. Thanks PoorBoy


Fish


Same here. Thanx PB!
BR,
____________

STE\/E
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 366
Credit: 268,386,907
RAC: 1,296
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6160 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009 | 9:00:12 UTC

Good to hear, a Teammate of mine posted in our Teams Forum about error's with the 6.62 with 64 Bit Windows right on top of a Post I made about Updating their Video Drivers to 181.22, I'll let him figure it out on his own if he can't read whats Posted ... ;)

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6161 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009 | 9:20:28 UTC
Last modified: 29 Jan 2009 | 9:28:09 UTC

I am not sure that I am really seeing a decrease in productivity. Looking at 14 tasks run on my computer W2 which have been run on my GTX 295 and GTX 280 ... all the tasks seem to be of the same type.



GPU Total TIme Step (ms) version Task ID
295 32,796 43.72 6.62 259000
295 17,102 34.2 6.61 258856
280 15,996 31 6.61 258699
295 25,243 33.65 6.61 258509
295 17,277 34.55 6.61 257990
280 16,063 32.127 6.61 257975
295 17,339 34.67 6.61 257861
280 17,128 34.258 6.62 257485
295 18,088 36.177 6.62 257364
295 17,624 35.249 6.62 257038
295 17,493 34.982 6.62 257007
295 18,396 36.793 6.62 256746
295 18,401 36.803 6.62 256602
280 17,120 34.24 6.62 256039


As I look at these numbers, granted not a HUGE sample, but, 50 / 50 roughly there is only a slight increase in step size and a minor increase in run time ...

I make it 18,170 sec average (5 hours) and 33.36 ms for the 6 each 6.61 tasks in the list...
and 19,630 sec average (5 hours 27 Minutes) and 36.52 ms for the 8 each 6.62 tasks ...

which is a change of roughly 8-9% ...

The one other point that I would raise is that there is sufficient variation in the runtimes and time steps that the actual LONG TERM values may even be lower ... but the tedium of gathering the data means that I am not sure that there is sufficient reason to dig deeper.

Also not clear is the impact on the actual daily average credit. I have only been doing GPU Grid for a little over a month and the numbers on the stat sites don't seem to align with what I am seeing in my account, though I have not tried to do my own data capture... worse, I have been moving cards around and increasing the number I have which also makes my account a poor candidate to establish a baseline this way ...

If the change impacts credit grant I would expect my daily current average of about 43.5K per day would drop to about 40K ...

Another caveat is that I have two different classes of card doing the processing ... anyway, make of it what you like ... I am seeing a very small increase in GPU time and a huge decrease in CPU usage ... I am not sure for the credit hounds if the one balances the other ... but for those of us that are supporting multiple projects I still think that this is a positive development ...

{edit}

I was getting about 4.8 tasks done per day per core with a total of 14.4 total per day (6.61)
With the 6.62 version and an increase of 30 min per task my calculations indicate this drops to 12.9 total per day or a reduction of 1.5 tasks per day ...

Meaning if I exchange the 280 for another GTX 295 I will still see a significant increase in processing... but that is just me I suppose ....

Profile Razor_FX_II
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Dec 08
Posts: 3
Credit: 7,615,181
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 6166 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009 | 12:16:57 UTC
Last modified: 29 Jan 2009 | 12:22:09 UTC

After 6.61 I was about to hang up on GPUGRID but with the 6.62 I'm back on board full force.
6.62 is definitely on the right track.
Keep up the good work!
____________
Proud Member of Team [H]ard|OCP and the [H]ard DC Commandos

nomad8u
Send message
Joined: 28 Dec 08
Posts: 1
Credit: 121,295
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
watwat
Message 6167 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009 | 13:36:46 UTC - in response to Message 6166.

Excellent results here on the first 6.62 WU. Has made my system much more responsive for the additional Boinc clients I run.

System:XPPro SP2 x86, Boinc 6.4.2 (running 4+1) 9600GSO 575/1540/850 Driver 177.84

Results: WU M13486-SH2_US_3-8-40-SH2_US_31000000_0
6.61: CPU Time - 61773.92, Elapsed Time - 73545.438, MS/Step - 98.061
6.62: CPU Time - 1247.219, Elapsed Time - 75388.047, MS/Step - 100.517

Old CPU efficiency (as reported via Boincview) with 6.61 for 4x CPU clients averaged 67%

CPU efficiency with 6.62 for 4x CPU clients back to their normal 98%

Overall 6.62 has provided a 4.6% increase in CPU efficiency for a 2.4% decrease in GPU production. Great work on this client. I have 1 more 6.62 currently running with 2 more in queue. I'll followup if there is any notable change.

Profile X1900AIW
Send message
Joined: 12 Sep 08
Posts: 74
Credit: 23,566,124
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6170 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009 | 14:12:32 UTC - in response to Message 6127.

Sorry, have not the same WU name.

First 6.62-WU with WinXP/32, nVidia 181.22: 241966 - 2478 credits
- GTX 260/192 @666/1512/1150
- CPU time: 366.7031 (3+1 configuration)
- Time per step: 43.210 ms
- Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 21605.234 s

"Old" 6.61-WU with WinXP/32, nVidia 181.20 (think so): 243068 - 2478 credits
- GTX 260/192 @666/1512/1150
- CPU time: 9720.516 (3+1 configuration)
- Time per step: 35.068 ms
- Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 17534.094 s


Next two 6.62-WUs at the same computer (WindowsXP/32, 181.22)
239626 - 2478 credits:
- GTX 260/192 @666/1512/1150
- CPU time: 366.4062
- Time per step: 36.637 ms
- Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 18318.438 s

258100 - 2478 credits:
- GTX 260/192 @666/1512/1150
- CPU time: 545.2812 (switched back meanwhile to 4+1 configuration using manager 6.5.0)
- Time per step: 38.747 ms
- Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 19373.393 s

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 1112
Credit: 6,162,416,256
RAC: 0
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6172 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009 | 15:21:56 UTC

v6.62 is actually a bit faster here:

My last v6.61 WU:

CPU time 47005.82

# Using CUDA device 0
# Device 0: "GeForce 9600 GSO"
# Clock rate: 1674000 kilohertz
# Total amount of global memory: 402325504 bytes
# Number of multiprocessors: 12
# Number of cores: 96
# Time per step: 110.087 ms
# Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 55043.295 s

Validate state Valid
Claimed credit 2478.98611111111
Granted credit 2478.98611111111
application version 6.61


My first v6.62 WU:

CPU time 546.0781

# Using CUDA device 0
# Device 0: "GeForce 9600 GSO"
# Clock rate: 1674000 kilohertz
# Total amount of global memory: 402325504 bytes
# Number of multiprocessors: 12
# Number of cores: 96
# Time per step: 108.343 ms
# Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 54171.699 s

Validate state Valid
Claimed credit 2478.98611111111
Granted credit 2478.98611111111
application version 6.62


CPU time was cut from 47005 to 546, what an improvement!

Profile [SG]Arsenic
Send message
Joined: 19 Oct 08
Posts: 5
Credit: 2,217,455
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 6193 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009 | 18:49:47 UTC - in response to Message 6170.

I confirm 6.62 working fine on XP 32-bit with 8800GT. CPU usage usually below 2% on a Athlon64x2 4400+. I'm happy!

Profile [SG]Arsenic
Send message
Joined: 19 Oct 08
Posts: 5
Credit: 2,217,455
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 6194 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009 | 22:20:46 UTC - in response to Message 6193.

No edit button?
Anyway, just wanted to add: Great work, GDF! Thank you very much!

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6195 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009 | 23:01:07 UTC - in response to Message 6194.

No edit button?
Anyway, just wanted to add: Great work, GDF! Thank you very much!


You can only edit a post for up to an hour after posting... then no more edits ... have to make a new post ...

But the sentiment is correct ... great work ...

my daily number went down by about the amount I would have expected. Tomorrows will be lower as I did an experiment with SETI@Home Beta with CUDA and have had a new experience with the world of bugs ...

The good news is that I ordered another GTX 295 this morning ... should be here mid week next and i can get my number back up ...

Profile Kokomiko
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Jul 08
Posts: 190
Credit: 24,093,690
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6198 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009 | 23:37:21 UTC

Here my values for the 6.62 on Vista 64:
For my GTX280 the 6.62 needs 4 to 5% CPU-Power of one core on a Phenom 9950 BE (2,6 GHz), for my GTX260² is one core needed with 2 to 3% on a Phenom II 940 (3,0 GHz) and for my 8800GT needs one core of a Phenom 9850 BE 2 to 3% CPU power.

The Linux version 6.59 needs on my Intel Q9550 (3,2 GHz) for a GTX260 4 bis 7% of a core, the Windows version is now better than the Linux version here.
____________

Mark Henderson
Send message
Joined: 21 Dec 08
Posts: 51
Credit: 26,320,167
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6199 - Posted: 30 Jan 2009 | 0:58:38 UTC

Finished one on on 6.62 XP64 bit, 181.22 Nvidia driver. All good.

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 1112
Credit: 6,162,416,256
RAC: 0
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6218 - Posted: 30 Jan 2009 | 16:25:09 UTC - in response to Message 6199.

Finished one on on 6.62 XP64 bit, 181.22 Nvidia driver. All good.

It appears that there never was a problem with v5.56 in XP64 either, just a bug in the NVidia drivers.

Profile Jack Shaftoe
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 08
Posts: 27
Credit: 1,813,606
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 6219 - Posted: 30 Jan 2009 | 16:28:25 UTC - in response to Message 6172.
Last modified: 30 Jan 2009 | 16:29:26 UTC

v6.62 is actually a bit faster here:


I think I'm finding the same thing. I don't see things slowing down. I compared several of my 6.62 "appx elapsed times" and see they dropped about 1500-2000 seconds.

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6224 - Posted: 30 Jan 2009 | 19:34:14 UTC - in response to Message 6219.

v6.62 is actually a bit faster here:


I think I'm finding the same thing. I don't see things slowing down. I compared several of my 6.62 "appx elapsed times" and see they dropped about 1500-2000 seconds.


The problem is that there is variability in the total execution times of the tasks apparently depending on the complexity of the model or other factors which may be the interaction of the tasks with the system and OS ...

This is why I looked at 14 tasks and calculated an average between the 6.61 and 6.62 versions. To be more fair I should have sampled more, but, I had not done that many 6.62 tasks by that time so I would have had problems coming up with enough tasks done by that application...

Profile [BOINC@Poland]AiDec
Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 08
Posts: 53
Credit: 9,213,937
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6228 - Posted: 30 Jan 2009 | 20:48:42 UTC - in response to Message 6116.
Last modified: 30 Jan 2009 | 20:51:47 UTC

Just small info:

Also, let us know if any Win Xp driver works.
gdf



I know that`s pretty late, but good news are always good news I hope. 181.22 works absolutelly perfect for WinXP Pro SP2 and SP3. I`ve already crunched many WU`s with this driver.

About Win x64 I can just write that I don`t see anything better than 178.24. I know this driver is not perfect, but was best for me until now.
____________

Profile rebirther
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Jul 07
Posts: 53
Credit: 3,048,781
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 6242 - Posted: 31 Jan 2009 | 7:43:32 UTC

Have anybody seen a difference of WU-time from 19000s - 30000s on a GTX260 with the same credit rate (4+1)? Normally Iam loosing around 2000s but this is mystic.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2705
Credit: 1,311,122,549
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6254 - Posted: 31 Jan 2009 | 16:32:54 UTC
Last modified: 31 Jan 2009 | 16:33:57 UTC

Let's see if I have any useful performance data:


6.62: 4 WUs with 2,478.99 credits

69.540 ms | QlY2031-SH2_US_2-12-40-SH2_US_2760000_0
71.756 ms | x29439-SH2_US_2-10-40-SH2_US_21450000_0
69.490 ms | c29521-SH2_US_2-8-40-SH2_US_21630000_0
69.725 ms | JA25492-SH2_US_1-27-40-SH2_US_11660000_0

6.61: also 2,478.99 credit WUs
66.994 ms | Zr16723-SH2_US-25-40-SH2_US1900000_0
67.746 ms | Hf22398-SH2_US_5-5-10-SH2_US_52390000_0
67.812 ms | DXS2851-SH2_US_5-2-10-SH2_US_51300000_0
67.726 ms | HWP4428-SH2_US_5-2-10-SH2_US_51390000_1
71.363 ms | v28865-SH2_US_2-7-40-SH2_US_2120000_0
67.069 ms | Ot10079-SH2_US-17-40-SH2_US340000_3
67.835 ms | aBL4709-SH2_US_2-4-40-SH2_US_21460000_0


All are run in 4+1 mode. I'm seeing fairly consistent times and an average of 70.13 ms/step with 6.62 versus 68.08 ms/step with 6.61. That's a performance loss of 3%, or 2.2% if the 71.756 ms value from 6.62 is omitted (may have been playing Civ 4).

System responsiveness ahs not been terrible before and is not great now, but it's certainly improved. Overall I appreciate the new client.. for me a 3% loss on the GPU is more than made up for by the benefits of the new client.

And an interesting question: which part of the WU name actually tells me if they're the same? Judging from the runtime my WUs were surely similar enough of a comparison.

Edit: still using 178.24 on XP32, no problems.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6260 - Posted: 31 Jan 2009 | 17:09:02 UTC - in response to Message 6254.

All are run in 4+1 mode. I'm seeing fairly consistent times and an average of 70.13 ms/step with 6.62 versus 68.08 ms/step with 6.61. That's a performance loss of 3%, or 2.2% if the 71.756 ms value from 6.62 is omitted (may have been playing Civ 4).

System responsiveness ahs not been terrible before and is not great now, but it's certainly improved. Overall I appreciate the new client.. for me a 3% loss on the GPU is more than made up for by the benefits of the new client


My data showed a slightly larger loss of as much as 9% ... yet my daily numbers don't reflect that ... so, I am not sure what the reality is ...

The problem as I see it is that we have slight instability in the run times of the tasks to begin with and that makes it hard to really pin down the "true" performance. Of course the other problem is that you also get the issue where one task or more falls over the boundary so that you have as more tasks done on some particular days than others.

Even worse for my account is that I have been changing the number and class of the GPUs I have on hand so that the numbers keep shifting ... and will change again this week ... :)

Interesting times ...

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2705
Credit: 1,311,122,549
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6263 - Posted: 31 Jan 2009 | 17:19:57 UTC - in response to Message 6260.

Compared to previous versions / performance investigations I find these runtimes to be surprisingly consistent. But maybe that's just because I don't have time to actually use my machine over the week.. :p

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile rebirther
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Jul 07
Posts: 53
Credit: 3,048,781
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 6271 - Posted: 31 Jan 2009 | 18:48:34 UTC

Another one with doubled time + same credits, I cant explain me why ^^
http://www.ps3grid.net/result.php?resultid=264367

Profile IIA2000
Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 5,293,374
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6276 - Posted: 31 Jan 2009 | 20:24:43 UTC
Last modified: 31 Jan 2009 | 20:43:30 UTC

6.62 application fails on my 9600GT :(
I have updated drivers, CUDA, BOINC...rebooted, project reset....nothing helps

BOINC recognizes the card, assigns task that starts and then stays at 0% done and 0 time computing....

Please advice what to try to make it run...I had no such problem with 6.61 version

Here are 2 of the tasks I have aborted due to the above reason:


http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=267985

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=267405


BOINC recognizes the 9800GX2 card separately and runs only it...9600 stays idle..


01/31/09 15:24:33||Starting BOINC client version 6.5.0 for windows_x86_64
01/31/09 15:24:33||This a development version of BOINC and may not function properly
01/31/09 15:24:33||log flags: task, file_xfer, sched_ops
01/31/09 15:24:33||Libraries: libcurl/7.19.2 OpenSSL/0.9.8i zlib/1.2.3
01/31/09 15:24:33||Data directory: E:\BOINC\DATA
01/31/09 15:24:33||Running under account Administrator
01/31/09 15:24:34||Processor: 4 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9550 @ 2.83GHz [EM64T Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 7]
01/31/09 15:24:34||Processor features: fpu tsc pae nx sse sse2
01/31/09 15:24:34||OS: Microsoft Windows XP: Professional x64 Editon, Service Pack 2, (05.02.3790.00)
01/31/09 15:24:34||Memory: 6.00 GB physical, 17.83 GB virtual
01/31/09 15:24:34||Disk: 48.83 GB total, 34.98 GB free
01/31/09 15:24:34||Local time is UTC +2 hours
01/31/09 15:24:34||Not using a proxy
01/31/09 15:24:34||CUDA devices: GeForce 9800 GX2, GeForce 9600 GT, GeForce 9800 GX2
01/31/09 15:24:34||Version change (6.4.5 -> 6.5.0)

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6279 - Posted: 31 Jan 2009 | 20:38:05 UTC - in response to Message 6271.

Another one with doubled time + same credits, I cant explain me why ^^
http://www.ps3grid.net/result.php?resultid=264367



Well, the credit awards are fixed. There are three sizes ... so, regardless of how long it takes you are going to be granted one of the three amounts of credit.

Profile The Gas Giant
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 08
Posts: 54
Credit: 607,157
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 6281 - Posted: 1 Feb 2009 | 5:39:31 UTC

I noticed this wu hung for 12hrs or so last night at around 61.2%. A stop and start of boinc got it going again. Can't give any more info than that.

Profile IIA2000
Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 5,293,374
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6289 - Posted: 1 Feb 2009 | 7:46:29 UTC - in response to Message 6281.

I noticed this wu hung for 12hrs or so last night at around 61.2%. A stop and start of boinc got it going again. Can't give any more info than that.



Ok, but this WU after the hang on and restart finished generating valid result...mine are giving only errors :(

I'm already suspecting hardware failure..

Chris S
Send message
Joined: 18 Jan 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 3,950,530
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 6291 - Posted: 1 Feb 2009 | 11:05:32 UTC

WOW! look at the reduction in CPU time here! Running stably on Boinc 6.6.3 and Win App 6.62...... And for the first time for days it's reliably running in 2+1 mode not 1+1, fingers crossed it continues.....


Task ID 261187
Name ui13927-SH2_US-26-40-SH2_US1130000_0
Workunit 194661
CPU time 683.3438
<core_client_version>6.6.3</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
# Using CUDA device 0
# Device 0: "GeForce 8600 GT"
Time per step: 285.804 ms
# Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 142902.216 s
Validate state Valid
Claimed credit 2478.98611111111
Granted credit 2478.98611111111
application version 6.62


Task ID 253378
Name LR12278-SH2_US-26-40-SH2_US670000_0
Workunit 189149
CPU time 136292.1
<core_client_version>6.4.5</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
# Using CUDA device 0
# Device 0: "GeForce 8600 GT"
# Time per step: 283.640 ms
# Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 141820.074 s
Claimed credit 2478.98611111111
Granted credit 2478.98611111111
application version 6.61

Profile Krunchin-Keith [USA]
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 May 07
Posts: 512
Credit: 111,288,061
RAC: 0
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6293 - Posted: 1 Feb 2009 | 12:40:34 UTC

I've seen a similar drop in CPU times.
For same work type work units the CPU times dropped from about 40.0k sec to 1.4k sec. ms/step went up 2-3.

Not bad.

I lost my database the end of last year and can't do any more anaylsis. When that happened I stopped recording new results and have not had time to rewrite my spreadsheet which did those.

Profile Dieter Matuschek
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Dec 08
Posts: 58
Credit: 231,884,297
RAC: 0
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6299 - Posted: 1 Feb 2009 | 16:11:54 UTC - in response to Message 6281.

I noticed this wu hung for 12hrs or so last night at around 61.2%. A stop and start of boinc got it going again. Can't give any more info than that.

FYI
Up to now I had two WUs that didn't start although status has been shown as 'running'.
Restarting BOINC helped in this case, too.

fractal
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 08
Posts: 87
Credit: 1,248,879,715
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6323 - Posted: 2 Feb 2009 | 20:32:57 UTC

NICE improvement

2478 credit wu's used to use 55,000 cpu seconds prompting me to reserve an entire core to feeding the GPU. Now they take less than 1000.

Elapsed times from the task details are in the same range (60-63k seconds)

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6329 - Posted: 2 Feb 2009 | 21:44:09 UTC - in response to Message 6323.

NICE improvement

2478 credit wu's used to use 55,000 cpu seconds prompting me to reserve an entire core to feeding the GPU. Now they take less than 1000.

Elapsed times from the task details are in the same range (60-63k seconds)


With the 6.62 application you should not have to reserve a core to feed the GPU. I run 3 GPU cores on my i7 and have full speed on 8 tasks on the CPUs ...

Profile mikaok
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Jan 09
Posts: 12
Credit: 639,094
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 6354 - Posted: 3 Feb 2009 | 17:57:42 UTC - in response to Message 6291.

Running stably on Boinc 6.6.3 and Win App 6.62...... And for the first time for days it's reliably running in 2+1 mode not 1+1, fingers crossed it continues.....


My problems started with 6.62 wu's. Now my computer is running in 1+1 mode all the time as earlier I was mostly able to get it to 2+1. My boinc version is 6.4.5 though

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2705
Credit: 1,311,122,549
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6365 - Posted: 3 Feb 2009 | 21:08:41 UTC - in response to Message 6354.

My problems started with 6.62 wu's. Now my computer is running in 1+1 mode all the time as earlier I was mostly able to get it to 2+1. My boinc version is 6.4.5 though


Try 6.5.0.

I noticed this wu hung for 12hrs or so last night at around 61.2%. A stop and start of boinc got it going again. Can't give any more info than that.


I also had a 6.62 WU hanging and restarting BOINC solved the problem. Didn't have anything like that before. (which may be coincidence)

IIA2000 wrote:
BOINC recognizes the card, assigns task that starts and then stays at 0% done and 0 time computing....

IIA2000 wrote:
Ok, but this WU after the hang on and restart finished generating valid result...mine are giving only errors :(


do they error out or are they stuck and you abort them? How long have you let them run to see if they're really stuck? With 6.62 you won't see the cpu time count up, so you can not readily tell if anything is running. Looking at the GPU temperature would tell you, though. Or waiting >10 min should also make sure that you see progress, even on the slowest of cards.
And which driver are you running, 181.22? Older ones are causing problems / errors on XP64.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile mikaok
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Jan 09
Posts: 12
Credit: 639,094
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 6380 - Posted: 4 Feb 2009 | 7:54:46 UTC - in response to Message 6365.

My problems started with 6.62 wu's. Now my computer is running in 1+1 mode all the time as earlier I was mostly able to get it to 2+1. My boinc version is 6.4.5 though


Try 6.5.0.


That did the job. Thanks.

Profile IIA2000
Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 5,293,374
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6381 - Posted: 4 Feb 2009 | 7:59:04 UTC - in response to Message 6365.
Last modified: 4 Feb 2009 | 8:14:44 UTC

My problems started with 6.62 wu's. Now my computer is running in 1+1 mode all the time as earlier I was mostly able to get it to 2+1. My boinc version is 6.4.5 though


Try 6.5.0.

I noticed this wu hung for 12hrs or so last night at around 61.2%. A stop and start of boinc got it going again. Can't give any more info than that.


I also had a 6.62 WU hanging and restarting BOINC solved the problem. Didn't have anything like that before. (which may be coincidence)

IIA2000 wrote:
BOINC recognizes the card, assigns task that starts and then stays at 0% done and 0 time computing....

IIA2000 wrote:
Ok, but this WU after the hang on and restart finished generating valid result...mine are giving only errors :(


do they error out or are they stuck and you abort them? How long have you let them run to see if they're really stuck? With 6.62 you won't see the cpu time count up, so you can not readily tell if anything is running. Looking at the GPU temperature would tell you, though. Or waiting >10 min should also make sure that you see progress, even on the slowest of cards.
And which driver are you running, 181.22? Older ones are causing problems / errors on XP64.

MrS



First of all the problem has gone...now I have 3 simultaneous running tasks as earlier. Again latest drivers and BOINC 6.6.4

As I mentioned in my post I had clean install of the latest drivers and latest CUDA...and I had no problems with the earlier versions...so I think it was not an issue with the drivers. I am running XPx64.

The problem units really stuck for an hours...It's not of waiting 10-15 minutes to see the progress..

About the temperatures....YES I've mentioned that the GF9600GT card was idle...at the same moment GF9800GX2 was running 2 tasks.


Here are again links to some of the problem WU:


http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=268000

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=267467

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=267302
____________

Post to thread

Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Windows app 6.62

//