ACEMD beta version v6.18 (cuda)--High CPU usage?

Message boards : Number crunching : ACEMD beta version v6.18 (cuda)--High CPU usage?

Author	Message
jjwhalen Send message Joined: 23 Nov 09 Posts: 29 Credit: 17,591,899 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 15742 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 \| 20:38:56 UTC
	ComputerID 57387 WorkUnit 1250892 A couple of hours ago I downloaded 2 ACEMD beta version v6.18 (cuda) workunits & began crunching the first immediately. I noticed right away that the CPU:GPU ratio is extremely high, well above 90%. And yet the application identifies its resources as "0.27CPUs + 1.00 NVIDIA GPUs". BoincTasks, (which displays "CPU %" dynamically), shows CPU usage on the task at ~95.75%. BOINC Manager (which does not) confirms this in the task properties sheet with a ratio of CPUTime:ElapsedTime consistently in the same range, 95~96%. Indications with this beta are dramatically different from ACEMD - GPU molecular dynamics v6.03 (cuda), which in my task history shows a CPU:GPU load of ~10%. So the question becomes, where are all those CPU teracycles going? ____________
	ID: 15742 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Snow Crash Send message Joined: 4 Apr 09 Posts: 450 Credit: 539,316,349 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 15743 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 \| 21:21:15 UTC - in response to Message 15742.
	http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=2059 ____________ Thanks - Steve
	ID: 15743 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

jjwhalen Send message Joined: 23 Nov 09 Posts: 29 Credit: 17,591,899 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 15745 - Posted: 13 Mar 2010 \| 22:21:11 UTC - in response to Message 15743. Last modified: 13 Mar 2010 \| 22:30:19 UTC
	http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=2059 Thanks. I especially like the statement(s) by GDF: [quote}The 100% CPU core is a not intended and will be removed. Don't know why is there.[/quote] In my experience (35 years +) that sounds more like alpha (or pre-alpha) than beta SW. "But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." -D. Miller B/W
	ID: 15745 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

skgiven Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 23 Apr 09 Posts: 3968 Credit: 1,995,359,260 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 15794 - Posted: 17 Mar 2010 \| 10:44:38 UTC - in response to Message 15745.
	The GPUGRID team is small with limited resources and therefore depends more heavily on cruncher support for testing than other projects. I know where you are coming from when you say the 6.18s were more like an Alpha, but they are not Alphas because most worked! Betas typically have some unwanted side effects, such as high CPU usage, and some even fail on different systems (a high failure would make them more like Alphas). I consider Alphas to be more along the lines of the first full program and these are tested/debugged on inhouse test machines with high failures and lots of unwanted side effects. These Beta applications and work units are all based on existing working models, so that in itself qualifies them to be called Betas, and that makes them more like service pack Betas than application betas. I would say you could better characterise tasks into Beta one and Beta two groups; with the 6.18 being Beta 2 (not up to pre-release standards). The 6.20s and 6.21s on the other hand would be first Betas, at best, as they all failed due to identical problems. Fortunately all these tasks failed immediately, so they had little impact on user contribution; just a bit of bandwidth overhead.
	ID: 15794 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

fractal Send message Joined: 16 Aug 08 Posts: 87 Credit: 1,248,879,715 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 15817 - Posted: 18 Mar 2010 \| 17:22:52 UTC
	I am seeing the same behavior under linux. Ubuntu 8.10/ NVIDIA UNIX x86_64 Kernel Module 195.30/Intel2140@1.60GHz/ 2G ram. top - 10:20:09 up 10 days, 21:13, 1 user, load average: 3.00, 3.00, 3.00 Tasks: 71 total, 4 running, 67 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.0%us, 31.7%sy, 54.0%ni, 14.3%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2046860k total, 1784540k used, 262320k free, 202524k buffers Swap: 658624k total, 2748k used, 655876k free, 322692k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 18432 boinc 30 10 202m 97m 26m R 100 4.9 499:41.54 acemd2_6.04_x86 20405 boinc 39 19 263m 255m 288 R 50 12.8 150:00.46 minirosetta_2.0 22890 boinc 39 19 303m 296m 256 R 50 14.8 23:11.69 minirosetta_2.0 4597 boinc 20 0 95860 10m 3292 S 0 0.5 45:41.11 boinc 23296 boinc 20 0 18968 1272 988 R 0 0.1 0:00.41 top 15917 boinc 39 19 432m 426m 688 S 0 21.3 0:00.40 minirosetta_2.0 20406 boinc 39 19 263m 255m 288 S 0 12.8 0:00.14 minirosetta_2.0 20407 boinc 39 19 263m 255m 288 S 0 12.8 0:03.03 minirosetta_2.0 20408 boinc 39 19 263m 255m 288 S 0 12.8 0:00.16 minirosetta_2.0 22891 boinc 39 19 303m 296m 256 S 0 14.8 0:00.02 minirosetta_2.0 22892 boinc 39 19 303m 296m 256 S 0 14.8 0:00.44 minirosetta_2.0 22893 boinc 39 19 303m 296m 256 S 0 14.8 0:00.02 minirosetta_2.0 23277 boinc 20 0 74584 1732 1012 S 0 0.1 0:00.02 sshd 23278 boinc 20 0 20512 3388 1536 S 0 0.2 0:00.11 bash
	ID: 15817 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

skgiven Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 23 Apr 09 Posts: 3968 Credit: 1,995,359,260 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 15821 - Posted: 18 Mar 2010 \| 19:27:30 UTC - in response to Message 15817.
	I see you are running 4 tasks at once, on a dual core CPU with one GT240. At least all the GPUGrid tasks are successful. I'm sure they will fix the high CPU usage in due course.
	ID: 15821 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

fractal Send message Joined: 16 Aug 08 Posts: 87 Credit: 1,248,879,715 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 16177 - Posted: 5 Apr 2010 \| 19:30:18 UTC - in response to Message 15817.
	I am seeing the same behavior under linux. Ubuntu 8.10/ NVIDIA UNIX x86_64 Kernel Module 195.30/Intel2140@1.60GHz/ 2G ram. I moved the gt240 to an xp32 box and the cpu utilization dropped to normal. taskman shows acemd2_6.03_windows_intelx86__cuda at 0% cpu most of the time, occasionally peaking to 1 or 2% on a q6600. It was taking 100% of one core on the above mentioned ubuntu machine up until I did the switch last night.
	ID: 16177 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

skgiven Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 23 Apr 09 Posts: 3968 Credit: 1,995,359,260 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 16184 - Posted: 6 Apr 2010 \| 0:02:03 UTC - in response to Message 16177.
	That was a mistake! Linux uses a full CPU core, but the GPUGrid task is about 30% faster!!! OK, you lose a CPU core, but you gain 30% GPU speed - it's a no brainer. Even an everage GPU does about 10 times the work of a CPU, so sackrafice the CPU for the GPU.
	ID: 16184 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

GDF Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 14 Mar 07 Posts: 1957 Credit: 629,356 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 16202 - Posted: 8 Apr 2010 \| 16:05:51 UTC - in response to Message 16184.
	The reason why this version uses a full core is that some people experienced problems with the low-cpu version, like application hanging and so on. Probably the driver is not so stable under Linux for low-cpu. gdf.
	ID: 16202 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Post to thread

Message boards : Number crunching : ACEMD beta version v6.18 (cuda)--High CPU usage?

	About	Science	Volunteers	Performance	Forum	Join us	Donate