Advanced search

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
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
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?
____________

Snow Crash
Send message
Joined: 4 Apr 09
Posts: 450
Credit: 539,316,349
RAC: 0
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
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

jjwhalen
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 09
Posts: 29
Credit: 17,591,899
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
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

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3968
Credit: 1,995,359,260
RAC: 0
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
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.

fractal
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 08
Posts: 87
Credit: 1,248,879,715
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
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

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3968
Credit: 1,995,359,260
RAC: 0
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
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.

fractal
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 08
Posts: 87
Credit: 1,248,879,715
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
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.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3968
Credit: 1,995,359,260
RAC: 0
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
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.

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 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.

Post to thread

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

//