Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : New acemdlong workunits

Author Message
Toni
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 9 Dec 08
Posts: 1006
Credit: 5,068,599
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 20633 - Posted: 8 Mar 2011 | 15:29:34 UTC
Last modified: 8 Mar 2011 | 19:31:22 UTC

Dears, we are starting to take full advantage of the "long" queue. I've sent a batch of 700 WUs named "AB*", which should be 8-12h on the fastest cards.

I started a (still preliminary) batch of experiments to study the behavior of a protein likely implied in Alzheimer's disease.

By the way, if you happen to see "MDIO warnings" on redefined parameters, they are harmless.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 2343
Credit: 16,201,255,749
RAC: 0
Level
Trp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20634 - Posted: 8 Mar 2011 | 20:14:05 UTC - in response to Message 20633.
Last modified: 8 Mar 2011 | 20:15:28 UTC

I've sent a batch of 700 WUs named "AB*", which should be 8-12h on the fastest cards.

I must have faster-than-fastest cards then, since these "AB*" WUs are completing around 17000 sec (4h 43m) on my GTX 580 @ 850MHz, and 19000 sec (5h 17m) on my GTX 480 @ 800MHz.

Ross*
Send message
Joined: 6 May 09
Posts: 34
Credit: 443,507,669
RAC: 0
Level
Gln
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20635 - Posted: 8 Mar 2011 | 22:23:52 UTC - in response to Message 20634.

[ I've sent a batch of 700 WUs named "AB*", which should be 8-12h on the fastest cards]
Hi
When can I get some more? 17000sec for 11k credits standard, 27000secs for the long [7.5hrs] for the long ones 57k credits. I love them.
Cheers
Ross*
____________

Bedrich Hajek
Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 09
Posts: 475
Credit: 9,201,497,716
RAC: 7,340,769
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20636 - Posted: 9 Mar 2011 | 0:04:02 UTC

I received 4 of these units so far. Three ran on my windows 7 machine with GTX 480 cards, with no problem. One ran on my windows xp machine with GTX 285 card. This one gave me a lot of problems. It caused my computer to shut down numerous times. I had to reboot the machine again and again, but the work unit kept running. I repaired my register, did a check disk, ran a virus scan and malware scan. I even under clocked the video card. Nothing. The unit finally finished sucessfully. Since I never had this problem before and the subsequent unit is working fine, I would discount the video card going bad. This unit must have had some issues.

Toni
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 9 Dec 08
Posts: 1006
Credit: 5,068,599
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 20637 - Posted: 9 Mar 2011 | 19:32:55 UTC - in response to Message 20634.
Last modified: 9 Mar 2011 | 19:46:04 UTC

Thanks guys for the data. We are still tweaking WU sizes and credit factors. When things settle, do expect 8-12h and a credit factor of 1.5-2 (in addition to the one for fast return, if any). Maybe I'm optimizing WUs too much ;)

Concerning machine crashes, sorry to hear. BTW, I normally run the WUs on 275s in addition to Fermis.

Profile dataman
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 36
Credit: 100,352,867
RAC: 0
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20638 - Posted: 9 Mar 2011 | 19:52:34 UTC

Just wantedd to say I do like the new long wu's. I have completed 16 with no problems at all. Most run in 15 hours on GTX260's. I have no runtime yet for GTX460's. Great job folks! Keep up the good work.
Cheers!
____________

ben
Send message
Joined: 27 Oct 08
Posts: 19
Credit: 22,658,253
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20656 - Posted: 14 Mar 2011 | 10:24:41 UTC - in response to Message 20638.

i got a acemdlong and its running at 32 hours long, im surprised at how long its taking, is it me or what, help please.

Profile nenym
Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 09
Posts: 137
Credit: 1,308,230,581
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20659 - Posted: 14 Mar 2011 | 11:19:44 UTC
Last modified: 14 Mar 2011 | 11:30:13 UTC

A have crunched several "AB" WU's, run time about 9:52; XP 64bit + GTX560Ti factory OC to 900MHz, driver 26726, host ID 31329. Used features: Swan_Sync=0, free core out of Boinc, priority of ACEMD & ACEMDLONG precess set to normal. GPU load about 97%.

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 20663 - Posted: 14 Mar 2011 | 18:54:36 UTC - in response to Message 20659.
Last modified: 14 Mar 2011 | 19:09:15 UTC

Hi Ben.
Your longtask times seem to be all over the place; 19K, 22K, 55K, 36K.
I see a fairly constant 26000sec +/- 5% on my GTX470's. Some of this may be explained by different task types, but 19K and 22K for two TONI_AB1 tasks is quite far apart and 55K for a TONI_SMDTRYP7LONG10 sounds a bit long, I ran one and it was only slightly longer (under 28Ksec).

As you have a 500 series Fermi, I think it might be throttling itself (dropping speed if it gets too warm). If not perhaps your Boinc settings or system usage is causing such high variation in times.

Note that when you are using swan_sync and configure Boinc to only use 99% of the CPU cores (threads in your case), the GPUGrid task will use a full thread so your CPU usage will remain at 100% overall. After you set swan_sync you should restart the system. Might be an idea to check the last checkpoints of your tasks first.

Check the temperature of your system and GPU especially. You should be using temp controlling software to keep the card at a reasonable temperature (60-70deg). I suggest MSI Afterburner, as this allows you to configure the fan speed acording to the temperature (it increases as the temperature rises, and decreases when it should). A simpler but less controllable program is EVGA Precision. Both can be downloaded from freeware sites such as http://majorgeeks.com/ - restart required.

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 20676 - Posted: 16 Mar 2011 | 18:51:26 UTC - in response to Message 20663.

This IBUCH_2_mutEGFR task type is taking about 12h on a GTX470 (XPx86, swan_sync, free i7 thread). I think this is a good size given that it just creeps into the estimated 8-12h range and the card is at the lower end of the top Fermi cards.

ignasi
Send message
Joined: 10 Apr 08
Posts: 254
Credit: 16,836,000
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20682 - Posted: 17 Mar 2011 | 10:48:00 UTC - in response to Message 20676.

Hey,

skgiven is right.
All IBUCH_?_??EGFR_110315 should take about that. They are the same length and size. 52K atoms for 2,500,000 simulation steps which is a simulation of 10 nanoseconds.

Many thanks for running acemdlong guys!

ignasi

palmss
Send message
Joined: 28 Aug 08
Posts: 7
Credit: 60,897,550
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20708 - Posted: 18 Mar 2011 | 21:45:13 UTC

Hi, on IBUCH EGFR my gpu is used at only 40% and it take almost 18h too finish a WU,it seems really long, on other long WU my gpu take 9h too finish a WU . Is this normal ? I have a GTX 570 thanks.

Profile nenym
Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 09
Posts: 137
Credit: 1,308,230,581
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20710 - Posted: 18 Mar 2011 | 22:40:50 UTC - in response to Message 20708.

Without Swan_Sync enviroment variable and free CPU core yes.

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 20712 - Posted: 19 Mar 2011 | 0:12:44 UTC - in response to Message 20710.
Last modified: 22 Mar 2011 | 16:11:28 UTC

As nenym said, use swan_sync=0 and free up a CPU core in Boin Manager.

For how to see the FAQ: Best configurations for GPUGRID thread.

Some of the IBUCH tasks tend to be a bit less resource intensive than the other tasks, but 40% utilization is too low, so improve your settings.

One other thing, Vista and Win7 tend to be about 11% slower, due to the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM), than XP; and that's after the system is optimized for GPUGrid crunching.

palmss
Send message
Joined: 28 Aug 08
Posts: 7
Credit: 60,897,550
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20714 - Posted: 19 Mar 2011 | 3:20:18 UTC

Thank you very much for your support, I added the variable SWAN_SYNC and I effectively increase the load of the GPU to 62%.

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 20722 - Posted: 19 Mar 2011 | 20:51:19 UTC - in response to Message 20714.

Did you also configure Boinc to only use 50% of the CPU?
I get 83 to 84% GPU utilization on my GTX470s when running the long IBUCH tasks.

Snow Crash
Send message
Joined: 4 Apr 09
Posts: 450
Credit: 539,316,349
RAC: 0
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 20821 - Posted: 30 Mar 2011 | 23:03:57 UTC
Last modified: 30 Mar 2011 | 23:06:46 UTC

Points per second are very very different between the different long WU types.
These numbers come from a GTX295 on WinXP with a slight OC of shaders running at 1368 and were all returned within 24 hours. CPU = i7-920 @3.8 GHZ HT = ON, 2 threads free.

TONI_KKAL3 = .538 points per second
IBUCH_2_mutEGFR = .927 points per second point
TONI_AB1 = 1.292 points per second

elapsed times are also very different, you could make the KKALs twice as long again :-)

TONI_KKAL3 = ~7 hours
IBUCH_2_mutEGFR = ~19 hours
TONI_AB1 = ~12.5 hours
____________
Thanks - Steve

Pepo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 07
Posts: 19
Credit: 53,126
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
watwat
Message 20826 - Posted: 31 Mar 2011 | 14:36:22 UTC
Last modified: 31 Mar 2011 | 14:45:42 UTC

I've got one acemdlong task on nVidia G105M - I've noticed the task after having run for 5 hours and reaching (IIRC) less than 3%, BOINC promised to surely finish it in less than a couple of weeks (with 4 days due-time) :-D

So I've suspended the task until I'll find this thread...

[edit]After resuming the task a few hours later, it crashed weirdly (error 0x3, <message>"System cannot find the given path"</message> + "MDIO ERROR: cannot open file 'restart.coor'").

I've updated my prefs to exclude "ACEMD for long runs". But, could the server try to estimate, whether the target machine is at all capable to finish a given task until deadline?

Peter

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 20829 - Posted: 31 Mar 2011 | 19:03:53 UTC - in response to Message 20826.

The G105M is not powerful enough to run GPUGrid tasks.
It only has 8 shaders, you need about 100.

Pepo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 07
Posts: 19
Credit: 53,126
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
watwat
Message 20838 - Posted: 1 Apr 2011 | 12:24:45 UTC - in response to Message 20829.
Last modified: 1 Apr 2011 | 12:32:57 UTC

The G105M is not powerful enough to run GPUGrid tasks.
It only has 8 shaders, you need about 100.

I'd say, bad wording: not powerful enough to keep given deadline. Sure, therefore I've already excluded such tasks from mu prefs.

But still, as the CPUs do not receive tasks, which will supposedly not be done in-time, (why) does the same not (yet) happen for other resources (GPUs in this case)? BOINC knows the GPU's speed estimate (in my case it's merely "39 GFLOPS peak", I just can not see it anywhere in cleartext in sched_request_www.gpugrid.net.xml), project knows the task's FLOPs cost...

Or is this just to be implemented yet? I may stand corrected...

Peter

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 20839 - Posted: 1 Apr 2011 | 17:15:55 UTC - in response to Message 20838.
Last modified: 1 Apr 2011 | 18:01:28 UTC

Boinc requests tasks based on the estimated finish time of existing work and other things such as your cache size. Boinc has to calculate how long a task will take and get a general idea of how long tasks are for each project. Until your card runs a task Boinc cannot tell how long it will take.

If GPUGrid implemented a strategy of only allocating tasks on the basis of the GFlops peak reported by Boinc then some Fermi's might not get tasks because not all Boinc versions report the performance correctly.

Otis11
Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 197,088,189
RAC: 0
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21107 - Posted: 29 Apr 2011 | 22:00:50 UTC - in response to Message 20821.

Just to follow up on this, I've logged my results for a while. On analysis it turns our the TONI WUs are short (12-13 Hours on a GTX 260) to be considered LONG_WUs but are claiming credit in line with what LONG_WUs should be getting(approx 35% higher than normal units) while the IBUCH WUs are in line with the quoted time for long WUs (16-19H on a GTX 260) but are claiming the same amount of points as their normal sized counterparts.

Type...............Total time..........Claimed/Total
TONI_AGG.....43,625.77..........0.81
TONI_AB1......46,400.62..........0.83
IBUCH_6........69,739.29..........0.61
IBUCH_7........62,840.91..........0.62
IBUCH_8........56,076.11..........0.63
IBUCH_9........70,151.36..........0.60
IBUCH_10......60,062.49..........0.61

Just thought I'd point this out.

Profile bloodrain
Send message
Joined: 11 Dec 08
Posts: 32
Credit: 748,159
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21168 - Posted: 10 May 2011 | 5:04:07 UTC - in response to Message 20633.

i notice them failing half way thu and some normal wu also.

Otis11
Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 197,088,189
RAC: 0
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21179 - Posted: 12 May 2011 | 1:47:05 UTC - in response to Message 21168.

i notice them failing half way thu and some normal wu also.


Do you have your card overclocked?

What card is it?

What error is it giving you?

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 21181 - Posted: 12 May 2011 | 8:49:53 UTC - in response to Message 21168.

NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 (511MB), Clock rate: 1.84 GHz, driver: 27061
Windows XP Home x86 Edition, Service Pack 3, 2GB RAM
Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4400+

SWAN: FATAL : swanBindToTexture1D failed -- texture not found

ERROR: file c:\cygwin\home\speechserver\gpumd2_c\src\pme\CPME_cufft.cpp line 73: cufftExecC2C (gridcalc2.1)
called boinc_finish

SWAN: FATAL : swanMemcpyDtoH sync failed

ERROR: file c:\cygwin\home\speechserver\gpumd2_c\src\pme\CPME_cufft.cpp line 73: cufftExecC2C (gridcalc2.1)
called boinc_finish

ERROR: file c:\cygwin\home\speechserver\gpumd2_c\src\pme\CPME_cufft.cpp line 73: cufftExecC2C (gridcalc2.1)
called boinc_finish

So, lots of cuda fft errors and a few others on a GTS250. This is about power for the course for that GPU.
You probably have a better chance of finishing the shorter tasks, but most GTS250’s are just not good to crunch with here. You might want to plan for a replacement.

Otis11
Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 197,088,189
RAC: 0
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21189 - Posted: 15 May 2011 | 7:03:37 UTC - in response to Message 21181.

How much longer do you expect a gtx 295 to be useful?

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 21190 - Posted: 15 May 2011 | 10:25:36 UTC - in response to Message 21189.

One of the researchers might have a better idea, but I would guess it would be useful up until about 2 months after the next generation of NVidia cards. So I would say it will be next year some time before it's obsolete. Obviously this depends on NVidia's Kepler release (i'm guessing it will be in the first half of next year before you can buy one).

To some extent the CC1.3 cards are naturally fading from the project; a GTX 295 is now 2years and 4months old (quite old for a GPU). As you would expect, many have upgraded to newer cards, and this is likely to continue. A couple of months after the next generation of NVidia cards appear, very few users will still be crunching with a CC1.3 card; Kepler should eventually double the performance of comparable Fermi cards, never mind the CC1.3 cards.

Bedrich Hajek
Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 09
Posts: 475
Credit: 9,201,497,716
RAC: 7,340,769
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21191 - Posted: 15 May 2011 | 13:22:17 UTC

I am still running a GTX 285 on a Windows XP machine. It still runs well, after almost 2 years, and is able to finish even long tasks well within 24 hours. It is only about 20% to 30% slower than the GTX 480 running on Windows 7. I am looking to upgrade it, but I do want to wait until the prices for the 500's drop.

You mentioned the Kelper cards. Will they be compatible older machines, 4 to 5 years old? My video cards tend to last about 3 years, but my desk top computers last a lot longer. The last machine, I junked, was 10 years old!

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 21195 - Posted: 16 May 2011 | 13:22:01 UTC - in response to Message 21191.
Last modified: 16 May 2011 | 13:42:44 UTC

Even if the Kepler cards are up to PCIE3 standards, they should be backward compatible for older PCIE2 and probably PCIE boards, albeit at some loss (gaming, video editing) - 50% bandwidth. For crunching the bandwidth restrictions would be less noticeable.

Different generations are hard to compare, but I would equate a GTX285 with a GTX580, which offers a bit more than a GTX480 (more equivalent to a GTX280). Even now software for Fermi cards is still developing. So the performance should improve again slightly. Win7 is at least 11% slower than XP. When the Kepler cards turn up they will probably triple the performance of their equivalent GTX 200 card. So until that happens a high end GTX 200 card will remain a good card.

Profile 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
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 21232 - Posted: 24 May 2011 | 10:52:16 UTC - in response to Message 21195.

I would expect that a GPUs within 1/10 of the power of the top one will be useful. If kepler will have 1024 cores, then anything above 128 cores should be fine for the short workunits (acemd2). For acemd_long workunits 1/3 of the top card is probably acceptable, so over 240-300 cores once kepler is out.

gdf

Profile Fred J. Verster
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 09
Posts: 58
Credit: 35,833,978
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21233 - Posted: 24 May 2011 | 16:17:22 UTC - in response to Message 21232.

My latest returned and validated/creditted Long-Run WU took :

Task ID WU ID Date and Time sent and returned 4015690 2494307 23 May 2011 10:23:09 UTC 24 May 2011 5:58:53 UTC Elapsed CPU Claimed Granted Completed and validated 23,012.34 2,414.91 35,067.36 52,601.04 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v6.13 (cuda31)


Ran on a GTX480 (1.5GHz) and X9650 (3.5GHz) and this is also the highest speed
for GPU and CPU, in order to get valid results.
I like them and search for Alzheimers and what and how to deal with this terrifying disease is badly needed, also finding cause and treatment!


____________

Knight Who Says Ni N!

ftpd
Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 08
Posts: 152
Credit: 328,250,382
RAC: 0
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21252 - Posted: 26 May 2011 | 9:34:00 UTC

Hi,

I just returned Taskid = 4017232 Wuid = 2495161.

This wu processed more then 40 hrs on a gtx480 card.

This is tooooooooooooooo much?? Correct??


____________
Ton (ftpd) Netherlands

Profile QUIRINO CUCCIOLI
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 09
Posts: 5
Credit: 5,153,315
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21272 - Posted: 31 May 2011 | 8:43:19 UTC

SALVE VOLEVO CHIDERE SUL FORUM COME MAI LE ACEMLONG HANNO UNA SCADENZA COSI BREVE NON RIESCO A COMPLETARLE PER UNO SCARTO DI CIRCA 6 ORE VENGONO CONSEGNATE IN RITARDO ORA HO DISABILITATO LE WU LUNGA CORSA LASCIANDO SOLO ACEM 2 SU ELABORAZIONE MIA NON POSSO SUPERARA 600 GFLOP DATI.

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 21273 - Posted: 31 May 2011 | 9:56:02 UTC - in response to Message 21272.

Quirino Cuccioli, per i compiti a lungo la GT 220 non è abbastanza veloce.

en. The GT220 is not fast enough for long tasks.

Toni
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 9 Dec 08
Posts: 1006
Credit: 5,068,599
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 21274 - Posted: 31 May 2011 | 10:05:18 UTC - in response to Message 21252.

Ton: some other guy got 24.417 ms per timestep (roughly double the speed) on a 470 for a similar task (result 4034521). Don't know what happened but should be transient.

Profile QUIRINO CUCCIOLI
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 09
Posts: 5
Credit: 5,153,315
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21275 - Posted: 31 May 2011 | 11:08:31 UTC

GRAZIE PER LA RISPOSTA INFATTI ERO CONVINTO CHE LA CAUSA ERA QUESTA E MI CHIEDO POICHE' IL COMPUTER IN QUESTIONE NE MONTA 3 DI ENGT 220 CON 1 GB PER OGNI SCHEDA E SONO IN MOD SLY CON PROCESSORE SU SCHEDA MADRE MAXIMU III INTEL I 5 CON 4 GB RAM ALIM CIRCA 1000 W COME MAI MI SVOLGE 3 COMPITI CONTEMPORANEAMENTE INVECE DI DARE SINGOLO LAVORO PER MAGGIORE VELOCITA QUANDO PARTE APPLICAZIONE ACEM 2 VISUALIZZO + 0,08 CPUS
GRAZIE PER ATTENZ.

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 21276 - Posted: 31 May 2011 | 11:43:57 UTC - in response to Message 21275.

Buona domanda. E 'possibile, ma solo in laboratorio. Il problema è che BOINC è limitato.

En. Just saying that we cannot run one app over 3 GPU's due to the limitations of Boinc, but it is possible in the labs. Pity, 3 GT220's might do well enough (144 shaders combined), ditto for the GT240 and similar cards.

Profile QUIRINO CUCCIOLI
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 09
Posts: 5
Credit: 5,153,315
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 21277 - Posted: 31 May 2011 | 11:58:24 UTC - in response to Message 21276.

GRAZIE PER IL CHIARIMENTO RIGUARDO ALLA MODALITA' SLY SU BOINC QUINDI NON SI PUO' SCARICARE NESSUN PROGRAMMA CHE FACCIA CIO',GIUSTO.
OK GRAZIE E CIAO

Post to thread

Message boards : Number crunching : New acemdlong workunits

//