Message boards : Number crunching : No work being sent
Author | Message |
---|---|
Is there a problem as no work is being sent, apparently there are no long units and my machines have reached their daily limit. | |
ID: 23606 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Is there a problem as no work is being sent, apparently there are no long units and my machines have reached their daily limit. Your pc's are hidden so I can't look, are you turning in invalid work? If so your daily limit is reduced unitl you start doing valid work again. | |
ID: 23608 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I have been reporting 10 - 12 valid Nathan CB1 wu's (total) per day on 3 machines | |
ID: 23610 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I have just checked my recent tasks and I have had over 140 wu's error out. I updated the Nvidia drivers to the latest 29573 CUDA version 4020 yesterday and am assuming that this is the reason. | |
ID: 23611 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I'm using the 295.73 drivers on WinXP x64. It's working well. | |
ID: 23612 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
It was the 295 73 drivers that caused my problem so I have gone back to the 285 62 | |
ID: 23613 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I have installed it and I am using it now, but on a 2003R2 x64 server. This is similar to XP. So far no issues. | |
ID: 23614 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The 3 machines are all Win 7 x64 Ultimate | |
ID: 23615 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Same problem here. Was also looking at joining Einstein@home for GPU calc but their forums also have messages about CUDA problems with newest NVIDIA drivers: apparently, CUDA stops working if a DVI connected monitor is used and the monitor goes/is put to sleep, and I believe there are some other problems as well. | |
ID: 23634 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
We'll put more WUs asap. | |
ID: 23635 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
For those crunching Long tasks only, I would suggest selecting to accepting normal tasks if no long tasks are available. | |
ID: 23639 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
For those crunching Long tasks only, I would suggest selecting to accepting normal tasks if no long tasks are available. When are we likely to see some Long tasks? I am only receiving ACEMD beta version 6.42 at the moment. | |
ID: 23714 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I'll put some new ones on soon, while removing some old ones. Others will add additional WUs in a week or so. Simulations take time to prepare, and it's better if we wait an extra week or two to be sure we have everything correct than sending wrong stuff and having to retract them in a week. Please be patient, and crunch for short tasks in the meantime. They are also important. | |
ID: 23717 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Some of you may have noticed a few Beta's by Ignasi and Toni. | |
ID: 23720 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I'll put some new ones on soon, while removing some old ones. Others will add additional WUs in a week or so. Simulations take time to prepare, and it's better if we wait an extra week or two to be sure we have everything correct than sending wrong stuff and having to retract them in a week. Please be patient, and crunch for short tasks in the meantime. They are also important. I totally understand that all tasks are important but there does'nt seem to be any consistency. The ACEMD beta version 6.42 takes a similar time to the NATHAN CB1 - What constitutes a long task? I will admit that I have no idea what is involved to prepare the units but from my perspective when I have everything running smoothly my end (which is a task in itself) consistency is important. Top end cards are not cheap, would they not be better utilised for the "top end tasks". Not everyone can invest in such hardware but still wish to contribute to this ever so worthwhile project, so horses for courses would be apt, to get the best out of us. This is my "chosen" project and whatever your response is, will not deter me from continuing to support it. However I do feel that it would be much more efficient to take full advantage of a GPU's capability. I will be investing in 2 more GPU's in the near future and would be delighted if the project were to utilise them to the max. | |
ID: 23723 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Spatz, thanks for your comments. You certainly have a point, and I will try to keep these things in mind. It's not lost on us how difficult it can be to get your systems up and running. It is one of the less ideal aspects of high performance computing. So many configurations, so many little details that can go wrong. We wish we could offer more support in that area. C'est la vie. | |
ID: 23737 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Over time the task length, in terms of steps, can increase with the improvements of GPU's. This is probably more important for the long tasks than the normal tasks, especially those that have to stay the same length. Recently, some of the 'Long tasks' took ~3 1/2h on a GTX580, | |
ID: 23739 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Recently, some of the 'Long tasks' took ~3 1/2h on a GTX580. I think this is too short. It's too close to normal length tasks, makes other Long tasks look too long, and raises concern over the credit system as a whole. While it has allowed many to crunch with mid-range GPU's and get the full credit bonus, that's not the purpose of long tasks. I share your concern, but it made me see this problem from another perspective. The so-called long tasks should be called fast returned tasks. I guess the GPUGrid staff already use the long queue in this way. It should be made "official" and in the fast return queue the deadline should be 24h, and 50% bonus credit should be awarded for a task returned in less than 8h and 25% bonus credit for under 12h. | |
ID: 23757 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Message boards : Number crunching : No work being sent