Advanced search

Message boards : News : New VIL workunits

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: 1895
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 29895 - Posted: 13 May 2013 | 12:12:04 UTC

Hi,
I have submitted some small workunits on folding. If they work fine, I will submit more, they are in the short queue.

gdf

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 09
Posts: 788
Credit: 1,422,060,845
RAC: 1,410,932
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29899 - Posted: 13 May 2013 | 14:39:23 UTC - in response to Message 29895.

Not a very encouraging start, I'm afraid:

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=4446163

Profile Saenger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jul 08
Posts: 134
Credit: 4,396,501
RAC: 2,838
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29906 - Posted: 13 May 2013 | 18:03:55 UTC

Same here:
http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=4446165
____________
Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 09
Posts: 788
Credit: 1,422,060,845
RAC: 1,410,932
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29924 - Posted: 14 May 2013 | 10:55:34 UTC

Just errored another of these. I can't see any sign of successful running for WUs 4446163 - 4446196 inclusive: most have that Too many errors (may have bug) already.

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1895
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 29928 - Posted: 14 May 2013 | 13:58:50 UTC - in response to Message 29924.

Sorry guys my fault at the time of submission. That's why I have run just a few.

There is a new group out now called VIL1. I have cancelled the old ones, but 7 are still around.

gdf

IFRS
Send message
Joined: 12 Dec 11
Posts: 89
Credit: 2,656,811,083
RAC: 1
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29931 - Posted: 14 May 2013 | 15:04:20 UTC
Last modified: 14 May 2013 | 15:05:44 UTC

Got a long one called SDOERR in the queue. What about these?

Stefan
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 5 Mar 13
Posts: 258
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 29932 - Posted: 14 May 2013 | 15:15:24 UTC
Last modified: 14 May 2013 | 15:17:55 UTC

These are mine. We require some more simulations for one of our previously simulated systems (2HDQ, ligand binding) to get more accurate calculations.
We only sent a small batch and as with VIL if everything goes fine we will send more.

IFRS
Send message
Joined: 12 Dec 11
Posts: 89
Credit: 2,656,811,083
RAC: 1
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29933 - Posted: 14 May 2013 | 15:34:30 UTC - in response to Message 29932.

These are mine. We require some more simulations for one of our previously simulated systems (2HDQ, ligand binding) to get more accurate calculations.
We only sent a small batch and as with VIL if everything goes fine we will send more.

Great, will let you know, processing it now :D

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 09
Posts: 788
Credit: 1,422,060,845
RAC: 1,410,932
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29939 - Posted: 14 May 2013 | 16:05:26 UTC - in response to Message 29928.

Sorry guys my fault at the time of submission. That's why I have run just a few.

There is a new group out now called VIL1. I have cancelled the old ones, but 7 are still around.

gdf

Got one of the new ones on host 43404. It's running, but slow: 10% after 46 minutes implies it's on course for 7 hours 30 minutes plus - that's more than twice the time of a typical NATHAN_RPS1

IFRS
Send message
Joined: 12 Dec 11
Posts: 89
Credit: 2,656,811,083
RAC: 1
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29945 - Posted: 14 May 2013 | 20:36:14 UTC - in response to Message 29933.

These are mine. We require some more simulations for one of our previously simulated systems (2HDQ, ligand binding) to get more accurate calculations.
We only sent a small batch and as with VIL if everything goes fine we will send more.

Great, will let you know, processing it now :D


Update: running fine, using a full cpu core and gpu core, just as a Nathan unit. Expecting something like 8 hrs on a GTX690 core.

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 09
Posts: 788
Credit: 1,422,060,845
RAC: 1,410,932
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29947 - Posted: 14 May 2013 | 22:59:14 UTC

Home run with I3R1-GIANNI_VIL1-0-3-RND0291

IFRS
Send message
Joined: 12 Dec 11
Posts: 89
Credit: 2,656,811,083
RAC: 1
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29951 - Posted: 15 May 2013 | 1:05:18 UTC

Perfect unit Stefan:
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=6861703
8 1/2 hour, 135k creds, full hardware utilization, just perfect.

Stefan
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 5 Mar 13
Posts: 258
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 29953 - Posted: 15 May 2013 | 7:48:43 UTC - in response to Message 29951.

Well, I don't deserve the credit since it was Paola who originally set up the simulations and not me :D I am simply re-sending them.
But it's great to hear they are working so fine, so thanks anyways and enjoy crunching them!

flashawk
Send message
Joined: 18 Jun 12
Posts: 241
Credit: 1,691,101,722
RAC: 703,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29955 - Posted: 15 May 2013 | 10:16:36 UTC

I'm running 2 right now, both on GTX680's (just started) and the GPU's are at 97% while the memory controllers are polling 37%. That's the highest I've ever seen on any of my video cards, it will be interesting to see how close she managed to get the CPU and GPU run times. I think NATHAN has that one in the bag right now.

flashawk
Send message
Joined: 18 Jun 12
Posts: 241
Credit: 1,691,101,722
RAC: 703,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29964 - Posted: 15 May 2013 | 16:07:28 UTC

I finished my first SDOERR, it took 7 hours 12 minutes on a GTX680. The uploads are pretty big, 135MB for this one, I remember the last time they were this big, we had a "<max_nbytes>" issue.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3968
Credit: 1,834,518,624
RAC: 292,156
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29968 - Posted: 15 May 2013 | 17:08:54 UTC - in response to Message 29895.
Last modified: 15 May 2013 | 17:49:00 UTC

Hi,
I have submitted some small workunits on folding. If they work fine, I will submit more, they are in the short queue.

gdf

I’m running a Short queue GIANNI_VIL1 WU’s now on my GTX650TiBoost:
With 5 CPU threads in use by CPU WU’s the GPU use was 86%.
With all CPU WU’s suspended it rose to 90%. Similarly GPU power was 91%.
This is lower than the Nathan WU’s (97% power/96% GPU use without CPU WU's running).
The WU only uses 146MB GDDR. The 650TiBoost is still using a OC of 1215MHz/3110MHz.
Memory Controller at 20 to 21%
The GIANNI_VIL1 WU reached 5% in 19min 3sec, suggesting that run time would be ~22860sec (6h 35min). That’s about the same as one of Nate’s WU’s. For a mid-range GPU 6 to 7h seems about right for short WU's.
Unfortunately the WU, and a string of others all crashed. I've reset the GPU to stock, but it's getting pulled anyway.

-
SDOERR_2HDQc 135MB. Are these using the old compression method?
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Stefan
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 5 Mar 13
Posts: 258
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 29973 - Posted: 15 May 2013 | 19:48:24 UTC - in response to Message 29968.

Yes, apparently since we used the old simulation files they were configured to produce the old file type. I apologize. Tomorrow morning I will probably cancel the rest and resend them with the new smaller filetype.

Profile Mumak
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Dec 12
Posts: 92
Credit: 225,897,225
RAC: 0
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29974 - Posted: 15 May 2013 | 20:12:42 UTC
Last modified: 15 May 2013 | 20:14:33 UTC

My recent tasks (660 Ti):

GIANNI_VIL1, Run time=22,607, Credit=31,050
NATHAN, Run time=19,590, Credit=70,800

So a task taking longer (though called *short*) in fact takes longer than *long* and half credit? Or is there maybe something wrong with those VIL tasks causing them to run so long? Unfortunately I haven't checked GPU usage while processing it. Will do the next time..

nanoprobe
Send message
Joined: 26 Feb 12
Posts: 181
Credit: 221,824,715
RAC: 0
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29977 - Posted: 15 May 2013 | 21:22:47 UTC - in response to Message 29933.
Last modified: 15 May 2013 | 21:27:00 UTC

These are mine. We require some more simulations for one of our previously simulated systems (2HDQ, ligand binding) to get more accurate calculations.
We only sent a small batch and as with VIL if everything goes fine we will send more.

Great, will let you know, processing it now :D

I have one that's 3 hours in and another in cache. Will let you know. GPU @97%, memory @43% with 6 CPU (yoyo muon) tasks running along side.
____________

VictordeHollander
Send message
Joined: 10 Apr 12
Posts: 6
Credit: 81,085,749
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29981 - Posted: 15 May 2013 | 21:54:22 UTC

I also got a 2HDQ task on my old rusty trusty GTX480, that is probably going to take 11-12 hours to compete :D.
But I don't mind, I'm not using that computer anyway.

Profile dskagcommunity
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Apr 11
Posts: 456
Credit: 810,073,458
RAC: 0
Level
Glu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29991 - Posted: 16 May 2013 | 6:35:37 UTC
Last modified: 16 May 2013 | 6:36:09 UTC

Very good throuhput 98-99% gpu load 31% memory load even with enabled cpu tasks. 135k credits for 11,3 hours on 570 cards. Great units :)
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at



Crunching for my deceased Dog who had "good" Braincancer..

Profile Mumak
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Dec 12
Posts: 92
Credit: 225,897,225
RAC: 0
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29992 - Posted: 16 May 2013 | 7:31:51 UTC
Last modified: 16 May 2013 | 7:35:56 UTC

I12R14-GIANNI_VIL1-0-3-RND0846_1
GeForce 660 Ti, Win7 x64
GPU Usage: 70% (!)
GPU Power: 77%
Disabling all CPU tasks raises GPU Usage to 74%, that's still very low.
2.65% completed after 10 minutes
That gives ~6.5hr runtime. Quite much for a short task with such low credit...

Bedrich Hajek
Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 09
Posts: 340
Credit: 3,820,205,459
RAC: 934,206
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 29997 - Posted: 16 May 2013 | 10:11:13 UTC - in response to Message 29973.

Yes, apparently since we used the old simulation files they were configured to produce the old file type. I apologize. Tomorrow morning I will probably cancel the rest and resend them with the new smaller file type.


To cancel units, which we have already started crunching and been crunching for hours, which were otherwise good, is not right and is just a wasting our time. You should have let those units already crunching finish, and correct this problem on all future units.




http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=4463666

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=4463657

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=4463672


Profile dskagcommunity
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Apr 11
Posts: 456
Credit: 810,073,458
RAC: 0
Level
Glu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 30000 - Posted: 16 May 2013 | 11:50:05 UTC

100% agree..
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at



Crunching for my deceased Dog who had "good" Braincancer..

Stefan
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 5 Mar 13
Posts: 258
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 30001 - Posted: 16 May 2013 | 12:09:23 UTC - in response to Message 30000.

100% agree too. It was actually unintentional and won't be repeated.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3968
Credit: 1,834,518,624
RAC: 292,156
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 30002 - Posted: 16 May 2013 | 12:29:11 UTC - in response to Message 30001.
Last modified: 16 May 2013 | 12:31:00 UTC

I think you can selectively server abort tasks that have not started.
If a task isn't going to be used for research purposes, there is no point running it. So a server abort of running tasks makes sense, so long as they are marked as valid and credit assigned in full or according to run time.

I12R14-GIANNI_VIL1-0-3-RND0846_1
GeForce 660 Ti, Win7 x64
GPU Usage: 70% (!)
GPU Power: 77%
Disabling all CPU tasks raises GPU Usage to 74%, that's still very low.
2.65% completed after 10 minutes
That gives ~6.5hr runtime. Quite much for a short task with such low credit...


I'm presently running two GIANNI_VIL1 WU's on a 660 and a 660Ti (W7):
With 5 CPU WU's also running my GPU usage is ~84% and 81%
With 2 CPU WU's also running my GPU usage is ~87% and 84%
With no CPU WU's running my GPU usage is ~90% and 87%

Memory Controller loads are 31% and 25% and GDDR memory usage is 160MB and 225MB.

Under my setup the GIANNI_VIL1 WU's are 22% faster on the GTX660Ti than the GTX660 (that was with 5CPU WU's running).
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 1073
Credit: 4,496,456,504
RAC: 414,796
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 30004 - Posted: 16 May 2013 | 13:04:50 UTC - in response to Message 30001.

100% agree too. It was actually unintentional and won't be repeated.

Very bad form to cancel WUs that have started:

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=4453202

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=4453531

Over 23 hours wasted :-(

Toni
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 9 Dec 08
Posts: 591
Credit: 4,273,184
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 30012 - Posted: 16 May 2013 | 15:25:42 UTC - in response to Message 30004.
Last modified: 16 May 2013 | 16:25:32 UTC

Guys, let me step in. Cancelling WUs was supposed to be conservative (unsent only). If there is a bug - sorry about that, it never surfaced before. I'm having a look.

nanoprobe
Send message
Joined: 26 Feb 12
Posts: 181
Credit: 221,824,715
RAC: 0
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 30013 - Posted: 16 May 2013 | 15:28:50 UTC - in response to Message 29997.

Yes, apparently since we used the old simulation files they were configured to produce the old file type. I apologize. Tomorrow morning I will probably cancel the rest and resend them with the new smaller file type.


To cancel units, which we have already started crunching and been crunching for hours, which were otherwise good, is not right and is just a wasting our time. You should have let those units already crunching finish, and correct this problem on all future units.




http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=4463666

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=4463657

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=4463672



Agreed. One unit finished fine in 8 hours. The other was progressing and was cancelled after 5 hours. Not happy.

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=4453678

GoodFodder
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 12
Posts: 53
Credit: 333,467,496
RAC: 0
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 30016 - Posted: 16 May 2013 | 17:13:15 UTC

These things happen in IT as long as lessons are learned it's no biggie - Much better to cancel WUs which can't be used for science than letting hundreds of unsuspecting volunteers globally use thousands of kWh just to allow for credits.

I do however think communication could have been handled better - I would have expected an official thread for this issue with an apology from the senior project manager - In my opinion it has been handled very unprofessionally tarnishing volunteer confidence in the project.

TJ
Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 09
Posts: 815
Credit: 1,469,215,105
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 30043 - Posted: 17 May 2013 | 11:24:33 UTC

We are here to help the science. BOINC was made to use computing capacity of not used computers for an amount of time. During dinner or something.
Seems to me that we are all "demanding work" from the scientists to be happy crunchers.
If WU's have errors, bugs or no (longer) use for the scientific goal than to me it is absolutely logic to cancel them as soon as possible.

Should be fair for the "credit hunters" to give credits for the run time though.
____________
Greetings from TJ

flashawk
Send message
Joined: 18 Jun 12
Posts: 241
Credit: 1,691,101,722
RAC: 703,683
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 30055 - Posted: 17 May 2013 | 16:19:01 UTC

He did say he was going to cancel them in this thread where we were talking about upload size. There wasn't a bug, it was the upload size he was fixing and he unintentionally cancelled sent work units while canceling the wu's in the server. Everybody makes mistakes and he apologized for it.

Post to thread

Message boards : News : New VIL workunits