1) Message boards : GPUGRID CAFE : Request for donations (Message 42232)
Posted 1 day ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
I have suggested trying to raise funds via Bitcoin Utopia several times and have always received little-to-no response. Milkyway has raised over $3000 in this manner. Please consider it


2) Message boards : Number crunching : Long runs yielding less credits ? (Message 42194)
Posted 9 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
Long runs since april this year yielded about 255.000 credits.
Now, if I push my Titan card to the max, I get at most around 192.000.

Those workunits were from a different batch, so this is normal.
Every batch has its own fixed credits, regardless its running time.
The running time depends on many factors, not just the processing speed of the GPU.
The more interaction between the GPU and the CPU the larger the runtime will be.
The credits awarded is based on how many FP operations needed for processing.
So the credits / sec (or credits / day, from which RAC is calculated) could be different between batches.

Current WU types' credit yield in credit / sec, as calculated for my GTX 980 under Windows XP x64:
GERARD_FXCXCL12_LIG_001_558_7582: 9.53 GERARD_CXCL12_DIM_HEP: 9.85 NOELIA_c36x467x: 7.36
3) Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Getting Errors recently on one card (Message 42184)
Posted 11 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
Well, I don't know the reason of those errors, but your perfectly working other card is too hot.
If it stays this hot (above 80°C) for a long term it won't be working this perfectly too long.
4) Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Two different Nvidia graphics cards (Message 42179)
Posted 12 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
I'm trying to run a GTX750ti and a GTX260 in the one machine but I'm having GPUGRID computation errors.
It's no wonder as the GTX260 (the whole 2xx series) is deprecated by GPUGrid.

I'm running NVidia driver version 'NVIDIA-Linux-x86_64-340.93' as I believe this is the latest driver that will recognize my 260 card while still detecting the 750ti. Later versions of the driver reported the 260 card as 'supported under 340.xx legacy drivers' and the card as ignored.
To avoid errors with the GTX750Ti you should use the latest driver available.
You should retire that old GTX260, its energy efficiency too low to use it for crunching.

1/Can I run two different driver versions in parallel, the older driver running the 260 while the newer driver the 750ti?
https://a248.e.akamai.net/f/248/10/10/us.download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/331.20/README/faq.html seems to suggest I can.
It says "You can build and install multiple kernel modules" to "minimize software overhead when driving many GPUs in a single system", but it doesn't say they could be different versions. I'm not a Linux expert, so I can't disprove it for sure.

2/Could I use a cc_config file to restrict GPUGRID work to the 750ti?
Yes, you can do it. See the BOINC wiki.
Don't use the given GPU for the given project.
If <device_num> is not specified, exclude all GPUs of the given type.
<type> is required if your computer has more than one type of GPU; otherwise it can be omitted.
<app> specifies the short name of an application (i.e. the <name> element within the <app> element in client_state.xml). If specified, only tasks for that app are excluded.
You may include multiple <exclude_gpu> elements.
If you change GPU exclusions, you must restart the BOINC client for these changes to take effect.
<exclude_gpu> <url>project_URL</url> [<device_num>N</device_num>] [<type>NVIDIA|ATI|intel_gpu</type>] [<app>appname</app>] </exclude_gpu>
5) Message boards : Number crunching : No GPU tasks available? (Message 42136)
Posted 19 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
Try to run long runs with 0,05 day work buffer in the meantime.
6) Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Not getting tasks - Windows 7 64-bit / GeForce GTX 470 / NVIDIA 331.82 (Message 42115)
Posted 22 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
I see you have a task running now. How did you fixed it?
7) Message boards : Number crunching : JIT (Just In Time) or Queue and Wait? (Message 42112)
Posted 23 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
The best idea expressed in this thread to encourage crunchers to lower their work buffer by creating shorter than 24h return bonus level(s).
I think a 3rd bonus level of 75% for less than 12h would be sufficient, as a long workunit takes ~10.5h to process on a GTX970 (Win7).
I don't think there should be a shorter period for higher bonus, as it would not be fair to create a level which could be achieved only with the fastest cards. But it could be debated, as there's a lot of GTX980Tis attached to the project. Even some of my host could achieve higher PPD if there was a shorter bonus level with higher percentages, but the throughput increase of the whole project matters, not the single cruncher's desire.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : JIT (Just In Time) or Queue and Wait? (Message 42099)
Posted 25 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
... finally we are all at each other throat, discussing our personal motivation for participating!

Let’s get the job done, crunching through all the WUs as fast as possible!
Suddenly I've realized that we're doing a Mark Twain adaptation here in this thread. :) Tom Sawyer Whitewashing the Fence
9) Message boards : Number crunching : JIT (Just In Time) or Queue and Wait? (Message 42097)
Posted 26 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
So, you're admitting that you're not willing to lower your work buffer voluntarily, and the only way for this to happen is for the project to enforce this on us.
I admit that.
Do you admit that if me, you and the 20 other people who actually read this thread would do lower their work buffer it still wouldn't help to solve the shortage because the other 3000 users just didn't care at all? BOINC is supposed to be a "set & forget" system, so it has to be well configured to work optimally without user intervention.

That's a very selfish argument, which is also not valid: how do you know the results you return are not invalid, every single one of them?
I don't know, just as you don't know either. No one does, so we all are similar from this point of view, which invalidates your argument.
But I got the goal of your argument, therefore I admit that I'm selfish. I also think that I'm not the only one here. Moreover we don't have the time and resources to convince the other 3000 careless / selfish participants to be careful & fair. It's much easier to create a system which enforces on us what is best for the system. That's how almost every community works.

GPUGRID has a quorum of one, which makes all returned results potentially invalid! Just because a task doesn't crash on you, doesn't mean it doesn't contain computation errors, especially when running on a GPU. Incidentally, I strongly believe GPUGRID should establish a quorum of two.
There's a lot of random factors involved in the simulation, so it will always have two different outputs when the same workunit is run twice.
This would take a major rewrite of the application, also it would cut the throughput in half.
I think the scientists filter the wrong results through visual checking.

But, I hate hypocrisy! We're not only eager to help the project, we demand to "help" (makes me wonder, how many times we've processed the same WUs, over and over, just so BOINC credit is generated and awarded...).
By asking for quorum of 2 you've asked for the same thing.

We don't like it when scientists issue very long WUs and we lose the 24h bonus! On the other hand, we're sympathetic to the complainers, but we rush to grab as many WUs as we can, so our RAC isn't affected by the drought...
I'm concerned about my falling RAC is mostly because at first sight I can't tell the reason of it, which could be that my hosts failing tasks, or there's a shortage, or there's an internet outage. Any of them is annoying, but only the shortage could be prevented.
10) Message boards : Number crunching : JIT (Just In Time) or Queue and Wait? (Message 42095)
Posted 26 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
Maybe I took it personally, or just my tranquilizer had rolled away?

Since we are a wonderful community of crunchers, devoted to "The Science", affectionate and considerate to one-another (especially so the mega / divine crunchers towards the mere "mortal" crunchers), why don't we all lower our work buffer to something like 5 minutes (or even zero, why not??), so that the WU pool has as many available as possible?
That's a provocative question, but easy to answer:
The group you refer as "we all" does not exist as a single entity, therefore it can't act like a single entity, so must it be "governed" by rules and motives to act coherently and effectively. (e.g. there are many contributors who don't read the forum at all - so they don't know that they should do something.) How many people read this thread at all? It has 448 views so far - that's much less than the active contributors.

Why can't those that run > 1 WU on 1 GPU revert back to 1-on-1, at least for the current "dry" period, sacrificing some "efficiency" (or is it "more creditzzz!") for the benefit of better WU distribution?
My personal reason to have a spare workunit is that I have a strong evidence, that it's in much better hands on my host than on a host which fail every single workunit. You can call it vigilantism, but it is certainly the result of the inadequate governing. (i.e. the server gives work for unreliable hosts)

Why do we need the project to enforce fairness unto us, and not be fair by ourselves??
The whole time of our civilization's existence wasn't enough to answer this question.
The best answer so far: that's human nature.
The first part of my reply is also applies here.

Maybe RAC is the single most important crunching motive after all...
Here we go again. Every time it comes to "reform" the credit system this assumption/accusation/disillusion is made.
Maybe we'll have a cure for those deadly illnesses in 10-15-20 years from now, and maybe this project will have a tiny part in it, but it is certainly not enough to convince the rest of the population to take part in it. I am confident of that we could have that cure right now, if all people of the wealthier part of the world would have been united 20 years ago for this goal, and would have been using their computers since then to take part in biomedical research, but they were playing 3D games, buying new cars & bigger houses instead. Why? Because they are motivated to do so, they are socialized to do so. The credit system is the only thing which could be the "interface" between the "material world" and the "BOINC world". Surely greed and vanity also came along from the real world, but that's human nature (that phrase again). By reforming the credit system we're trying to make the best out of it.

Next 10