1) Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : DO NOT MIX GTX 10X0 GPU with older GPUs in the same system (Message 46536)
Posted 5 hours ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
It seems that the CUDA 8.0 client v9.14 for Linux supports older generation cards as well.
Do you manually assign short task to the GT730? (as the BOINC manager can't do it on its own, as far as I know)
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Immensive credits difference: ADRIA vs. PABLO tasks (Message 46534)
Posted 5 hours ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
Your argument above regarding # of steps vs. # of atoms is also somehow less conceivable to me (but might require more in depth understanding): In ADRIAs case we have less steps but significantly more atoms while in PABLOS case it is vice versa.
This is not an argument, simply the facts. Maybe I wasn't clear on this, but I agree with you.

To further understand the behavior of the GPUGrid app, take a look at the "CPU Time" column:

PABLO:
16008824 12340825 20 Feb 2017 | 19:40:19 UTC 21 Feb 2017 | 8:30:18 UTC Fertig und Bestätigt 46,014.89 6,223.11 252,750.00

ADRIA:
15993427 12327182 14 Feb 2017 | 13:10:23 UTC 15 Feb 2017 | 3:39:39 UTC Fertig und Bestätigt 52,101.35 17,701.32 175,650.00

The ADRIA task has 2.84 times CPU time than the PABLO task.

In toto, a given GPU runs comparably long and consumes comparably much electricity.
The actual power consumption of the GPU is different while crunching workunits from different batches, regardless of the GPU usage percentage you can read by 3rd party tools. In this instance the GPU's power consumption is less while crunching an ADRIA_MI_FAAH_TRP445TYR_INH than crunchhing a PABLO_adaptive_goal_KIX_CMYB.

Shouldn't these virtual credits somehow reflect this?
They should, but these credits are assigned "manually" for each batch, based on an estimation. This estimation is inadequate.

When can we expect a change?
I don't know. The good thing is that this affects everyone the same. The bad thing is that this disparity encourage some volunteers to selectively abort the less "profitable" workunits - but as these abortions counts as failures, therefore you can quickly reduce the daily quota of this host to zero by doing so.

To moderate this large difference in the credit over time ratio you can use the SWAN_SYNC environmental setting, which will make every workunit a bit faster, hopefully the slower ones speed up more.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Immensive credits difference: ADRIA vs. PABLO tasks (Message 46525)
Posted 4 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
Your first ADRIA task missed the 24h bonus (+50%), so it has only +25% bonus.

PABLO's tasks have 49.000~54.000 atoms and 15.625.000 steps
ADRIA's tasks have 104.159 atoms and 3.750.000 steps

Credit ratio: ~2.4 times
Runtime ratio: ~1.09 times (~1.38 times on my hosts using SWAN_SYNC)

ADRIA's tasks do more calculations on the CPU, so they do less calculations on the GPU.

However, the disparity in the credit/time ratio should be addressed. The method used for estimating the credits before a batch is issued should be corrected.
4) Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : GTX 970 switching to default clock value (1152MHz) after a while (Message 46521)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
Try to turn off graphic acceleration in your browser, and in Microsoft Excel too (if you have it).
5) Message boards : Server and website : No jobs for the GPU (Message 46511)
Posted 7 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
It is because Folding needs lower latency. That is, the output of one completed work unit is needed to start work on the next in the series. So they can't take the long buffer times in BOINC. That is why the Folding client starts downloading a new work unit when the present one reaches 99% complete.

This project needs lower latency as well in order to provide a more contiguos flow of work.
I proposed a similar strategy in this post but while I was hopeful in its implementation that hope is now evaporating.
https://gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=4501

It's up to the BOINC developers, or this project should be outside of BOINC just like folding@home. It would be sufficient to have different queue length in BOINC for different projects to achieve this behavior. This queue length even could be set to a fixed amount by the project itself.
But it's possible even now to achieve this behavior, if you set a low queue length (0.01 days = 14 minutes 24 seconds), and make the BOINC manager to estimate the remaining time on the progress of the workunit. (As this project does not set correct values for the <rsc_fpop_est> field in a workunit's properties.)
6) Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Temperatures (Message 46501)
Posted 9 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
This is a new world record: 99°C, and it's *not* a laptop.
e5s10_e2s7p0f124-ADRIA_MI_FAAH_INH_1-0-1-RND4705_0
<core_client_version>7.6.22</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> aborted by user </message> <stderr_txt> # GPU [GeForce GT 530] Platform [Windows] Rev [3212] VERSION [65] # SWAN Device 0 : # Name : GeForce GT 530 # ECC : Disabled # Global mem : 2048MB # Capability : 2.1 # PCI ID : 0000:02:00.0 # Device clock : 1399MHz # Memory clock : 793MHz # Memory width : 128bit # Driver version : r343_00 : 34520 # BOINC suspending at user request (exit) # GPU [GeForce GT 530] Platform [Windows] Rev [3212] VERSION [65] # SWAN Device 0 : # Name : GeForce GT 530 # ECC : Disabled # Global mem : 2048MB # Capability : 2.1 # PCI ID : 0000:02:00.0 # Device clock : 1399MHz # Memory clock : 793MHz # Memory width : 128bit # Driver version : r343_00 : 34520 # GPU 0 : 98C # GPU 0 : 99C # BOINC aborting at user request (exit) </stderr_txt> ]]>
7) Message boards : Server and website : The "Performance" tab (Message 46493)
Posted 11 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
I'm ranked second on the ADRIA_FAAH_WT_ (super-long workunit) list with this task (done in 19.86 hours),
while in the "Your personal records" table I see this task (done in 17.65 hours),
which is faster than the present 1st ranked result (done in 17.86 hours).
8) Message boards : Number crunching : 1 Work Unit Per GPU (Message 46489)
Posted 12 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
Somehow I manged to not get a single WU from the 600 new WUs released even though I manually updated all my my computers during the time they were still being claimed.
That's regrettable, but it's not unexpectable, and I see it as a justification of my observation I've posted earlier:
"there's nothing that could make sure that this task gets assigned to an idle and active host."
BTW, I haven't received from these workunits either.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : 1 Work Unit Per GPU (Message 46468)
Posted 14 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
Do you mind aborting at least one of those WUs? My two 1070s and 980ti are idling, and I'm sure many others are like me.
There's no point in aborting a task on an alive and active host, as there's nothing that could make sure that this task gets assigned to an idle and active host. As the number of tasks in progress decreases, there are more hosts trying to get work (in vain) including those which never finish the work. The overwhelmed / inactive hosts could impede the most the progress of a chain, as there's a 5 days deadline, so such a host could cause that much delay in a single step. When there's no work the chance of getting a previously timed out task is higher, even such tasks which timed out more times (causing 10, 15, 20... days delay). For example this one. It spent 10 days in vain before I've received it.
10) Message boards : Number crunching : ADRIA_FAAH_WT batch (Message 46467)
Posted 14 days ago by Profile Retvari Zoltan
I've noticed that my (Windows XP x64) hosts which had the 368.22 driver (CUDA 8.0) were processing these workunits slower than those which have the 359.06 or 358.50 driver (CUDA 7.5), so now I've downgraded them to 359.06.


Next 10