|
11)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Cancelled by Server - Suggestion
(Message 9950)
Posted 5459 days ago by Scott Brown
A more efficient approach would be to follow the PrimeGrid model where shorter and longer types of work can be selected within the same project...However, GDF has said elsewhere in the forum (sorry can't find the link just now) that it is not possible to divide up the work this way. |
|
12)
Message boards :
Graphics cards (GPUs) :
Working Unit Hanging...different than others reported?
(Message 9934)
Posted 5460 days ago by Scott Brown
Drat...I had already aborted that one before I thought about it being potentially different from the already known problem (or potentially informative as a earlier version example). That machine has already completed another unit--a RAUL unit--in typical time, without a restart. |
|
13)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Cancelled by Server - Suggestion
(Message 9927)
Posted 5460 days ago by Scott Brown
Agreed...to a point. I think that many of the posters in the thread have been around BOINC for several years, so we have some fairly good ideas about what those problems are...especially you Paul. On that side of things, we are able to offer real solutions. But you are very much right that without more detailed understanding of the construction of workunits at this project, we can at best offer potential solutions that, if we are lucky, might hit upon a real solution... |
|
14)
Message boards :
Graphics cards (GPUs) :
Working Unit Hanging...different than others reported?
(Message 9926)
Posted 5460 days ago by Scott Brown Had to cancel a workunit that hung at about 85% complete (see here). Was curious if this is a different error than the others since it 1) is not one of the KASHIF_HIVPR ones--it is an IBUCH_KID, 2) I am using BOINC 6.5.0, so no 6.6.x problems, and 3) I believe that the driver is 178.24, so definitely not the 185.xx issues. The machine in question is running an 8800GS with shaders OC'ed, but this is the first hanging unit on it so far. |
|
15)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Cancelled by Server - Suggestion
(Message 9886)
Posted 5461 days ago by Scott Brown this is the point where I started thinking :) Maybe I am missing something here, but wouldn't it be fairly straightforward to have the server issue the remaining work as a shorter workunit? That is, assume Paul's machine completes 100TS in 6 hours and is paired with a 9800GT that only completes 30TS in that time, with both returning results at about the same time. The server could then be made to reissue a follow-up workunit made up of the 70TS difference that could be sent to a third card (say another 9800GT, but with a 13 hour limit). If the third card was another 9800GT-6 hour limit, then once returned another reduced 40TS unit could be issued, and so on...in other words, the real new work would not be generated until the full set of TS in the original work was completed by additional cards. This could probably be made more efficient by always issuing the "A" result to a reliable host with the "B" and beyond work copy going to any host. |
|
16)
Message boards :
Graphics cards (GPUs) :
BOINC 6.6.27 is out
(Message 9479)
Posted 5469 days ago by Scott Brown ...But I do see your point, if you swap viewpoints is card 2 within 30% of card 1 and is card 1 in 140% of card 2 ... but that is not supposed to be the question. It is supposed to be is card 2 in plus or minus of card 1 ... Well, the limit does not really matter here, since it is a basic mathematical property, but you have "hit the nail on the head" in that the question being solved has not clearly been stated. If clearly stated, then all of the above is wrong. Given a finite set of cards in any given machine (and especially the 2 card scenario being used as an example), there is never a need to calculate an upper bound. One should simply take the card with highest value (say the 512mb card) and calculate the 70% lower bound to see if the second card has less than that threshold. If not less, it is necessarily within the 30%. All of this ignores the issues when attempting to use 3 or more cards. If one had three cards such that each has different memory (say 9600GSO's with 384mb, 512mb, and 1GB--the first would have 96 shaders, the other two would have 48 shaders each), the current logic would exclude the 384mb card despite the fact that it is the best cruncher of the three. Even the 2 card scenario could produce equally ridiculous logic (e.g., a 512mb 9800GT being excluded when a 1GB 9800GT is added to the system, etc.). Basically, (as you and others have stated in various forms previously) this is really just a dumb idea. |
|
17)
Message boards :
Graphics cards (GPUs) :
BOINC 6.6.27 is out
(Message 9378)
Posted 5472 days ago by Scott Brown Paul, For the record...I am on your side as I firmly think that the BOINC developers really don't care for critical input, especially yours which is always worth considering and mostly correct. That said, in this case, they are correct. The logic that you are using would work if we are dealing with a completely symmetrical system. Proportions (percentages, odds, etc.) are, however, asymmetrical because of differential bounding. One cannot have negative proportions since proportions are bounded by zero, but in the positive direction, the bound is infinity. A simple example can demonstrate how this works: Assume 512mb of memory. A 30% lower bound would equal 512 multiplied by 0.7 = 358.4. But to get the same bound when starting from 358.4, one cannot multiply by 1.3 (yields about 465), but rather one must multiply by the 1.42 (rounded) figure which will yield the 512 needed. Scott |
|
18)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Time taken by WU
(Message 9072)
Posted 5479 days ago by Scott Brown If you return work late, but before the machine that is reassigned the workunit, then you will get credit. If the work is returned from the second reassigned machine before yours comes back, then you will not get credit. A 16 shader card should be able to return work within the 5-day deadline if running fairly high shader clocks (I think 1700 at least). Given variable sized work here, however, some units will go longer. |
|
19)
Message boards :
Graphics cards (GPUs) :
Vista slower than XP? Yes!
(Message 9039)
Posted 5480 days ago by Scott Brown I wonder if the driver differences could explain the rest of the difference (beyond the 12.5% more due to 216 vs. 192 shaders)? The Win7 box is using 181.71. The XP box is using 182.06. Anyone know any particular driver enhancements in the latter that might increase performance slightly? |
|
20)
Message boards :
Graphics cards (GPUs) :
Have work units gotten longer????
(Message 8868)
Posted 5483 days ago by Scott Brown If WUs do have the same name, you can assume they are of the same length. Any possibility of knowing what the naming schemes mean? |
Previous 10 | Next 10
