Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Extra long GIANNI_CPXB task(s)

Author Message
Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1962
Credit: 12,684,722,119
RAC: 8,373,778
Level
Trp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 48761 - Posted: 29 Jan 2018 | 17:51:46 UTC
Last modified: 29 Jan 2018 | 17:53:14 UTC

I had one with 155.591 atoms and 12.5M steps.
It took 19 hours and 25.5 minutes to process on my GTX 980 Ti / WinXPx64 host. The GPU usage was 99%.
The variation of the number of atoms among the workunits of this batch is unusually high (lowest on my hosts is 61.233) which results in unpredictable processing times, which makes the "queuing strategy" quite difficult = slower hosts even miss the 5 day deadline with the workunits having the biggest atom counts, faster hosts could loose the 24hrs or 48hrs bonus (just like mine did).
This batch runs significantly faster on 1080 Ti though.

PappaLitto
Send message
Joined: 21 Mar 16
Posts: 417
Credit: 2,983,523,766
RAC: 6,175,895
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwat
Message 48762 - Posted: 29 Jan 2018 | 19:13:55 UTC - in response to Message 48761.

I had one with 155.591 atoms and 12.5M steps.
It took 19 hours and 25.5 minutes to process on my GTX 980 Ti / WinXPx64 host. The GPU usage was 99%.
The variation of the number of atoms among the workunits of this batch is unusually high (lowest on my hosts is 61.233) which results in unpredictable processing times, which makes the "queuing strategy" quite difficult = slower hosts even miss the 5 day deadline with the workunits having the biggest atom counts, faster hosts could loose the 24hrs or 48hrs bonus (just like mine did).
This batch runs significantly faster on 1080 Ti though.


This CPXB task run on my 980ti only had 64,000 atoms http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=16981253 . This received more credit for a far fewer amount of atoms. Maybe these extremely high atom simulations should be their own category.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1962
Credit: 12,684,722,119
RAC: 8,373,778
Level
Trp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 48763 - Posted: 30 Jan 2018 | 9:16:22 UTC - in response to Message 48761.
Last modified: 30 Jan 2018 | 9:22:44 UTC

I had one with 155.591 atoms and 12.5M steps. (lowest on my hosts is 61.233)
I forgot to mention that the awarded credits are the same, regardless the more than twice as much FLOPs needed to process the larger atom count model(s). This is quite neglectful approach of the definition of Cobblestones.
On the positive side, the ratio of such large atom count models to the "normal" atom count models is about 1:20, so this doesn't threatens much the average awarded credits (provided this ratio stays this low).

Keith Myers
Send message
Joined: 13 Dec 17
Posts: 142
Credit: 114,039,138
RAC: 1,001,353
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
wat
Message 48788 - Posted: 2 Feb 2018 | 19:43:30 UTC - in response to Message 48763.

No, the credit awarded has nothing to do with Cobblestones. It is the CreditNew algorithm that takes full blame. CreditNew is broken. Blame the author David Anderson of SETI for the travesty of CreditNew.

mmonnin
Send message
Joined: 2 Jul 16
Posts: 181
Credit: 373,691,739
RAC: 1,449,191
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
wat
Message 48789 - Posted: 2 Feb 2018 | 20:08:04 UTC

GPU tasks are not using CreditNew. GPU Credit has a fixed value at GPUGrid.

Keith Myers
Send message
Joined: 13 Dec 17
Posts: 142
Credit: 114,039,138
RAC: 1,001,353
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
wat
Message 48790 - Posted: 2 Feb 2018 | 20:53:20 UTC - in response to Message 48789.

GPU tasks are not using CreditNew. GPU Credit has a fixed value at GPUGrid.

Sorry, I was confused with the previous answer to my questions about the large variance in credit for QMML tasks.

I was told and am certain that those tasks use CreditNew. I was told by the scientists this is so.

mmonnin
Send message
Joined: 2 Jul 16
Posts: 181
Credit: 373,691,739
RAC: 1,449,191
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
wat
Message 48791 - Posted: 2 Feb 2018 | 21:04:09 UTC - in response to Message 48790.

GPU tasks are not using CreditNew. GPU Credit has a fixed value at GPUGrid.

Sorry, I was confused with the previous answer to my questions about the large variance in credit for QMML tasks.

I was told and am certain that those tasks use CreditNew. I was told by the scientists this is so.


The CPU Quantum Chemistry tasks might be using CreditNew. When I ran them they were not all the same credit. Esp after like a dozen tasks returned.

GPU tasks here are all fixed. 111k, 252k, 387k and these large 483k credit tasks. (Rounded with Bonus.)

Keith Myers
Send message
Joined: 13 Dec 17
Posts: 142
Credit: 114,039,138
RAC: 1,001,353
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
wat
Message 48792 - Posted: 2 Feb 2018 | 21:07:24 UTC - in response to Message 48791.

Thanks for the confirmation. Now I have to ask someone who knows how is it possible for the GPUGrid.net project running BOINC software can employ two different credit award mechanisms at the same time.

I didn't think that is possible. Time to ask Richard Haselgrove.

Post to thread

Message boards : Number crunching : Extra long GIANNI_CPXB task(s)