Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : New Gianni tasks take loooong time... a warning (8-12-16)
Author | Message |
---|---|
Just a warning for those with weaker/slower GPUs than maybe a 770, the new batch of Gianni is going to take around 30 hours on my 980 TI Classified. That means one of my 980 standards would crunch it in about or less than 47 hours. You can go way down from there. My 730 would not finish one in time. My Quadro K2100M would not finish one in time. Some place between the K2100M and the 980, it the cut-off point on these in cards. Depending on settings and configuration, some cards may just make it or fail it wasting time. | |
ID: 44148 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I also just had one lock my system up and error out on a dual 980 system after 13 hours of running. It took 2 reboots, second one being a hard boot, to get it back up and running aborting the task naturally (didn't hit abort task). | |
ID: 44150 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
If you are running a card that struggles for the wall of time given it on normal Gerard_FXCXCL12RX tasks and occasionally misses or makes it on the MO_MOR or MO_TRV tasks, do not attempt these current GIANNI_D3C36bCHL tasks. Again, I am thinking based on configuration and settings and assuming 24 hour a day crunching, somewhere between a 970 and a 770 might not make it and lower than a 770 it would not. Sounds like they should be put in a separate queue. | |
ID: 44151 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Earlier this morning I've seen the error rates for gianni around 90% and now it's in the 80's. | |
ID: 44152 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Sounds good. I was just warning about the length, not really the error rate til I noticed that. Often times new tasks get errors when first run and a bug is fixed for the rest of them, so that isn't a concern of mine. the length on some cards not being able to do them in time was what the warning was really about. But thanks. | |
ID: 44154 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Oh, I didn't know the errors got fixed liked that, thanks for letting me know! | |
ID: 44156 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Looks like the one I was running that was going to go longer than 30 hours as 2 tasks per card was able to be reduced to 28.2 hours after it ran the last 10 or so hours as a single task on that card. Still stand by anything 770 or below would not finish and 770 to 970 might come close depending on config and settings. I think this as 2 per card would have been 32-34 hours on the 980 TI Classified clocked at 3005mem and 1430mhz clock speed. | |
ID: 44157 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I just finished one of these units on my windows 10 computer: | |
ID: 44163 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I have three running on my hosts. | |
ID: 44164 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Oh, I didn't know the errors got fixed liked that, thanks for letting me know!Earlier this morning I've seen the error rates for gianni around 90% and now it's in the 80's.Often times new tasks get errors when first run and a bug is fixed for the rest of them... Guys, this could be the case, but usually this is a "natural phenomenon" coming from the way the performance / reliability stats work: As a valid result takes 8-15~24-48 hours to process, a failed one takes only seconds (or maybe just a few hours), so right after the release of a new batch there are only failed tasks in the stats, which can be ignored. Then the stats "normalize" themselves when valid results have returned, but it takes at least as much time as it takes to finish a WU (plus the overhead of the data transmission). The only way to know that a batch has a bug if it is failing even on the most reliable hosts. This is very rare at GPUGrid. | |
ID: 44165 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I just downloaded a new task and it's a gianni task. (first one) | |
ID: 44166 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Would you like me to link you all to my result once it's complete?There's no need for that as your computers are not hidden, so anyone can see and browse your hosts and results. But you can do it by courtesy if you want to make our job easier :) | |
ID: 44167 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Would you like me to link you all to my result once it's complete?There's no need for that as your computers are not hidden, so anyone can see and browse your hosts and results. Sure! I'll post back when it's complete. (1 or 2 days) ____________ Cruncher/Learner in progress. | |
ID: 44168 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Expecting these Gianni tasks to take ~32h on a GTX970 (W10/WDDM). | |
ID: 44170 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I just finished one of these units on my windows 10 computer: Here is an example of this unit type running on a computer with an older and slower CPU and motherboard: e2s4_e1s51p0f710-GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1-0-1-RND6774_0 11693866 13 Aug 2016 | 19:40:23 UTC 15 Aug 2016 | 1:36:12 UTC Completed and validated 104,399.86 100,946.40 439,250.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65) http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15235028 | |
ID: 44171 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Here is an example of this unit type running on a computer with an older and slower CPU and motherboard: Yikes, and that's on a 980Ti. Found 2 running on my boxes. Aborted the one on the 650Ti, left the one running on the 750Ti. Will report when done, if I don't die of old age first. BTW, CONGRATS on kicking my tukus getting to 3,000,000,000! :-) | |
ID: 44172 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Thanks, that's what happens if you hang around here long enough! You do lots of crunching. By the way, I am (have been) (and will not be for long) keeping the number 6 position in total credit warm for you! | |
ID: 44173 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
e4s30_e1s26p0f463-GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1-0-1-RND6365_0 15h 6m 47s (54.407s) 980Ti/XP | |
ID: 44174 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
These long WUs have an extra caution: if there's any kind of power glitch, the app has a very good chance of causing the WU to error out. The app really needs to be fixed, but wonder if it's ever going to happen. Looks like the Gianni will finish on my super-clocked (factory) 750Ti in about 60 hours. Obviously too late for any bonuses and also at risk of power glitches due to the faulty app. I've sadly started aborting the rest of the Giannis. :-( | |
ID: 44175 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
These units seem to be very CPU dependent. The GPU and power usage are slightly lower than the GERARD_FXCXCL12RX units. Yes, and I was off on which cards could finish them on time. I was not estimating the time-out time correctly when I said it (TWICE!) And it seems the CPU has more to do with the length than the GPU on these. Across my systems the same NVIDIA cards on different mobo/CPU combos makes a big difference on how fast they are completing. All my main cards are 980 or 980 TI but the CPUs vary from i7-4960X to i7-4790K to AMD A10-7700K Radeon R7 and they step down in time as the processor gets weaker. The i7-4960X was 101,521 (28 hours). The i7-4790K is looking to be around 111,600 (31 hours). And the AMD A10-7700K Radeon R7 is looking at around 152,500 (42 hours). The i7-4790K and the AMD A10-7700K Radeon R7 are both running 980 standard cards and the settings are the same for both cards (card model and memory and core clock speeds) and external factors (like the 3d settings in the NVIDIA control panel, little usage of other processes, etc), but the finish time is a big difference. The fact that the i7-4960X and the i7-4790K are similar in time but the cards are different (i7-4960X has 980TI Classys)(i7-4790K has 980s) tells me the CPU is making up for the GPU in that the i7-4790K is running at 4Ghz and the i7-4960X at 3.6Ghz. Also the i7-4960X is running CPU tasks and the i7-4790K is not (because of heat which cannot be changed because of its low air movement location). BTW, they are all set to run 2 tasks per card and that 28 hour reading was done with some of the time done as single task cards (as noted in my previous comments), so I suspect they would be even closer in time had I not run them single card (all things being equal and all). Also noteworthy is that the i7-4960X is on Windows 10 but the i7-4790K and AMD are on Windows 7. So still a warning, but not really card defendant, but GPU, CPU, OS, and mobo all play a part in the total time. ...the new batch of Gianni is going to take around 30 hours on my 980 TI Classified. That means one of my 980 standards would crunch it in about or less than 47 hours. I was basing that statement on the times of other work units which do stretch out at that proportion. The end result seems drastically different because of the factors I just described. ...15h 6m 47s (54.407s) 980Ti/XP Maybe all things being equal the card does have more to do with it as well. Though I am noticing that the longest time was on an i7 CPU 870 @ 2.93GHz, the shortest is on an i7-4930K CPU @ 3.40GHz, and the one similar in length to the short one is on an i3-4160 CPU @ 3.60GHz. Is there a difference in settings, usage of other processes, or whatever else that is different between the i7-4930K and the i3-4160 that would make the 3.6Ghz slightly slower than the 3.4Ghz one both on 980TIs (like pcie speed on the mobo, etc)? I have the feeling of that the length of these workunits is set to the performance level of the GTX 1080. I am not sure if the GTX10 has much to do with planning the length of time to complete. It may be just the case, but I would think if they were planning length to completion they would keep them at or slower than the current GERARD_FXCXCL12RX series. Many of the cards still in common use (the GTX 7 series and above) should be able to do a task in 24 hours or less in my opinion. Having the 9 or 10 series should make the long units as they are stated, "under 8 hours" and the slower cards up to 24 hours with the laptop GPUs and slower cards being able to do them in the time allotted to time out. I have seen many comments here and on my team forum stating they stopped crunching GPUGRID altogether because they just could not finish tasks in time, either they have the older cards or they can't keep the PC on 24 hours a day. I do understand that the longer they can be "out on the field" the less bandwidth is needed constantly on the servers and college, so I am not ruling out the need for it if that is the case. I just think there has to be a better balance of practicalities between the needs of the project infrastructure and the needs of the project volunteers to complete the work. This would/might be a bigger concern if the tasks were needed quickly, as sometimes they are, for a deadline or if there were so many tasks that the users could not grab and crunch them fast enough for the amount of work to be done. In the current state (and I am talking about at least since this time last year or earlier), the WUs available are zero most of the day most of the time and when they add 200 or 500 they are gone in about an hour or so if that. And I know that is dependent on the amount of students/staff that need work done and the need of the papers and science those students are doing related to what can/has to be done via distribution. That is the downside of working out of a school for student needs though and not out of a science lab for scientific research like other projects. The upsides far outweigh the downsides though, as the work helps students get their degrees, papers published, and thesis and the actual work concluded by the findings. Back in the United Devices days we did HMMR, Markov modelling, and then moved to straight cancer/protein binding and even finished the Anthrax cure in 30 days and people were mad that UD was a for profit company. Even though the work done through the volunteers was donated to those who could actually use the research for the science, the company itself was using the distributed projects to complete and test their own distributed platform for corporate customers looking to complete large tasks across their in house networks and then sold as such. It was unfortunate that when they sold the company the projects ended without finishing, the work done for over a year was very valuable to Oxford labs and the National Foundation for Cancer Research here in the states. I am sure that the work completed there (as well as the work since then at F@H and other BOINC projects) led to finding the markers that my eventual cancers would be reacted upon by my current chemotherapy drug. When my doctor told me that it might have an effect on my cancer he told me, without me asking, that computer modeling was what found the reaction and not trials on actual people and that this particular drug was not used for my cancer until that was found in the distributed projects. And low and behold, it did reduce the tumor and its activity. So as I said, the science far outweighs the methods and needs for those methods. Obviously too late for any bonuses It looks like these are getting bonuses as their credit is high enough to not need the bonus as an extra bonus is added into the task based on its run-time. Even the 35 hour ones award 439,250 credit which is a bonus in relation to the credit that would be awarded to any other WU in current production for that time. It does seem though that the ones done in less 24 hours are getting 527,100, so... normal bonus on top of extra bonus?. According the the Performance page, only the top 10 (that allow their tasks to be seen publicly)(of which I should be listed in the 18 spot for that 28 hour one and am not for some reason) have been under 24 hours. | |
ID: 44177 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Just finished a Gianni that took almost two full days on a 960. | |
ID: 44178 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Just finished a Gianni that took almost two full days on a 960. It looks like 38 hours. Good job! When I added that one had errored and there was a high error rate I was not taking into account the error rate being higher when they first release because that is all they have is the fast errors and not the ones that actually can complete yet. Zoltan pointed that out to me above. But as also mentioned, they are fragile, so any power glitch or anything has the potential to cause an error. I have errored out 2 so far, but that isn't even the majority of my errors recently. But when they do error, they cause the system to fail and need a reboot and also affect others running if they are on the same card or system. So being more fragile, I have clocked all the cards on my most problematic system down to zero overclocking above the factory boost and am hoping that helps. I had it that way for 2 days and turned it back up today and went 2 days without error. lol That will slow them down a bit, but they are already going to be over 24 hours, so what is an extra hour to 28-30 anyway? Either way, I don't think the "error rate" on these is an issue UNLESS you have one. At that point, one is too much. The time is the issue and why I put out the warning. | |
ID: 44180 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Yes, but this host have a GTX 980, while the others has GTX 980 Ti's...15h 6m 47s (54.407s) 980Ti/XP the shortest is on an i7-4930K CPU @ 3.40GHz, and the one similar in length to the short one is on an i3-4160 CPU @ 3.60GHz. Is there a difference in settings, usage of other processes, or whatever else that is different between the i7-4930K and the i3-4160 that would make the 3.6Ghz slightly slower than the 3.4Ghz one both on 980TIs (like pcie speed on the mobo, etc)?The i7-4930K is running at 4.4GHz, and 5 CPU tasks are running simultaneously, while the on the i3-4160 no CPU tasks are running. But this not a clean comparison, as I've booted the i3-4160 to Windows 10 to update it to version 1607, and this task was running under Windows 10 for a short period. You can see it in the task's stderr output, as there are different driver versions present. | |
ID: 44181 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Just finished a Gianni that took almost two full days on a 960. The one thing, I noticed is your CPU time is lot lower the the run time: Run time 136,638.91 CPU time 20,414.34 Which indicates to me that you are not using the SWAN_SYNC 1, which can reduce your run time. Click on the link below, the instructions to set this up, are at the bottom of the post: http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=4346&nowrap=true#44111 | |
ID: 44182 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Obviously too late for any bonuses But that is including the 25% bonus. The credit may be ok for fast cards but it's poor for everyone else. On top of that there's more than double the chance of a failure due to power failure/BSD and no completion at all. | |
ID: 44183 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Does anyone know how long it takes for projects with these kind of problems to be fixed? (the gianni project) | |
ID: 44184 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Does anyone know how long it takes for projects with these kind of problems to be fixed? (the gianni project) There is no problem Logan just some complaining about length of time to complete and failures due to excessive over clocking probably. | |
ID: 44185 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
failures due to excessive over clocking probably. The failures have nothing at all to do with overclocking. They're due to an app that can't recover from outages such as power failures. | |
ID: 44186 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
failures due to excessive over clocking probably. There is no proof of that. However, even if it was the case, how many power outages do you have? | |
ID: 44187 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Zoltan, that's why I asked. Slower CPU and GPU would make the it significantly slower on tasks. Also OS changes may affect things too. | |
ID: 44189 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
failures due to excessive over clocking probably. Frequent but usually only for a few seconds. Long enough to wreak havoc with computers. You should be thankful that you live in an area that's more reliable. The proof is that there's about a 50% failure rate when this happens. Zoltan has posted about the problem too. If you won't believe anyone else, maybe you'll believe him. BTW, other than some factory OCs, none of my cards are OCed. In fact some are down-clocked. | |
ID: 44192 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Beyond, I am not sure what you are saying, but a 20% bonus would be on the less than 24 hour ones that award 527,100, not the ones over 24 that award 439,250. And if a Gerard or Adria took the same amount of time you would get around 200,000, so there is more awarded for these longer units. As I understand it there's a 50% bonus for completing a WU in under 24 hours (including UL/DL time) and a 25% bonus for under 48 hours. So for instance a 200 credit base rate unit would get 250 credits if completed in 47 hours and 300 credits in 23 hours. Someone please clue me in if I'm mistaken. I ask the mods now, if you haven't already, please contact someone about the error issue with these and inquire about shortening the units as well for the sake of our cards and times, or take Beyond's idea of adding a new level of maybe "Very Long Tasks" for new tasks created for the series 10 NVIDIA cards. After I posted the comment about the error rate possibly not being an accurate length of time to tell if they are erroring out more or not I had 4 error out on me across 2 different systems all GIANNI totaling almost 45.75 hours of work before they errored out. Sorry to hear. It's no fun having large amounts of GPU time wasted. Hopefully the admins will improve the next app's fault tolerance, add a separate queue for super long WUs and also find a way to lower WU the error rate. The larger the WUs become, the more important it is to address these issues. Good for the project and good for their volunteers. | |
ID: 44193 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Will that influence other projects I'm running? | |
ID: 44195 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Alright all, thanks for clearing some things up for me. | |
ID: 44196 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Took about 1 day and 14 hours, but hey, I got a decent amount of credit for how long it took Not so much. Here's your last GERARD_FXCXCL12RX: Time: 54,279.73 - 53,837.44 - Credits: 267,900.00 Here's the GIANNI_D3C36bCHL: Time: 137,043.38 - 136,562.60 - Credits: 351,400.00 2.5x the time, 1.3x the credits. Add to that: 2.5x the chance for failure due to many unforeseen factors. | |
ID: 44197 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Will that influence other projects I'm running? You would be better off having 2 cores crunching your CPU project, one core supporting your GPU and one core free to run the operating system. | |
ID: 44202 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
failures due to excessive over clocking probably. I am sorry for your power outages, thought that the USA was beyond such things. In this part of the UK we count power outages in YEARS although there was a 2 day one last December due to flooding of a substation which is the longest power outage in my 64 year history, guess we're just lucky. | |
ID: 44204 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I am sorry for your power outages, thought that the USA was beyond such things. In this part of the UK we count power outages in YEARS although there was a 2 day one last December due to flooding of a substation which is the longest power outage in my 64 year history, guess we're just lucky. Thanks. Even though some (most likely mentally challenged) claim climate change to be a myth, we've been having crazy storms and frequent torrential downpours (another one just today). Goes great with the neighborhood underground power lines. Animal species previously unknown here have been steadily moving in from the south. Actually the most frequent reason for outages seems to be lightning strikes on the further out above ground lines. It's improved from a couple years ago when there used to be a few seconds outage almost every day at 7am. If you think the USA power grid is suspect, you should get a load of our abysmal internet service (except in big cities and where Google has graced the population). The horrible broadband speeds makes doing GPUGrid even more challenging. Yeah, greedy monopolies are great... :-( I'm crossing my fingers as my next door neighbor is having a new sewer system installed. Last time that happened a ways down the block the idiot contractors cut though the power and phone lines even though they were marked on the ground with bright neon orange paint. Took 3 days to get it fixed. | |
ID: 44206 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Actually the most frequent reason for outages seems to be lightning strikes on the further out above ground lines. It's improved from a couple years ago when there used to be a few seconds outage almost every day at 7am. I was forced to start using uninterruptible power supplies when I went with ramdisks and large write caches a few years ago. But the UPS also take care of the brief (less than a second) power glitches we get here in the spring and summer due to switching loads around and lightning strikes. Otherwise, the power is very reliable where I am, but that varies a lot in the U.S. And our power company is now implementing a smart grid for automatically routing around downed power lines, to help isolate the problem. I once had an expert on buried telephone lines tell me that they are just as susceptible to lighting strikes as the overhead lines, since the lighting has no problem finding the best conductor anyplace. However, optical fiber cables have largely solved that problem for the Internet, and it is good where I am, but that varies a lot too. The U.S. is a big country; Europeans don't always realize how different it is from one section to another. (Americans don't always realize it either.) Global Warming will force a lot of investment in infrastructure upgrades though, assuming the affected areas still want access and power, etc. | |
ID: 44211 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
A quality UPS would solve that issue if you could do it. We have momentary glitches and surges where I live also. I bit the bullet and put UPSs on all 8 of my DC machines 1 at a time. Even put 1 on my fridge after a surge took out a $600 control board but that's another story. | |
ID: 44212 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Even put 1 on my fridge after a surge took out a $600 control board but that's another story. Surges are a problem too. After a lightning strike a few years ago, I put Zero Surge filters on all my equipment, even the ones with a UPS. The surge filter plugs into the wall first, then the UPS into that. I am loaded for bear. | |
ID: 44214 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
A quality UPS would solve that issue if you could do it. We have momentary glitches and surges where I live also. I bit the bullet and put UPSs on all 8 of my DC machines 1 at a time. Even put 1 on my fridge after a surge took out a $600 control board but that's another story. Thanks guys for the suggestions. I used to have a UPS on every machine but it was expensive to buy them and after a year or two got to be ridiculous trying to keep the batteries replaced (currently 12 machines). Now they have quality surge protectors, much less headache but also not protection against outages. Think that I mentioned this before and it's just my personal experience, but I used to have an even mix of AMD and Intel boxes. All had APC sine wave UPS at the time. After a lightning strike on the house (lightning rod BTW), every Intel system either failed immediately or within the next month. All the AMD systems were still running years later. Go figure. Why, I don't know. Maybe better MB components, maybe something in the basic design. Maybe just dumb luck. Since then I've used mainly AMD and have never had a CPU or MB failure. Maybe other peoples experiences are different... | |
ID: 44217 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The Gianni finally finished on my 750Ti: | |
ID: 44218 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The one thing, I noticed is your CPU time is lot lower the the run time: I figured out the problem when I tried this in the past. I was not limiting my tasks for GPU and CPU. I tried this again and it froze as soon as BOINC started each time I rebooted. So I opened in safe mode and changed the cc_config and app_config files to limit WCG on 2 systems and also GPUGRID on one system, based on the number of cores and task total. So the one system with 4 AMD cores is running 3 GPUGRID tasks and has bettered previous similar tasks by hours with a whole core (25%) CPU usage for each task. The other system with 12 Intel cores and 6 GPUGRID tasks possible I reduced the WCG tasks to 5 and GPUGRID tasks are at 6 still. That leaves on core free for tasks and OS and fills the rest with BOINC tasks. the 2 tasks that have completed are almost equal on GPU and CPU time, but only saved about 50 minutes for similar tasks with significantly more CPU time. I am happy to let this run as such, though it still is slower on other tasks running even though the CPU usage is not 100% now. Would it help a bit to change the swan_sync setting to an incremental like .8 or .7 instead of 1? Or would just reducing the WCG tasks to 4 be my option? It is odd that the swan_sync setting has not had anyone run into this same thing, but there should be another tutorial added somewhere for this setting. I searched online and found bits and pieces, but nothing complete or that answered this for me. Experimenting, time, and some logic were what got me here. | |
ID: 44229 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
There have been several WUs by Gianni in the recent past. They are really huge and result in a nice credit, but no GPU below a 980Ti can crunch them within 24 hours and get the 20% extra credit. | |
ID: 44232 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
There have been several WUs by Gianni in the recent past. They are really huge and result in a nice credit, but no GPU below a 980Ti can crunch them within 24 hours and get the 20% extra credit. My Linux system is crunching a Gianni now and it's at 50% after 15h 45min. My GPU clock (acording to NV X Server is 1278MHz) and I'm using the 361.42 NV driver. X Server also says I'm using 4% PCIE bandwidth on a PCIE2.0 x16 slot. GPU utilization is around 67% but varies from 62% to 70%. My CPU is an AMD A6-3500 APU (2.1/2.4GHz). So it looks like a GTX970 (at stock on a weak system) will take 31 to 32h to crunch these on Linux-x64. That suggests the WDDM overhead for these is at least 12.5% but probably closer to 16%. A GTX980 is ~17% faster (stock) than a GTX970 so would still take over 24h to complete on Linux (over 26h). If it was overclocked by ~10% then it might be able to just about complete inside 24h if the system was tuned to do so (SWAN_SYNC used, high CPU clock and fast RAM...). Note that the bonus is +25% for finishing (and reporting) inside 48h or +50% for finishing and reporting inside 24h. ____________ FAQ's HOW TO: - Opt out of Beta Tests - Ask for Help | |
ID: 44235 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
So it looks like a GTX970 (at stock on a weak system) will take 31 to 32h to crunch these on Linux-x64. That suggests the WDDM overhead for these is at least The CPU on that host is an "old" Intel 2 Core Duo E8400 - which my account for at least part of the longer crunching time. And, of course, WDDM OH as well (Win10 64-bit)) Note that the bonus is +25% for finishing (and reporting) inside 48h or +50% for finishing and reporting inside 24h. Oh sorry, I missed that :-( | |
ID: 44238 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
So it looks like a GTX970 (at stock on a weak system) will take 31 to 32h to crunch these on Linux-x64. That suggests the WDDM overhead for these is at least 12.5% but probably closer to 16%. GTX 980 @ 1388MHz, GDDR5 @ 3505 MHz, i3-4160, WinXP, SWAN_SYNC on, no other tasks: 19h 24m 26s It's almost (~8m) missed the 24h bonus, as it spent 5h 28m in the queue. | |
ID: 44245 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I got one on my laptop. Windows 8.1 64bit, i7-4900MQ, 32GB RAM, NVIDIA Quadro K2100M @802Mhz mem @ 2504, swan_sync off. At 13.5% now and started as soon as it downloaded, it looks like 15:45 has passed and it might make the 5 day deadline by just squeezing through! We shall see, but it looks good at this point. I've never had a WU fail on this laptop except for downloading errors or crashes related to other programs or my own dumb experimentation with things like swan_sync (lol) | |
ID: 44247 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
So it looks like a GTX970 (at stock on a weak system) will take 31 to 32h to crunch these on Linux-x64. That suggests the WDDM overhead for these is at least 12.5% but probably closer to 16%. GIANNI_D3C36bCHL from Performance 1 Retvari Zoltan 15236101 14.49 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (4095MB) driver: 368.22 14h 30min isn't much over the app description: Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) and there is a good chance the GTX1080 (when the CUDA 8 dev kit goes on public release) will manage it within that 12h time frame (on Linux). ____________ FAQ's HOW TO: - Opt out of Beta Tests - Ask for Help | |
ID: 44249 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
There is also a good chance that after this summer shake-down cruise, the real work units in the fall won't be so long. I am hoping, and expecting, that a GTX 970 under Linux can handle them, though maybe not a 960. Otherwise, there will be some discontented people around here. | |
ID: 44250 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Well, what we also hope - I guess - is that there will be enough WUs available anytime around the clock. For the past several months, the situation was far away from that. | |
ID: 44251 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
These are some observations with systems I have working the GIANNI work units - from GTX 770, 780 and 970
Task name Work unit Computer ComputerName Specs RunTime=h:m:ss CPUTime=h:m:ss ElapsedTime Credit/Sec BatchName
e4s27_e1s26p0f453-GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1-0-1-RND7578_0 11694844 319927 sr71-w10 W10, SWAN=1, GTX 970 30:07:55 28:38:40 30:37:40 4.049311534 GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1
e4s2_e1s26p0f434-GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1-0-1-RND0457_1 11694819 319927 sr71-w10 W10, SWAN=1, GTX 970 30:50:54 29:15:05 33:33:38 3.955295125 GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1
e5s26_e2s33p0f456-GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1-0-1-RND5827_0 11695686 319927 sr71-w10 W10, SWAN=1, GTX 970 30:14:00 28:41:17 33:43:58 4.035734975 GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1
e8s171_e2s15p0f614-GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1-0-1-RND4754_1 11697165 289414 GridBench-w10 W10, SWAN=1, GTX 980 25:25:38 25:11:28 25:47:06 4.798538404 GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1
e8s37_e3s57p0f691-GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1-0-1-RND4952_0 11697031 289414 GridBench-w10 W10, SWAN=1, GTX 980 25:19:42 25:05:20 34:52:23 4.817271594 GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1
e9s11_e3s104p0f660-GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1-0-1-RND4267_0 11697896 176528 stealth-mint Linux, SWAN=0, GTX 770 30:39:17 3:52:32 30:51:13 3.980252871 GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1
e8s142_e3s69p0f433-GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1-0-1-RND5710_0 11697136 187252 rahl588-v81 W10, SWAN=0, GTX 770 35:09:10 5:54:14 52:49:35 2.776770928 GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1
| |
ID: 44252 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Well, what we also hope - I guess - is that there will be enough WUs available anytime around the clock. That would be very, very nice! May it happen soon. | |
ID: 44254 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
very annoying: | |
ID: 44257 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I just finished one of these units on my windows 10 computer: Sunday I had several of these WUs download on my computers. On my xp computer, I ran these two WUs simultaneously (1 CPU + .5 GPU): e17s52_e1s50p0f278-GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1-0-1-RND0542_0 11700247 22 Aug 2016 | 2:50:27 UTC 23 Aug 2016 | 17:31:11 UTC Completed and validated 137,031.21 129,248.40 439,250.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65) http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15245061 e17s51_e4s53p0f693-GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1-0-1-RND8402_0 11700246 22 Aug 2016 | 2:50:27 UTC 23 Aug 2016 | 16:51:07 UTC Completed and validated 134,710.64 128,933.70 439,250.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65) http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15245060 The average run time per WU is: (137,031.21 + 134,710.64)/2 =135870.92/3600=37.74 hours/2 WUs = 18.87 hours Compare that (1 CPU + 1 GPU) 104,399.86/3600=29.00 hours. (See above) Which translates into 1-(18.87/29.00) =.35 or approximately a 35% improvement in productivity. The GPU usage is 98% max and power usage is 81% for running 1 CPU + .5 GPU mode, while 1 CPU+ 1 GPU mode yields GPU usage of 70% max and power usage of 67%. For my windows 10 computer, when I ran (1 CPU + .5 GPU for a few hours) the progress rate (from the boinc manager, task tab, properties button) was 3.6% per hour, which is 100/3.6 = 27.78 hours / 2 WU = 13.89 hours per WU computing time. When running (1 CPU + 1 GPU) the computing time per WU is 63,577.01/3600= 17.66 hours. (See above) Which translates into 1-(13.89/17.66) = .21 or approximately a 21% improvement in productivity. I guess that one way to beat WDDM lag! The GPU usage is 92% max and power usage is 80% for running 1 CPU + .5 GPU mode, while 1 CPU+ 1 GPU mode yields GPU usage of 80% max and power usage of 72%. Those are my results. I hope you understand my logic. | |
ID: 44272 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
It's ironic that running the longest tasks simultaneously would be the most beneficial in terms of throughput (for some). | |
ID: 44288 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
It's ironic that running the longest tasks simultaneously would be the most beneficial in terms of throughput (for some). Being long was a coincidence. These tasks have a relatively high CPU dependence, which yields a relatively low GPU usage, with WDDM lag on the windows 10 computer and relatively old and slow CPU on the xp computer, there is the bottleneck. By running 1 CPU feeding .5 GPU, you are doubling up the CPU capacity, and so productivity increases. It’s all simple mathematics. I remember a few years ago, we were doing beta testing on multi core CPU tasks. So, if the trend continues, with high CPU dependent tasks, then having 2 or more CPUs feed 1 GPU, would be the logical step to mitigate this bottleneck. I think this was mentioned in 1 of the threads before, and someone said it might be impossible. I don’t think it’s impossible, maybe difficult, but not impossible. | |
ID: 44295 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I got one on my laptop. Windows 8.1 64bit, i7-4900MQ, 32GB RAM, NVIDIA Quadro K2100M @802Mhz mem @ 2504, swan_sync off. At 13.5% now and started as soon as it downloaded, it looks like 15:45 has passed and it might make the 5 day deadline by just squeezing through! We shall see, but it looks good at this point. I've never had a WU fail on this laptop except for downloading errors or crashes related to other programs or my own dumb experimentation with things like swan_sync (lol) OK, so it finished with a few hours to spare on the 5 day deadline! Up until it said it had 1 day left, it had already run 3 days and 8 hours, but the time was moving faster than realtime. Here is the result: http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15244431 4 Days 14.5 Hours was the total time. I cut off all WCG, my antivirus, most regular activity, and turned on swan-sync to push the finish, because I thought it would come a lot closer to missing the deadline. Now to reboot to turn everything back on, but I am glad I could prove myself wrong on this fear of GIANNI. I do however see a trend that will overcome the weaker, older GPUS that are still very abundant throughout the community of crunchers. I don't like the trend. If we could get people to set their systems to not accept short tasks on powerhouse GPUs and then get more short run units, we could have a balance of long runs on strong GPUs and short runs on the others like this laptop and weaker. ____________ 1 Corinthians 9:16 "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!" Ephesians 6:18-20, please ;-) http://tbc-pa.org | |
ID: 44296 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I would agree that these task are more fragile than most of the other tasks. | |
ID: 44314 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I have gotten only one GIANNI_D3C on a GTX 960 (Ubuntu 16.04), and it ran for 39 hours. Considering that is within the 48 hour bonus limit, that is OK with me once in a while. It used 16% of a i7-4790 core, with the other seven cores on other BOINC projects. | |
ID: 44315 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Hello, | |
ID: 44405 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Hello, Unfortunately, not so far. | |
ID: 44408 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Thanks. | |
ID: 44411 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I just had a GIANNI_D3C36bCHL1 fail after 34 1/2 hours on a GTX 960 (Ubuntu 16.04). I have never seen this error before. <core_client_version>7.6.31</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> process exited with code 158 (0x9e, -98) </message> <stderr_txt> # SWAN Device 0 : # Name : GeForce GTX 960 # ECC : Disabled # Global mem : 2047MB # Capability : 5.2 # PCI ID : 0000:02:00.0 # Device clock : 1240MHz # Memory clock : 3505MHz # Memory width : 128bit ERROR: file tclutil.cpp line 32: get_Dvec() element 0 (b) 05:03:30 (1637): called boinc_finish | |
ID: 44412 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : New Gianni tasks take loooong time... a warning (8-12-16)