These NATHAN_FAX3 workunits take really long time to finish.
For example:
49 seconds less than 13 hours on Stoneageman's oveclocked (820MHz) GTX 580
13 hours 17 minutes on Venec's factory clocked GTX 580.
Don't be surprised if a NATHAN_FAX3 takes more than 30 hours to finish on a lesser card (GTX 460, GTX 560)

My overclocked (850MHz) GTX 580 (supported by a Core i7 980X running at 32*134MHz (4.288GHz)) finished its first NATHAN_FAX3 in 12 hours 55 minutes and 20 seconds.
It's upload size is also huge: about 116MB.

These NATHAN_FAX3 workunits take really long time to finish...Don't be surprised if a NATHAN_FAX3 takes more than 30 hours to finish on a lesser card (GTX 460, GTX 560)

Yep...My stock GTX 570 is almost 13 hours into this bad boy and the BOINC manager shows 54% completion. Bye-bye time bonus?

They look closer to 4times as long. Perhaps slightly protracted, but better than 4h!

These NATHAN_FAX3 workunits could run much faster on your PC if you set the SWAN_SYNC=0 environmental setting, and free up one CPU core.

Is SWAN_SYNC applicable in Windows hosts?

Our times:

GTX 590 (1 core) (607Mhz graphic clock, 1707 Mhz memory clock, 1215 Mhz processor clock)
time 16 hours
credit 114k

GTX 580 (832Mhz graphic clock, 2100 Mhz memory clock, 1664 Mhz processor clock)
time 12-13 hours
credit 114k

all card with swan_sync with 1 dedicated hyper threading core.

Our 560 haven't got FAX3 task yet, but times above are ok.

Okay... I set swan_sync=0 and have freed up a CPU. The acemd process is now using a full core (25% on my C2Q) and about 230MB RAM. Is that what I should expect?
____________

Okay... I set swan_sync=0 and have freed up a CPU. The acemd process is now using a full core (25% on my C2Q) and about 230MB RAM. Is that what I should expect?

On my GTX 570: 23-plus hours, 95K. It was reported 29.5 hours after it was delivered, so I guess I didn't get the time bonus... :P

Hard for me to tell how much better it did after I added swan_sync and dedicated a CPU. That would have been at about 19 hours in, but I don't remember what its progress was at that point.
____________

I just heard a tiny scream from my GTX 260.

Also, GPU usage is below 90% again, while the old Nathans finally got up to 97% on a Fermi (GTX 570).

You guys just don't get enough? WUs running for that long on a Fermi, ever thought how long they would run on a CPU? And finally paying these credits or zero if they fail?

I think one reason why this project has lost any measure in fair credits and useful WU sizes is the lack of a CPU app. Why isn't there any? Because it would demonstrate the monstrous demands you are posing on hardware and crunchers...
____________

First NATHAN_FAX3 unit completed here and it took almost 40 hours with a GTX 560 Ti (384 cores). Bit too much IMO. Don't want to free a CPU-core in combination with the swan setting since I run a CPU project as well.

wow 115MB upload? This will kill my Mobil connection i think, where three BOINC Machines are connected on some bad connection O.o

Its interesting that i got a fax on my 285 and it only took ~12Hours (only P4 prozessor with no extra free Core and no tuned BOINC. Only all standart). Are there different types of them?

I now have a new one, lets wait how long it takes now ^^

PS: oh i see the first one was a FAX WU, the second now is a FAX3. Oh yeah i think this will take now a little bit of time :D
Hmpf i was happy to get now 24h Bonus on all of my long queue WUs with the new card in one of the 24h/7d Machines and now i dont get it again cos FAX3 ^^
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

First NATHAN_FAX3 unit completed here and it took almost 40 hours with a GTX 560 Ti (384 cores). Bit too much IMO. Don't want to free a CPU-core in combination with the swan setting since I run a CPU project as well.

I just heard a tiny scream from my GTX 260.

@Damaraland: I guess you have an Intel CPU with hyper threading switched on. If you free up one HT core, the other process on the shared core will speed up. But at the moment I run 4 PSP-PRP tasks, this project benefits too little from HT so it is switched off.

I think one should get the bonus anyway whether you finish these behemoth tasks within 24 hours or not.

Edit: And perhaps the bonus should be bigger compared to the regular long units.

I think one should get the bonus anyway whether you finish these behemoth tasks within 24 hours or not...

I think one should get the bonus anyway whether you finish these behemoth tasks within 24 hours or not.

I've had 2 NATHAN_FAX3 tasks complete. Both tasks were run with a dedicated core. One task was run without SWAN_SYNC being set, and the other task was run with SWAN_SYNC=0 (restarted BOINC after the change). The results were the same though.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 (stock clock)
Windows 7 x64
Nvidia driver: 295.73
Core i7 920 @ 3.8Ghz

Dedicated core, no SWAN_SYNC
21 hrs. 8 min.

Dedicated core, SWAN_SYNC=0
21 hrs. 7 min.

So SWAN_SYNC didn't help at all for my setup.

I don't see why the GTX 570 takes 21 hours+ if the GTX 580 takes 12-13 hours. That seems like too large of a difference between the GTX 570 and GTX 580.

there does seem to be some credit disparity for the FAX3 wu in terms of time vs credit rewarded but im not sure. fair enough, so long as the work keeps coming!

anyway, i definitely turned off long work units for my machines running some gtx275 cards. it was hurtin those poor, poor cards. the gtx500 series cards seem to be ok with them albeit they do take a while.

my question is this: i like running the older long wu (i.e. non FAX3 wu) on my gtx275s. they didnt have issues completing those in time. since there's no separation of long wu type on the preferences screen, would it be possible to add something like that so we can select to still run longs without FAX3? for example:

ACEMD standard
ACEMD beta
ACEMD for long runs (8-12 hours on fastest GPU)
ACEMD for long runs (8-12 hours on fastest GPU) & FAX3

or something to that effect? that way the slower cards can still get longs but not struggle with the FAX3s. just thought i'd ask. thanks for the consideration.

bob

Perhaps we need a short, medium and long queues. All the current longs except FAX3 go to the medium queue. We'll need an option to select which type of work to allow as well. Deselect the long queue by default and put a note next to the long queue option to suggest GTX570 or better.

It may also be possible to limit the long queue to certain speed cards by checking the est flops and memory values returned in the scheduler request (assuming it does pass it across).

Also, GPU usage is below 90% again, while the old Nathans finally got up to 97% on a Fermi (GTX 570).

You guys just don't get enough? WUs running for that long on a Fermi, ever thought how long they would run on a CPU? And finally paying these credits or zero if they fail?

I think one reason why this project has lost any measure in fair credits and useful WU sizes is the lack of a CPU app. Why isn't there any? Because it would demonstrate the monstrous demands you are posing on hardware and crunchers...

Target acquired. FAX3!!

At the current rate of progress, it SHOULD take 37 hours on my GTX 260. We'll see how this estimate evolves as the WU progresses.

41hrs in and still have 21 to go?!?!?!?! gts450, core 980, shader 1960, ram 2050 hooked upto a 9950be with slight overclock. had just switched over to long wu's, regular long wu's ran 1~3hrs longer than short ones till i got this fax3. miffed at the idea that im loseing the 24hr bonus plus losing credits from the wu's i could have ran waiting for this to finish.

34 hours with my GTX275 @633 1134 1521 (shaders slightly over-clocked).

A typical NATHAN was crunched in ~ 8 hours. Other tasks not more than 12 hours.

The GTX 275 was qualified for long queue work units, but is not any more. I'm downgrading to short queue. Unfortunately cobblestones will probably drop from 100K/day to 30K/day.

The drop in cobblestone is a little bit disappointing, but in the other hand the link newly established between our work and scientist's publications is exciting enough to compensate ;-)

Would be nice to build a table of GPU that are qualified for the long queue in it's new configuration.


____________

Would be nice to build a table of GPU that are qualified for the long queue in it's new configuration.

SWAN_SYNC doesn't make any effect. In both cases I freed 2 cores out of 8. Linux 3.0.0-16-generic. i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz

SWAN_SYNC=0
31,70 h GTX 560 Ti @1.76 GHz
36,35 h GTX 260 @1.41 GHz
Without SWAN_SYNC
31,64 h GTX 560 Ti @1.76 GHz
____________
HOW TO - Full installation Ubuntu 11.10

Pff O.o Over 5! times more computingtime but only ~2,8time more credits O.o Kick it over 100k and I´m back happy ^^ Little disapointing, i had fun with the "new" 285 for only 2 days :(

Unfortunaly the Mobile Connection itself needed additional 12 Hours for upload O.o Still in 125% Bonustime with it *lucky*


5094249 3254378 117426 11 Mar 2012 | 15:03:07 UTC 13 Mar 2012 | 8:21:35 UTC Fertig und Bestätigt 136,916.69 29,691.78 95,125.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v6.16 (cuda31)

5092622 3255475 117426 11 Mar 2012 | 8:13:44 UTC 11 Mar 2012 | 19:21:52 UTC Fertig und Bestätigt 24,709.95 1,202.67 35,811.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v6.16 (cuda31)
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

got a FAX4 wu just now. is there any significant difference between this and a FAX3?

im interested to see how long this will take to complete. im still only getting about 75-80% gpu use (for longs) out of my cards with swan_sync set and 1 free hyper threaded core per gpu on all machines with gtx500 series cards. when those machines run the shorts, they seem have higher gpu use but i havent observed carefully enough to say that with 100% conviction. just informational really, its been good enough up to this point.

the FAX series gpu use is about the same as described above for longs. will be interested to see how long this FAX4 wu takes if there is a difference to the FAX3s. anything in particular to look out for?

bob

My GTX260 completed the FAX3 WU in 36.5 hours. The FAX4 it's working on now looks like it will finish in around 22.5 hours. I think upload is still going to put it over the 24h limit, but anyone with a newer card should probably be okay now.

I think upload is still going to put it over the 24h limit, but anyone with a newer card should probably be okay now.

Hi all,
I have a gtx 560 ti as well.
Damn, these nathan 3 are really huge. Have been working on one for 22 Hours and still have 13.30 to go. My card is neither overclocked nor underclocked. If you can, please try to reduce the size of the WU by 1/2, I am afraid that the reduction with nathan 4 are still going to take us still very long. Also the effective damage of one computational error becomes much greater with such huge wu. Unforuntunately there is no way for me to improve my stats, as my card has a bad manufacturer heatsink IMHO and runs at 80c. Is it normal btw?

Thank you and take care
Francesco

On my GTX 260 it's looking like it's going to take about 50 hours to complete a NATHAN_FAX WU. Typically long runs would take 20 - 25 hours.

I get a FAX3 done in just under 45 hours on my GTX 460 and a FAX4 in 28 hours. A bit too big for my taste... No chance of a time bonus here. Until now I always got it...

There are two time bonuses; one for <24h (50%) and one for <48h (25%).

By my point of wiev there is much bigger difference between the longest a and the shortest GPU tasks on Seti (runnig KWSN package: 2x on GPU CC1.1, 3x on GPU CC1.3 and on Fermi GPU makes me no sense to waste cycles and electricity for Seti), than in long queue on GPUGRID. On the other you side are right comparing to DistrRTgen or PG PSA manual tpsieving, which are giving great credit (5x - 8x more than NATHAN_CB1 series).

I run long tasks on a GTX 460 and have come to the conclusion that it is better for me to abort these FAX3 and FAX4 units....

The method that I use to estimate completion times is this:

((total minutes so far) / %done)/(0.6)

This gives total processing hours. I have found this to be reasonably accurate especially after the WU is about 10% done. It also seems to be a better estimate of the total time than the "time remaining" field plus current run time until, of course, the remaining time is small.

The FAX4 that I just finished gave about 28-hours using that method, and that is what it took.
____________

The researchers stated that they will actively review task sizes. If for example they see higher failure rates they will most likely make changes to reduce runtime. In the mean time if any crunchers don't like the duration or experiences failures, crunch some of the normal tasks. While credit will be lower you will get badges for contributing to different research papers ;)

Additionally, we are looking at ways to reduce the size of uploads for the users, thought it is not clear at this point if we will be able to do that. Please be patient with the implementation of changes/improvements.

Your comments/complaints are not falling on deaf ears, so keep them coming. Additionally, we are looking at ways to reduce the size of uploads for the users, thought it is not clear at this point if we will be able to do that. Please be patient with the implementation of changes/improvements.

Additionally, we are looking at ways to reduce the size of uploads for the users, thought it is not clear at this point if we will be able to do that. Please be patient with the implementation of changes/improvements.

I tried to compress one of the workunits and it compressed by a factor of ~5:1. Maybe the project is already set up to take advantage of BOINC's built in compression (http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/FileCompression) but I can't tell from the logs on my end.

If you're not doing any compression then it looks like there's a considerable benefit to be had.

Hello, i pushed my GTX 460 to the limits, full voltage, at 900 chipset clock, hopefully it wont burn up, hopefully it will fall into the first 24 hour bonus time. It will be very very close to 24 hours, my upload is at max. 45 KB/s, when it happen i will get 75.000 points on FAX4 , aren´t i ?

close, 71400 is the exact value :)
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

too close , i think, the WU got crashed , i lowered the chipset clocking about 10 Mhz and will see.