PAOLA_3EKO_8LIGANDS

On both my GTX670's, I'm averaging 30% GPU load and the core has downclocked to 1005MHz. At that rate, it looks like it's going to take 12 to 14 hours to completion for those wu's (this is the first time I've had these work units). Anyone else having these problems?

I have 3 of these units running now and yes, they are very, very slow, around 30% utilization on windows 7, and 37% on windows xp.

Same behavior with a gtx570, 38% after 5 hours, another 6 estimated, gpu usage at ~48%

Same problem. Cuda31 285gtx 26 hours to complete at 46% gpu load and 33% cpu load
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

For this group, here is a list of the GPU and runtime for the 22 most recently returned WUs:

GeForce GTX 680 - 8.6 hours
GeForce GTX 680 - 16.9 hours
GeForce GTX 680 - 15.8 hours
GeForce GTX 680 - 15.1 hours
GeForce GTX 680 - 14.8 hours
GeForce GTX 670 - 16.5 hours
GeForce GTX 670 - 14.0 hours
GeForce GTX 670 - 13.3 hours
GeForce GTX 590 - 15.1 hours
GeForce GTX 590 - 14.8 hours
GeForce GTX 590 - 12.8 hours
GeForce GTX 580 - 9.6 hours
GeForce GTX 580 - 15.3 hours
GeForce GTX 580 - 13.6 hours
GeForce GTX 570 - 22.3 hours
GeForce GTX 570 - 18.0 hours
GeForce GTX 570 - 15.4 hours
GeForce GTX 570 - 14.7 hours
GeForce GTX 560 - 15.8 hours
GeForce GTX 560 - 16.4 hours
GeForce GTX 470 - 17.5 hours
GeForce GTX 470 - 17.3 hours

Lots of long runtimes, and a lot of variablity. Two 470s running almost as fast as a 680? The ones in bold are what we were expecting based on benchmarks here, and show what "ideal" conditions. Any ideas as to why so many are running slow? It's obviously not good that so many fast cards/machines are running slow for some reason. Hmmm...

GTX460 768MB 62% GPU usage completed in 19.14

GTX670: 95.460% 16:32:28 hores runtime.
GPU load between: 27% and 31%, CPU load 9% on an AMD octocore. One core is recerved for GPUGRID and work, the other 7 are doing Climateprediction.net.

UP-DATE: the WU was complited after 17:22:56 hours.

Hope this helps.

Observationally on GTX670 Win7x64 the CPU usage is at a lower ratio on these PAOLA_8LIGANDS (1 GPU sec to .7 CPU sec) than the NATES (1:1).
I guessing that the GPU is starving while waiting for the CPU. I don't know how you have it coded (CPU is polling or the GPU is placing a call) but if this is configurable any chance you could switch it so we can test this for you?

So maybe we can look at general system states to make sure that the extra processing runtimes are not caused by the unexpected requirements that these computationally difficult WUs have? Anyone at their system at this time can you take a look at how much GPU and also system RAM is being used and how much is reported as free for each? How about cpu page faults?

As always, please include OS and any other pertinant system details.

I'd be happy to test anything new or even crunch them as they are for the project but please throw us crunchers a bone and up the points per WU :-)
____________
Thanks - Steve

nate got me to thinking, it's taking the same amount of time on my GTX 560's and GTX 550's as it does on my GTX 670's. 1344 cuda cores vs 192 and it takes almost an identical amount of time, somethings wrong.

I run Docking@home in addition to GPUGRID on my Phenom II X6. I suspended Docking to observe how much CPU resources was being consumed by my GTX460/GTX550Ti whilst these units are running and it turned out to be 33%.

Reduced Docking down to 4 cores to see what effect it has.

460 running at 60% GPU usage and 550Ti running at 99%

Win XP

Reduced Docking down to 4 cores to see what effect it has.

460 running at 60% GPU usage and 550Ti running at 99%

Reduced Docking down to 4 cores to see what effect it has.

460 running at 60% GPU usage and 550Ti running at 99%

Wow, you just now figured that out? Maybe I'm not understanding what you wrote, I thought everybody knew that you need to leave 1 CPU core free for every GPU you're running. The CPU core feeds the data to the GPU, it's going to be like Christmas for you now, you're crunching times should drop sharply.

I figured you must have known, I get 0.645% CPU usage per core on my GTX 670's, using 2 cards in the same machine(do the math, that's more than one CPU core). I'm leaving 2 of my 8 cores free and the GPU usage shot up to 98% on both cards.

Before that it jumped all over the place between 35 and 65% and the wu runs were hours longer (I was a n00b, I didn't know). I run CPDN on all other cores, when their servers go down (witch is often) I run docking too. I like those little 3 hour jobs, for some reason it wont link to my BOINCstats, I must have done something wrong there too.

Edit: My GTX670 took 18.27.15 and produced 82.54MB of data

GTX560Ti took 19.24.51 and produced 82.65MB of data
____________

I figured you must have known, I get 0.645% CPU usage per core on my GTX 670's, using 2 cards in the same machine(do the math, that's more than one CPU core). I'm leaving 2 of my 8 cores free and the GPU usage shot up to 98% on both cards.

Before that it jumped all over the place between 35 and 65% and the wu runs were hours longer (I was a n00b, I didn't know). I run CPDN on all other cores, when their servers go down (witch is often) I run docking too. I like those little 3 hour jobs, for some reason it wont link to my BOINCstats, I must have done something wrong there too.

Edit: My GTX670 took 18.27.15 and produced 82.54MB of data

GTX560Ti took 19.24.51 and produced 82.65MB of data

These workunits do not use a full CPU core with Kepler GPUs, unlike any previous workunits. It's like the late swan_sync parameter wasn't set to 0. These workunits run twice as fast on my GTX 480s than on my GTX 680s.

WinXP x64, Core i7 980x and 970 (@ 4.16GHz) one free CPU thread per GPU, GTX 680s GTX 690 and GTX 480

I'm running Windows 7x64 with a single GTX 670 and an i7-3770K overclocked to 4.2GHz with hyperthreading enabled (i.e. 8 logical cores). My card is the factory-overclocked triple-fan Gigabyte 670. All factory default settings. I'm running BOINC 7.0.28. No cc_config, no swan_sync.

I've run one Paola 3EKO task so far and the result was validated yesterday. Here are the specs:
Run Time (secs):48,205.04
CPU Time (secs):30,510.69
Credit :88,075.00

I'm currently running another Paola 3EK0, and the GPU load right now is fluctuating between 44-46% with the core clock at 979.8 MHz. This is while also running 8 tasks of World Community Grid on this computer at the same time, so I haven't dedicated a core to GPUGrid (it's sharing cores with WCG).

If I suspend WCG completely in BOINC (thus leaving the *entire* CPU for GPUGrid, the GPU load rises to 53%.

If I set BOINC to use 87.5% of processors (that's equal to 7 out of 8 cores), it shuts down 1 WCG task (so only 7 remain running), but GPU load remains 45%.

If I set BOINC to use 75.0% of processors (that's equal to 6 out of 8 cores), it shuts down two WCG task (so only 6 remain running), but GPU load still remains 45%.

If I set boinc to use 50% of processors... ditto.

With WCG shut down, the GPUGrid task, in task manager (Ctrl+Alt+Delete) reports a CPU usage of 6-7%, so in my case that's only half a core. The priority is set to "BelowNormal" by default, whilst for WCG each task has a priority of "Low" when running. I don't understand it. It seems that the Paola tasks are affected only by the fact that another project is running - not by how much CPU that project takes. So you have to suspend ALL other tasks *completely* to see a slight performance increase.

Nathan tasks have 90% GPU utilisation regardless of what else is running. These Paola tasks are using only half my GPU and returning about half the points per unit time. According to my results, I get about 4 points per second for Nathan, one point per second for Noelia, and 2 points per second for the new Paola ones. I'm not particularly happy to be running at half throttle when I know I could get more points per unit time doing other work. In fact I've started considering other projects like primegrid or POEM@home to maybe increase my points per hour. I guess I'll just see how things unfold and take it from there.

does anyone has default max 20% CPU time for GPU work set on the websiteprofiles too like me until today? perhaps this value is to low for these new units? i set it to 100% and waiting now until i get a new one of this WUs and finished it.
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

does anyone has default max 20% CPU time for GPU work set on the websiteprofiles too like me until today? perhaps this value is to low for these new units? i set it to 100% and waiting now until i get a new one of this WUs and finished it.

These workunits do not use a full CPU core with Kepler GPUs, unlike any previous workunits. It's like the late swan_sync parameter wasn't set to 0. These workunits run twice as fast on my GTX 480s than on my GTX 680s.

If I set BOINC to use 87.5% of processors (that's equal to 7 out of 8 cores), it shuts down 1 WCG task (so only 7 remain running), but GPU load remains 45%.

If I set BOINC to use 75.0% of processors (that's equal to 6 out of 8 cores), it shuts down two WCG task (so only 6 remain running), but GPU load still remains 45%.

If I set boinc to use 50% of processors... ditto.

Here's the one thing I've been able to find in common with all my video cards, the GPU memory controller stays right around 10%, it will drop to 9% and go up to 11% but never higher or lower on the 3EKO wu's. Also, they are all using the same amount of memory (+ or - 1%) witch is 628MB, these are my cards:

2 EVGA GTX550Ti 1024MB GDDR5
3 EVGA GTX560 1 being a Ti all have 1024MB GDDR5
2 EVGA GTX670FTW 2048MB GDDR5

I know the CPU feeds data to the VRAM, right? If there is a bottle neck in the way the data is using the VRAM, that will slow down the CPU and GPU both. Everybodys cards have different GPU clock speeds, so wouldn't they down clock if there was a data bottle neck.

Could it have something to do with the way those wu's are utilizing the VRAM? I think the problem is in that area some where.
____________

I've seen people advise this action here and at other BOINC forums and it seems to me that this would never work because telling BOINC to use 6 of 8 cores or 7 of 8 cores takes them away from all projects. I would think you would want to set CPU usage at you're GPUgrid account, by taking away cores in BOINC, only the operating system or programs not connected to BOINC can utilize those cores.

I don't think the prefrences in our GPUGRID account allows for enough minipulation of the CPU to make it do what you want.

That just don't make no sense at all. There is no way in BOINC to allocate cores to particular work units, that setting is for freeing up CPU power for the OS. If you're wu's use less than .5 CPU power, you wont see issues, anything over that and you have to suspend wu's. I don't know why I'm responding to this, I feel like I'm walking into another one.
____________

I've set my GPUGrid preferences to use 100% CPU for graphics but I *think* this refers to how much CPU to use for displaying a project's screensaver ... I'm going to do a quick taks switch to see ...

GPU = GTX 480 Win7 x64, shaders @1512, mem @1848
CPU = Core i7-980 CPU clocked at 4.050 HT = ON
RAM = 6GB triple channel @ 1500 DDR3
BOINC = 7.0.28 set to use 100% of processor
because I am runing both a GTX670 and a GTX 480 BOINC forces so a full thread dedicated to GPU.
OTHER PROJECTS = 11 threads to WCG


NATE -- GPU @95-96% utilization, MCU @24-25%
PAOLA - GPU @59-61% utilization, MCU @6%
- occasionally GPU jumps to 70+%

I'll let this run for a while to get a good estimate of runtime to compare to previous run that I'll double check but I think it took 14 hrs.

side note a PAOLA too 25 hours on the 660Ti



____________
Thanks - Steve

I've set my GPUGrid preferences to use 100% CPU for graphics but I *think* this refers to how much CPU to use for displaying a project's screensaver ... I'm going to do a quick taks switch to see ...

GPU = GTX 480 Win7 x64, shaders @1512, mem @1848
CPU = Core i7-980 CPU clocked at 4.050 HT = ON
RAM = 6GB triple channel @ 1500 DDR3
BOINC = 7.0.28 set to use 100% of processor
because I am runing both a GTX670 and a GTX 480 BOINC forces so a full thread dedicated to GPU.
OTHER PROJECTS = 11 threads to WCG


NATE -- GPU @95-96% utilization, MCU @24-25%
PAOLA - GPU @59-61% utilization, MCU @6%
- occasionally GPU jumps to 70+%

I'll let this run for a while to get a good estimate of runtime to compare to previous run that I'll double check but I think it took 14 hrs.

side note a PAOLA too 25 hours on the 660Ti

I have 3 machines that are identical,

AMD 8150 3.6GHz 8 core
16GB Kingston DDR3 PC1600
Asus M5A97 AM3+
Seagate Constellation Enterprise SATA6 7200RPM 1TB
OCZ 750 watt PSU
Everything water cooled (CPU, Video)

1 rig has 2xGTX670FTW 2GB 1533 shaders GPU usage at 30%
1 rig has 2xGTX560 1GB 336 cuda cores GPU usage at around 40%
1 rig has 1xGTX560Ti 1GB 384 cores GPU usage at 35% and 1xGTX550Ti 192 shaders GPU usage at 55%

All the memory controllers are between 9 and 11%

Windows XP Pro x64 SP2

BTW, all my cards run much cooler, if there's anything I forgot, just ask.

____________

From some quick testing on my part.

GTX 480, i3 530, 4GB ram, Windows 7 Ultimate, using the late swan_sync parameter, and with one core free, the GPU usage had fallen to around 40% to 50% usage. BOINC CPU usage was set at 75%.

The other 3 cores were busy with Seti, and 1 core was dedicated to the GPU, and Task Manager showed the CPU was at 100% usage.

After freeing another one of the cores on the i3 530(2 cores plus 2 hyper threaded cores, total of 4 cores), and setting the acmed.win.23 Priority to High, the GPU has remained rock steady, at 93% to 94% usage.

Task Manager CPU usage is now showing appox. 81% usage. This is with 2 cores on Seti, 1 core for GPU, and now 1 core free for the PC.

For me BOINC CPU usage has to be set at 50% or less, in order for high GPU usage.

Regarding the setting I mentioned ("on multiprocessors use at most xxx% of processors" - which I set to 87.5 to use 7 out of 8 cores), that only applies to tasks that use the CPU exclusively (like WCG). Tasks that use the GPU ignore that setting - they simply use as much GPU as possible, and the associated amount of CPU needed. For GPUGrid, that's 1 task per GPU (since each task uses 1 NVIDIA GPU), and hence 0.585 CPU cores per GPU task. For something like Einstein@Home, which uses 0.5GPUs per task, it runs 2 GPU tasks simultaneously, and consumes however much total CPU two Einstein GPU tasks need.

For POEM@Home, each task uses 1CPU+1GPU, so it's 1 cpu core per GPU task (ouch). In each case, GPU projects get to use as much CPU as they need, and it's only the other (non-GPU) projects that BOINC limits to the percentage specified.

Now, as for the Paola_3EKO, my guess is that they're not coded to make full use of the GPU. I would suggest trying to run multiple Paola's on each GPU by making an app_info.xml file. Problem is that since this is a limited run, I don't have any more Paola's to test with. And BOINC discards all tasks in the queue when you introduce an app_info.xml file, so if you're reading this post and you have paola tasks in your queue, you still can't create a custom app_info and try it because you'll lose the tasks currently in the queue...

So looks like this problem will solve itself (because the limited number of Paola 3EKO tasks dispatched will all be completed) before we get the chance to try fixing it.

does anyone has default max 20% CPU time for GPU work set on the websiteprofiles too like me until today? perhaps this value is to low for these new units? i set it to 100% and waiting now until i get a new one of this WUs and finished it.

I feel it must be something like this, because there are some users who can compute much faster than the rest (and at speeds we were expecting). Keep us updated dskagcommunity.

If anyone else wants to play with the setting, click on your username up above, then "GPUGRID preferences". "Edit Preferences", and change "Maximum CPU % for graphics..." to 100% (or whatever you prefer).

Still, this might not be it. Wouldn't explain this, though, unless the cards are on different machines with different settings...

These workunits do not use a full CPU core with Kepler GPUs, unlike any previous workunits. It's like the late swan_sync parameter wasn't set to 0. These workunits run twice as fast on my GTX 480s than on my GTX 680s.

Let's see...

Having more RAM available or faster RAM might also reduce this somewhat, but it sounds like a systemic issue. Sort of explains why Luke only noticed an increase from 45% to 52% when they stopped running all CPU tasks.

I don't have time do all the stats but on Win7x64 core i7-920 HT ON, 6 GB ram, Boinc 7.25, ALL CPU tasks suspended my GTX 670 runs at about 45%
When I run with only 1core free it drops to about 32%
____________
Thanks - Steve

i5 2500k/8Gb 1333Mgh/Asus p67/GF680GTX Win7 Ultimate 304.48
all in default 38-42% gpu utilization

Possible solution - see post #2 in this thread:

http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=3118

Well, I think I've found the general cause, although I can't say I have a solution yet. When I run the workunits on our machines, NOT via BOINC, the simulations use 100% of the CPU. When I run the PAOLA WUs via BOINC, the max I get is ~50% CPU usage. No doubt that's where the 2x slowdown comes from. Now, why that happens, I have to find out. I'll ask the more technical people here and hopefully have answers soon, but if anyone knows why CPU usage is limited to 50% via BOINC, feel free to explain. Is this something common for other GPU based tasks, or specific to us?...

Perhaps it would be enough when the project use 1 cpu insteed 0,65?
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

The CPU utilisation is about 7-10% on my 8-core CPU (so that's 50-75% of one of the cores), but I think you guys made it that way by design because it uses 0.585 or 0.65 CPUs (can't remember because no running any right now).

DistRTGen has about as much CPU utilisation as GPUGrid. POEM@Home uses an entire CPU core for every running GPU task.

GPUGrid's Nathan tasks still use 7-10% CPU but achieve a GPU load of 90-95% on my GTX 670.

Well, I think I've found the general cause, although I can't say I have a solution yet. When I run the workunits on our machines, NOT via BOINC, the simulations use 100% of the CPU. When I run the PAOLA WUs via BOINC, the max I get is ~50% CPU usage. No doubt that's where the 2x slowdown comes from. Now, why that happens, I have to find out. I'll ask the more technical people here and hopefully have answers soon, but if anyone knows why CPU usage is limited to 50% via BOINC, feel free to explain. Is this something common for other GPU based tasks, or specific to us?...

Are I'm the only one who abort every "PAOLA_3EKO" task I get?

My GPU goes below 400MHz and the task time goes up to ~ 18H.
That is more than double the time it should take, and I could have done more than 2 "NATHAN_RPS1120801" tasks in that amount of time.

Are I'm the only one who abort every "PAOLA_3EKO" task I get?

My GPU goes below 400MHz and the task time goes up to ~ 18H.
That is more than double the time it should take, and I could have done more than 2 "NATHAN_RPS1120801" tasks in that amount of time.

Clearly there is not an easy fix or it would have been done by now. Apparently even changing the points award is not something to be taken lightly once released so let's see what we can do to get the complete stream finished. Who knows, maybe this is some truely awesome data that will help Paola advance her research by leaps and bounds.

Can anyone who is running these and getting good utilization please post up the rig specs so we can see what DOES work well?

If it would be helpful overall, I would like to offer to be a volunteer as an alpha tester for any new WU streams (660Ti Win7x64 + 480 same rig, 670 Win7x64).
____________
Thanks - Steve

Can anyone who is running these and getting good utilization please post up the rig specs so we can see what DOES work well?

Can anyone who is running these and getting good utilization please post up the rig specs so we can see what DOES work well?

I'm curious about it as well. However, I don't expect any answer to this question, because these tasks' GPU utilization is low even on PCIe3.0 systems.

Nate's earler post shows a couple of good runtimes, maybe he can dig out the rig specs for us ... Nate?

Runtime on new 660Ti, power target set to 105% (One sample):

1. 20 hrs 17 min

Same rig (Core i5-750, 8 gByte RAM) when run on 580 GTX, no overclock (Three samples):

i. 22 hrs 30 min
ii. 27 hrs 39 min
iii. 28 hrs 03 min

The problem with looking solely at runtimes is that the number you're seeing is only the time taken for that task to complete - it doesn't say how many tasks were running simultaneously. So anyone using a custom app_info.xml and running 2 or more tasks at once might be doubling his points per second and the runtimes would look the same.

Has anyone tried running multiple tasks at once? Can you please post your runtimes for running two of them and your runtimes when running just one at a time?

Oh, and my runtime for Paola tasks is on average 13.33 hours on a stock Gigabyte GTX 670. The variation isn't that great in mine - about half an hour either way. But I haven't run GPUgrid for a few days so I wouldn't know if the newer tasks have different runtimes.

I noticed almost 2 weeks ago when this all started that others were aborting these tasks or getting a lot of computational errors, that means the rest of us have to pickup the slack for those who refuse to do the work.

I'm looking at this problem much simpler than everyone else. I use a program called gpushark to monitor my cards (it's free) and it shows the VRAM memory controller is getting very low utilization (9% - 11% as compared to 31% - 39%), I think that's the choke point, it will slow down the CPU.

____________

Do you get 9x% gpu load while this memory controller load? When not, it is normal that the memory controller has lesser to do perhaps when the gpu load is less too. Only as suggest ^^
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

I noticed almost 2 weeks ago when this all started that others were aborting these tasks or getting a lot of computational errors, that means the rest of us have to pickup the slack for those who refuse to do the work.

I'm looking at this problem much simpler than everyone else. I use a program called gpushark to monitor my cards (it's free) and it shows the VRAM memory controller is getting very low utilization (9% - 11% as compared to 31% - 39%), I think that's the choke point, it will slow down the CPU.

GPU-Z is better in my opinion (it's also free), because it displays those readings and plots graphs of them in real time as well. And you can save the data to a log file.

3EKO_19_4-PAOLA_3EKO_8LIGANDS-3-100-RND3778

has run 123 hours so far, 57 to go, 67.623% progress

already past deadline

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=5800806

Is this a reasonable run time on a GTX 560? Or is it so much
past what is expected that I should abort the workunit?

3EKO_19_4-PAOLA_3EKO_8LIGANDS-3-100-RND3778

has run 123 hours so far, 57 to go, 67.623% progress

already past deadline

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=5800806

Is this a reasonable run time on a GTX 560? Or is it so much
past what is expected that I should abort the workunit?

I just got a new task I've never seen before, it's PAOLA_2UY5 and it's doing the exact same thing as the other PAOLA task. 30% to 50% GPU usage, is this the way of all new WU's to come? There are going to be lots of grumpy folks that have older cards. It's looking like close to 30 hours on my GTX560Ti, who the heck is writing these things?
____________

There are more liangs in the queue it seems i nearly only get this wus :/ dont want 36h to compute on one wu...thx to cuda31 i never git an error on these *cross his fingers* and still get 50% more the credits then in short queue!!! Wtf.
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

Hello everyone, sorry I haven't posted in awhile.

But, I'm beginning to get pissed off about these tasks.

Whenever I have 1 running it will run fine although incredibly slowly 36%.

BUT, when I have 3 running on my 3x 680s acemd crashed or my computer locks up and must be restarted. It should not be my responsibility to constantly abort tasks and keep an eye on this rig at all times.

These tasks just caused me to lose another 20hrs of combined crunching. Further, when running 2 one time, the computer crashed, causing a Nathan task which had 20min left to fail.

This is unacceptable. I have never, ever aborted WUs before. Not even when the points disparity was so different many others complained. I let them run. But I've reached the tipping point, and don't know what to do anymore. Please, after this batch is finished, should this ever happen again, pull the tasks from the hopper and figure out what is wrong with them.

For the last couple of posters - have you tried using my modified app_info.xml ? It won't make the tasks any faster (in fact it might slow things down slightly), but at least you'll be doing two at once so you'll be getting almost twice the points per unit time and so the performance hit isn't as bad.

have you tried using my modified app_info.xml

That's a tough prospect as we can't count on getting only PAOLA tasks and I believe it will be counter productive if a NATE WU gets doubled up.

That's the issue though. I tend to get more Nathan's than Paola. Further complicating things is that with 3 cards in one rig. I have 6 tasks in total to watch.

This is not something we should be doing. I understood that when they switched to the new CUDA app, that there were some server issues with correctly sending tasks to rigs that were compatible and a workaround was used.

This is a different case. Please, GPUgrid, I love this project, and I am not leaving. Ever. But do not let this happen again. I understand you tested them on your own software before being sent. So, in the future could you please possibly run some under BOINC in house first to see if any problems arise.

I hope this batch is nearing completion.

Cheers.

... it looks like I may have an oppportunity when I get home today but it depends on how ambitious I am

Are I'm the only one who abort every "PAOLA_3EKO" task I get?

My GPU goes below 400MHz and the task time goes up to ~ 18H.
That is more than double the time it should take, and I could have done more than 2 "NATHAN_RPS1120801" tasks in that amount of time.

You really shouldn't do that. Remember that they rely on you and other volunteers to do the crunching for their research. If everyone aborted certain kinds of tasks, they'd never get any research done. If you're concerned about low utilisation, I suggest using a custom app_info.xml - I posted about it a few posts ago in tis thread.

voss has a good point there, though I don't advocate open rebellion. Why hasn't the project scientist responded to any of these threads? Ya know, something like "Were working on rectifying the situation" or letting us know why they haven't pulled them from the hopper? I'm starting to wonder if this might not be deliberate because their getting overwhelmed from the new video cards.
____________

ATTENTION GPUGRID STAFF:

My 3way 680 setup caught another 3 of these tasks in a row last night and crashed yet again. This is now the 4th time that this has happened.

I will be switching over to the Short Run Tasks. Which I do not want to do. But your current Long Runs give me NO CHOICE.

PLEASE LET US KNOW when these bad tasks are out of the hopper. This is unacceptable.

I enjoy crunching here, and as I've said before, I love this project. But, I expect better from you guys. And girls :).

PLEASE do not let this happen again.

Cheers

I feel guilty when I abort these work units; however, I can run 2 of these per day or 6 to eight others. If I do the latter my RAC doesn't plummet and my good will is not lessened.

I refer you to my "Not Happy" post. My girlfiend doesn't fully comprehend why I spend $100 a month on electricity. She doesn't know what 2 GTS450s, a GTX580 and a 660Ti cost, and I'm not telling her. Nevertheless, I bought 2 of those GPUs solely for this project. I live in the US and would at least get a tax deduction if GPUGrid were based here.

Respectfully,

The King's Own
____________

I feel guilty when I abort these work units; however, I can run 2 of these per day or 6 to eight others. If I do the latter my RAC doesn't plummet and my good will is not lessened.

I refer you to my "Not Happy" post. My girlfiend doesn't fully comprehend why I spend $100 a month on electricity. She doesn't know what 2 GTS450s, a GTX580 and a 660Ti cost, and I'm not telling her. Nevertheless, I bought 2 of those GPUs solely for this project. I live in the US and would at least get a tax deduction if GPUGrid were based here.

Respectfully,

The King's Own

This IS painful.

I spent about $3,600 to build a machine exclusively for gpugrid crunching. It does nothing else. Ever. The thing runs so hot that I can't run it in my home. It is in my son's basement a very long way from here. This means I never get to run, say, Flight Simulator or Civ5, on two video cards that a few years ago I could not have dreamed of being able to afford.

I hope they fix it soon.

Ken Florian

I think you should not feel guilty. It is YOUR hardware and you should choose how it is used. Aborting some work units is really no worse than if somebody decided to crunch on a different project for a while, or there was a power outage, or the server ran out of disk space, or the DNS servers got hacked and the internet didn't work, or.... (hopefully you see my point)

We are VOLUNTEERS. We are giving up our own time, money, and resources to the scientists. If we should decide that a certain project or task or workunit is unfit for our individual tastes, time commitment, or energy cost, we have that right to abort and try something different. That could mean choosing a different project alltogether, or just another workunit.

I felt i should chime in since i am seeing nowhere near the times for this project that others are seeing. Granted, the WU's are all jacked up. I'm seeing a GPU load at 55%, Memory load 15%, at 45% power consumption.

My rig:

i5-3750 oc to 4.2 ghz
16 gb 1600MHZ oc to 2000
2x GTX 670 FTW LE (both on x16 rails)
SSD on USB 3.0

I'm running the my first unit of this now. Im going to guess around 12 hours.

I'm going to guess that we are being limited by the CPU core utilization. My GPU load matches my CPU load almost to a T.

Unless we get a change that lets us choose the CPU core utilization (as in 1:1), I think we are stuck with high run times.

Let me know if I can do anything on my end to test. It would be helpful to include how to do it. I just got win7 and am having a hell of a time finding things.

Still getting these 3-PAOLA_3EKO_8LIGANDS loooooong runs... :(

GPU Usage only between 35 and 39% and taking over 13h to complete. Other long runs have GPU usage of 95-99% and taking 6-9hrs. Cuda42, 306.23 drivers, Win7x64, i7-2600k@4.5GHz.

All you can do is increase GPU utilization by about 10% by running fewer CPU tasks (say 4 from 8 threads - see below). That would improve your task performance by around 28%.

yes that seems to be true. I tried underclocking one of my rigs from 2.67ghz to 1.6ghz and the gpu usage dropped from ~38% to ~25% iirc

Anyway, it's down to the researchers to improve, if they think it's worthwhile for the project. All we can do is optimize our systems for the app/tasks that are there to run, if we want to.

These are now stopped.
We have found the source of the problem in some scripting called inside the input files. It was quite unexpected.

These functions will now be embedded into the applications for speed.

gdf