Message boards : News : WU: SDOERR_BenAdapt
Author | Message |
---|---|
Hey all, I will be sending under this WU name some workunits to test a new method that we are developing. If everything goes well it will allow us to simulate more "intelligently" allowing us to see even slower biological events. | |
ID: 32002 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
So we're beta testing in the long queue now | |
ID: 32006 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Hahah. Nah it's not much of a test on your side. Since it's a well tested system it is only a test on our side. 15 WU's of one step shouldn't harm too much I think ;) The method works locally, we just need to work out any kinks on our side related to using it on GPUGRID. | |
ID: 32007 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
lol i was one of the lucky guys ^^ | |
ID: 32024 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Looks like I got one back on the 15th. | |
ID: 32047 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
"Large" (150 WU's) batch incoming! Getting to some serious stuff now :) Should have same failure rate (close to 0) | |
ID: 32067 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I got one these units, and finished it successfully. | |
ID: 32077 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Received one more today. | |
ID: 32131 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Had no failures with these work units on both card types. Links are below. I had not been able to find a reference in the forums, but was curious why the faster 680 card takes more CPU time to finish a work unit as compared to the slower 460 card. This occurs on two different machines. Would think that it would take the same number of CPU cycles to complete a unit. This is similar on all the work units...SANTI, NATHAN, etc. Generally inverse relationship. Takes 3x the GPU time, but 1/3 the CPU time. | |
ID: 32144 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Completed another BenAdapt today on my 680, a bit slower than the examples Jeremy gave, but I am running other projects on my CPU as well. | |
ID: 32146 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
@Matt: Yes, they are actually working brilliantly well :) Next week I will be preparing a presentation for a conference. But as always, it will take long to make the results public through a publication. | |
ID: 32148 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Jeremy Zimmerman wrote: I had not been able to find a reference in the forums, but was curious why the faster 680 card takes more CPU time to finish a work unit as compared to the slower 460 card. This has been discussed when the Kepler based cards came out. Before the CUDA4.2 client came out, there was a parameter called SWAN_SYNC, which controlled whether the client should take a whole CPU thread to feed the GPU (speeding up computation a little bit), or not. Now this parameter is automated: it's always effective on Kepler based cards (because they need it to work as fast as they can), and ineffective on others. So this is not a bug, this is a feature. However there were some workunits in the past which didn't activate this feature on Keplers by accident, therefore those workunits were significantly slower than those with the activated feature. | |
ID: 32150 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Message boards : News : WU: SDOERR_BenAdapt