Same as 6.44 for Linux but it reports also the approximate total elapsed time.

gdf

Is it still in beta testing or in production (and I guess a project reset is necessary) ?

And to get that small CPU usage, are you using a pre-release of Boinc 6.3.11 or 6.3.10 ?

Thx !

Thanks, just downloaded a wu to be crunched with 6.45.

I tested 6.45, the display is a lot slowed down :( . It is almost unusable on vista64 + 9600GT

I'm on my first 6.45 windows task.

CPU usage in task manager shows 02 to 06, instead of 50 (for 1 HT CPU)

After 30 minutes of run time, BOINC CPU usage shows 1m 34s.

This means too my CPU runs cooler, Wattage usage drops 34W, from 1 BOINC CPU task to 1 GPU task with a little CPU. Every little bit helps.

This is a very nice improvement :)

---

One thing to note, when the first 6.45 started, Windows XP SP3 popped up a security window, I had to unblock the application. I never had to do that before with any apps. SP3 was recently installed and this is the first app version change since then, so it may have changed some setting. Just to let those know who may run this on some unattended machine, they need to watch for this.

Is it still in beta testing or in production (and I guess a project reset is necessary) ?

And to get that small CPU usage, are you using a pre-release of Boinc 6.3.11 or 6.3.10 ?

Thx !

Ok, a new app is running well and almost not occupies CPU resources. So when we will be able to run 3 distributed computing projects WUs - 1 on GPU and 2 on double core CPU?

My 1st v6.45 workunit finished ok.

Shows a total cpu time of 16.78 Seconds, and the task ID says approx 53211 seconds

____________

Down with the Kredit Kops!!!

Probably this standard execution prevention dialog, telling you that MS doesn't know where this .exe comes from and asks you if you really want to execute it.

MrS

One thing to note, when the first 6.45 started, Windows XP SP3 popped up a security window, I had to unblock the application.

Keith, do you recall what the warning said?

Matt

Ok, a new app is running well and almost not occupies CPU resources. So when we will be able to run 3 distributed computing projects WUs - 1 on GPU and 2 on double core CPU?

My 1st v6.45 workunit finished ok.

Shows a total cpu time of 16.78 Seconds, and the task ID says approx 53211 seconds

With the difference in CPU times, are you using an Intel CPU?
I noticed on my Q6600 that cpu time is higher compared to my AMD Dual core.

AMD = 16 Seconds
Intel = 47 Minutes 32 Seconds

And the 2nd workunit on the AMD is heading the same way.
The 2nd workunit on the Intel is at 3% yet it shows the same cpu time (4 seconds) as the AMD system that is at 42%.

Perhaps the new app works better on AMD?
____________

Down with the Kredit Kops!!!

Mine is only an Intel P4(HT) at 3.8GHz on Windows XP (32bit). I've been using it lightly off and on all day.

I'm up to 35:52 at 54% done.

I can understand some difference in P4's vs Quad Cores or linux vs windows

But still this is a big difference.

Why would an AMD show so much less useage ?

Even if it were 50% less I might understand, but this is like 99.6% less.

Mine is only an Intel P4(HT) at 3.8GHz on Windows XP (32bit). I've been using it lightly off and on all day.

I'm up to 35:52 at 54% done.

I can understand some difference in P4's vs Quad Cores or linux vs windows

But still this is a big difference.

Why would an AMD show so much less useage ?

Even if it were 50% less I might understand, but this is like 99.6% less.

Application 6.45 under Windows Vista 64 is much slower (about 56.000 Seconds - old one: about 30.000 Seconds), and uses much less GPU.

WU: http://www.ps3grid.net/workunit.php?wuid=44433

only 74 Degrees with Fan Speed of 700 RPM - old client (with one CPU-Core usage) 83 Degrees and 1000 RPM.

Is there a new version coming regarding this issue?

Application 6.45 under Windows Vista 64 is much slower (about 56.000 Seconds - old one: about 30.000 Seconds), and uses much less GPU.

WU: http://www.ps3grid.net/workunit.php?wuid=44433

only 74 Degrees with Fan Speed of 700 RPM - old client (with one CPU-Core usage) 83 Degrees and 1000 RPM.

Is there a new version coming regarding this issue?

I am aware of the fact that the CPU-core is freed now, but i just wanted to point out the fact, that the GPU is not utilized to the max with the new client.

Otherwise, there would be more heat generated by the calculation and load on the GPU core like in the old client - even if the parameters of the simulation have changed, leading to the increase in computation time.

As already stated in my previous post, the GPU time it took to calculate the WU was 56002 seconds. The old client took about 30.000 seconds (GPU time AND CPU time, as one core was used 100% we can assume that the used GPU time is proportional to the used CPU time).

The actual running WU also will be finished after around 56k seconds after looking at the calculation time of the first 10%. GPU utilization still stays low.

Those compute errors were from a) from using another CUDA dll (trying to speed up the computation) and b) a faulty power supply in my computer. As you can see, all WUs have completed successfully a week ago (old app, working power supply ;-)

Dont get me wrong - 5000 Credits a day additional to CPU-crunched WIs is still a lot, but i don´t think the client makes use of the full capabilites of the GPU anymore.

Well - i´ll give it another chance for a few more days and hope its only an issue of the current workunits.

Edit:
i just checked with a fellow from my team. Same OS (Vista x64) but his Setup using a 9800 GTX has a) MUCH lower CPU Usage and b) MUCH faster computation on the GPU. (about 46-47 ms per Step).

His results:
http://www.ps3grid.net/result.php?resultid=58207
http://www.ps3grid.net/result.php?resultid=57930

What could be the reason? Nothing changed on my system instead of the new client.

I FOUND THE PROBLEM

After Rebooting the machine, windows firewall popped up "acemd_6.45_windows_intelx86__cuda.exe blocked...allow?"

I allowed the process, and voila - GPU Utilization went up, Temperature went up, computation time (estimated) went down to 30.000 - 31.000 seconds.

CPU Utilization also dropped from about 3/4 of an hour per WU to about nothing..

VERY strange!

Someone know about that issue?

Overall I'm impressed with this near zero CPU utilization release! Too many obvious good points.

However, I have one concern.

My scheduler got messed up!

To clarify:

Before this release, I gave ps3grid 25% more resource priority than other projects, and another 25% went to burp.boinc.dk, the rest of the 10s of projects each get less than 3%.

This made ps3grid run non stop 24/7.

Now, the CPU time dropped from 7 hours to 12 minutes, and each time a ps3grid task would finish the scheduler would think that the rest of the ps3grid tasks on queue can wait because it thinks it would take 12 minutes, and not 7 hours to complete.

Even if I further increase resource sharing for ps3grid the scheduler would still lower the priority because of this 12 minutes cpu completion!

Any workarounds?

Computation time increased once again, seems to be a problem with the Windows Scheduler.

Although one Processor core (of 4 in my quad) is unused: as early as i start another task on the computer which takes one core (single-threaded-mp3 encoder using only one core for example) PS3Grid Application drops in performance again. Also as earlier visible a significant drop in GPU temperatures. After exiting the encoder, GPU utilization goes up again.

Manual priorization of the process even to "highest" or "real time" doesn´t help.

Heres an image - temperature increases again as the mp3-encoder is closed.

It appears to me 6.45 is slower.

Home #0 took 55,000s before
Result 58254 CPU 3723s GPU 58289s 68ms
Result 58428 CPU 3436s GPU 59270s 69ms

Work #1 took 59,000s-60,000s before
Result 58017 CPU 285s GPU 68463s 80ms
Result 58579 CPU 203s GPU - ERROR - See Below

Work #2 took same as #1
Result 58264 CPU 3456s GPU 61631s 72ms

Work #1 and #2 are both same GPU and only a little slower than Home #0. Not counting the GPU slowdown time, they fall in an understandable range. The CPU time also, except for the one that is 285s (4m) vs 3456s (57m)? These two hosts are nearly identical in hardware and software, one may have a few extra applications.

This is the same question I asked before when another user reported 16s vs my estimated time, actual above is 62m and 57m (an hour).

Why this wild difference in CPU times ?

I would expect work #1 and work #2 to be nearly identical and only a little longer, since they are a little slower, than home #0.

---
Also this drill down into each work unit to get the GPU time is not liked. It is going to take a lot of extra effort, especially with multiple hosts during testing to see what is going on. I think it would be desirable to have the GPU time and maybe the ms step included in the table of result information next to the CPU time. I know this will take a custom hack as it's not part of the BOINC default web layout, but give it some thought.

My other thought too was to have version number in that table, especially during all this testing. So you can know which results are from older apps and easily see differnece in run times vs app version.

I'll add these suggestions on the wish list.

---

Error:
<core_client_version>6.3.10</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
Incorrect function. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
# Using CUDA device 0
# Device 0: "GeForce 8800 GT"
# Clock rate: 1512000 kilohertz
MDIO ERROR: cannot open file "restart.coor"
Cuda error: Kernel [frc_sum_kernel_dihed] failed in file 'force.cu' in line 568 : unspecified launch failure.

</stderr_txt>
]]>
No credit and no GPU time listed, so I do not know how far along task was when error occured.

For the CPU time difference.
The machine that had the 16 Second time (9 second lowest), all it does is crunch.
So there is no activity on the screen for it to update.

I have noticed when looking at task manager on my main PC. the PS3GRID app sits at 0% CPU load, however when something happens on screen the cpu load increases.

So that will explain why my AMD has such a low CPU time, since I never use the computer to do anything (apart from Boinc), the screen will hardly ever change, resulting in 9 seconds of cpu time, and since my Intel is the PC I use the most, the screen is updated quite a lot (web pages, msn, video, etc) it ends up with the higher CPU time of 44 minutes.

And yes 6.45 is slower.
Looking at my Boincview logfiles, there used to be just under a 12 hour gap between workunits, now it has gone to 14.5 hours between workunits :(
____________

Down with the Kredit Kops!!!

epsecially to GDF

The increase in computation time did not result from the firewall, this was a false positive from me - sorry for that. Here is true reason (at least it was reproducable by many others on their computers). Maybe its a issue of windows scheduler (maybe only on vista - don´t know right now if it happened also on xp, will look into it).

http://www.ps3grid.net/forum_thread.php?id=371&nowrap=true#2387

To add my 2 cents, I also encounter slowdown with 6.45 with a 9800 GT on XP32 (PIV HT 3.00):

Previously with 6.43 around 57k sec, example1

Now with 6.45 around 66k seconds:
- example2
- example3

In the meantime I increased slightly the overclocking, thus the real loss for a defined set of frequencies is somewhat higher.

Hope this helps.

McRoger

Edit: tests done with a machine 100% dedicated to GPUGRID

It appears to me 6.45 is slower.

Home #0 took 55,000s before
Result 58254 CPU 3723s GPU 58289s 68ms
Result 58428 CPU 3436s GPU 59270s 69ms

Work #1 took 59,000s-60,000s before
Result 58017 CPU 285s GPU 68463s 80ms
Result 58579 CPU 203s GPU - ERROR - See Below

Work #2 took same as #1
Result 58264 CPU 3456s GPU 61631s 72ms

Keith, was the Work #2 machine running anything else, or being used interactively whilst it was crunching?

Matt

The new Windows-application shows since hours the same percentage and the time to complete is rising. 2 hours ago they show 97,294% and a completion time 4:08, now 97,294% and a completion time of 4:25. The shown CPU-time is 2:30:38, the taskmanager shows 3% for the core. Looks like there is no progress. The real total time is running since 8:44 UTC, now it's 17:34 UTC, that's far too long for my GTX280.
____________

The new Windows-application shows since hours the same percentage and the time to complete is rising. 2 hours ago they show 97,294% and a completion time 4:08, now 97,294% and a completion time of 4:25. The shown CPU-time is 2:30:38, the taskmanager shows 3% for the core. Looks like there is no progress. The real total time is running since 8:44 UTC, now it's 17:34 UTC, that's far too long for my GTX280.

Kokomiko: looks like your task hangs due to some strange reason. Did you restart BOINC? (not just the manager)

I'm don't the only cruncher with problems with this WU, don't know why.

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=42214

Had abort the task, the next is running fine. Will have a eye on it, hope, this is running better.

12 hours for the birds ... :(
____________

... and the next WU is broken. Looks like the GTX280 don't like the 6.45 ... :(

WU broken again

... and again I'm not alone with a error on this WU ...
____________

Application 6.45 is way to slow on gtx280.

Gone from 7 hours a wu to 9 hours :(

... and the next WU is broken. Looks like the GTX280 don't like the 6.45 ... :(

WU broken again

... and again I'm not alone with a error on this WU ...

... next broken WU on a GTX280:

Logfile (10:00 MESZ = 8:00 UTC):

17.09.2008 10:01:09|PS3GRID|Computation for task pY11683-GPUTEST3-0-10-acemd_0 finished
17.09.2008 10:01:09|PS3GRID|Output file pY11683-GPUTEST3-0-10-acemd_0_1 for task pY11683-GPUTEST3-0-10-acemd_0 absent
17.09.2008 10:01:09|PS3GRID|Output file pY11683-GPUTEST3-0-10-acemd_0_2 for task pY11683-GPUTEST3-0-10-acemd_0 absent
17.09.2008 10:01:09|PS3GRID|Output file pY11683-GPUTEST3-0-10-acemd_0_3 for task pY11683-GPUTEST3-0-10-acemd_0 absent
17.09.2008 10:01:11|PS3GRID|Started upload of pY11683-GPUTEST3-0-10-acemd_0_0
17.09.2008 10:01:15|PS3GRID|Finished upload of pY11683-GPUTEST3-0-10-acemd_0_0


Link to WU

<core_client_version>6.3.10</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
Unzul�ssige Funktion. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
# Using CUDA device 0
# Device 0: "GeForce GTX 280"
# Clock rate: 1296000 kilohertz
MDIO ERROR: cannot open file "restart.coor"
Cuda error: Kernel [frc_sum_kernel_impr] failed in file 'force.cu' in line 583 : unknown error.

</stderr_txt>
]]>

Same problem: File restart.coor is missing.

Remark: Since the 6.45 is running, the PC has under Vista 64 bit make at 3 times a reboot without any hint in the logfile.

btw: The other machine (also Vista 64bit) with the 8800GT is running without problems.

____________

... next broken WU on a GTX280:

<core_client_version>6.3.10</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
Unzul�ssige Funktion. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
# Using CUDA device 0
# Device 0: "GeForce GTX 280"

These result from 6.45 still confuse me

Work #1 177.84 8800GT 600MHz-512MB P4-HT 3.0GHz 2GB Windows XP SP3
TskID CPUs GPUsec ms/Step
58017 285s 68463s 80.545
58579 203s Error
59231 623s 68343s 80.404

Work #2 177.84 8800GT 600MHz-512MB P4-HT 3.0GHz 2GB Windows XP SP3
TskID CPU-s GPUsec ms/Step
58264 3456s 61631s 72.508ms
59024 3540s 61432s 72.274ms
59183 3513s 61384s 72.217ms

Home #1 177.92 8800GT 640MHz-512MB Intel P4-HT 3.8GHz 2GB Windows XP SP3 Media Center
TskID CPU-s GPUsec ms/Step
58254 3723s 58289s 68.576ms
58428 3436s 59270s 69.730ms
58997 3545s 59464s 69.958ms
59533 3703s 60286s 70.925ms
Home #1 is faster on GPU becuase it is a slightly faster clock on the GPU, factory overclocked model. All three are same brand. This matches previous apps, in that it was faster by about 2000s. Which it still is compared to work #2.


Home #1 still has similar CPU times to work #2. I cannot find any software running that would be common to home #1 and work #2. Most is common to all three or common between work #1 and work #2.

About the only common element between home #1 and work #2 is MS SQL Server Service Manager, I believe this is what they call SQLExpress. Home is Windows Media Center Edition, It came installed with that, I think it would only be in use when running media center, which I don't on this system. Work #2 has one piece of software installed, but not in use which installed it there. I do not know what else really uses it, so basically it sits dormant on both. I do not really see how that would interfere.

Now looking at the times, why (?) on work #1 is the CPU faster and the GPU slower than work # 2 ? These two computers have identical hardware, CPU speed, GPU's, daily usage. Basically I use those 8 hours a day, then they are untouched for 16 hours. At home this computer gets maybe 5 hours max useage. So if using the GPU for video slows down the cpu and app, why would this not be shown across all hosts. Certainly 1 task would be running while I'm using host, but then 1 would be able to run undisturbed during the time I'm not using it, so as if suggested by some some use of the gpu by other programs is causing the slowdown, then each host would have fast and slow cpu times.

Work #1 and #2 get about the same usage, They will be unused with screens on standby for 16 hours, then for about 8 hours both are awake. I would use work #1 slightly more as that is my primary. I do email on it, document scanning and some of our daily operations and invoicing. It has the printers attached to it. Work #2 I primarily do invoicing for shipments, while I read email on #1 and on #3 process the shipment in UPS software. Work #2 also is used for some internet browsing while on #1 I would be entering information viewed on #2. Yet work #1 shows the faster CPU times over work #2.

Do you have any screensaver activated or simply a "blank screen" ?

Are the cards "really" identical ? SP (shaders), frequency matters more than the GPU frequency for GPUgrid.
You can check that with GPU-Z .

edit: spelling

...
Same problem: File restart.coor is missing.
...

Do you have any screensaver activated or simply a "blank screen" ?

Are the cards "really" identical ? SP (shaders), frequency matters more than the GPU frequency for GPUgrid.
You can check that with GPU-Z .

edit: spelling

Looks like I have solved the problem for my machine, don't know, if it is relevant for others.

I use a Gigabyte MA790FX-DS5 board, a Phenom 9950 BE with 4 x 2 GB OCZ RAM 1066 and a GTX280 from XFX. My RAM was running in DUAL and UNGANGED mode. Since I switched to GANGED mode, the PC is still running without crashing the PS3Grid-WU with the 6.45. Maybe there is a problem with the 2 x 64 bit RAM access simultaneous for different cores in the UNGANGED mode, so I use now the 1 x 128 bit access of the GANGED mode.
____________

In all my broken WUs I have the reason "Unzulässige Funktion" or in english "unsopported function"

Wolfram, did you reboot your machine? Maybe also tried a project reset, in case some file on your hdd became corrupted.

And btw, "Unzulässige Funktion" should be more like "invalid function" ;)

MrS

@Keith: your situation puzzles me as well.

Your data may suggest a correlation: high cpu usage - lower computation time. I checked with my WUs: 3 of them have 62.5 ms/step and CPU usages of 14, 14 and 291s. One has CPU 851 and "only" 60.1 ms/step. That's not really a clear-cut picture either.

MrS

keith,
on a 8800GT you should get approximately 70 ms/step.
This is consistent with the Linux application and it is what we had before when the application was using 100% of cpu.
I don't quite understand why your other 8800GT takes 80 ms /step still having the same shader frequency:

# Clock rate: 1512000 kilohertz
# Time per step: 74.176 ms

#

# Device 0: "GeForce 8800 GT"
# Clock rate: 1512000 kilohertz
# Time per step: 80.404 ms
#

Note that previous CPU time from older application is not a reliable measure of elapsed time, as the cpu was just polling the gpu and so, probably using less than 100%.

gdf

Here are the last 5 results, all from 6.45 from work #2.

Something I did, I guess turning off BOINCview has made a difference, but in the wrong direction. GPU time is now more. CPU time is less though. CPU time is about the same as work #1, and GPU time is close but only about half way. This was the only change I made yesterday. You can see a drop in CPU and increase in GPU on the last two (first to on list). This I do not understand these results.

work #2
CPU---- Claimed Granted GPU time ms/step
478.53 3232.06 3232.06 64824.85 76.27
2951.58 3232.06 3232.06 63049.30 74.18
3513.09 3232.06 3232.06 61384.59 72.22
3540.48 3232.06 3232.06 61432.72 72.27
3456.95 3232.06 3232.06 61631.57 72.51

work #1
CPU---- Claimed Granted GPU time ms/step
522.89 3232.06 3232.06 69912.97 82.25
623.58 3232.06 3232.06 68343.72 80.4
285.72 3232.06 3232.06 68463.05 80.55

home since turning off BOINCview has shown no real change, CPU time is about the same as is GPU time.

home
CPU---- Claimed Granted GPU time ms/step
3439.88 3232.06 3232.06 6.45 58286.17 68.57
3567.89 3232.06 3232.06 6.45 58595.14 68.94
3703.58 3232.06 3232.06 6.45 60286.58 70.93
3545.36 3232.06 3232.06 6.45 59464.68 69.96
3436.73 3232.06 3232.06 6.45 59270.56 69.73
3723.67 3232.06 3232.06 6.45 58289.86 68.58

I'll keep looking, but I want to let things run a few days, especially over the weekend where I will not be at work so they will have two days undisturbed.

Computation error.

19.09.2008 1:31:47|PS3GRID|Restarting task RN18493-GPUTEST3-3-10-acemd_0 using acemd version 645
19.09.2008 1:31:50|PS3GRID|Computation for task RN18493-GPUTEST3-3-10-acemd_0 finished
19.09.2008 1:31:50|PS3GRID|Output file RN18493-GPUTEST3-3-10-acemd_0_1 for task RN18493-GPUTEST3-3-10-acemd_0 absent
19.09.2008 1:31:50|PS3GRID|Output file RN18493-GPUTEST3-3-10-acemd_0_2 for task RN18493-GPUTEST3-3-10-acemd_0 absent
19.09.2008 1:31:50|PS3GRID|Output file RN18493-GPUTEST3-3-10-acemd_0_3 for task RN18493-GPUTEST3-3-10-acemd_0 absent

I still have varied times between my one hosts at work.

Mostly this seems to be to BOINCview runnning on the host, but do not know why it interferes. I turned it off last weekend, and over the weekend all takes finished with less CPUtime. On Monday I restarted BOINCview and CPU times went back up and have reamined higher all week long.

If I try same test at home (shutting it down), it has no effect, times have remained the same.

Times are averages or approximate.

If running BOINCview the host has CPU time of about 57m and GPU time of 60,841s=1014m=16.90h

If not running BOINCview, the host CPU time drops to 4m but the GPU time goes up to 66,478s=1107m=18.47h, an increase of 1.57 hours.

It seems to me though, it would be wiser to give up about one hour of CPU time to save 2 hours of GPU time. Net gain is 1 wall clock hour less processing.

From a credit point of view
On this host, it earns about 2.5-2.75cs per minute for GPU and only 0.23cs per minute for CPU (from another project). This is just an estimate. So I would be giving up 14cs from the CPU to gain 300cs from the GPU as each task would finish 2 hours quicker, thus giving 2 extra hours of use to the GPU.

OK, these are not exact numbers, but the difference is big enough to justify the CPU usage. I think you can see the point.

The only question is how I make my other work computer which as always had a low CPU time use more CPU time. I guess I can install BOINCview on that one too.

Strange problem:

04.10.2008 6:54:33|PS3GRID|Started upload of yr20704-GPUTEST3-7-10-acemd_3_3
04.10.2008 6:54:35|PS3GRID|[error] Error reported by file upload server: Server is out of disk space
04.10.2008 6:54:35|PS3GRID|Temporarily failed upload of yr20704-GPUTEST3-7-10-acemd_3_3: transient upload error
04.10.2008 6:54:35|PS3GRID|Backing off 5 min 30 sec on upload of yr20704-GPUTEST3-7-10-acemd_3_3

What's up with disk space?!

My GPU performance for this box has been on a decline...

http://www.ps3grid.net/result.php?resultid=83851

This is the last wu finished. The previous wu was not as bad. And before this, my result times for this GPU were:

# Time per step: 77.024 ms
# Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 65470.047 s

I re-booted prior to starting the "83851" wu.

app 6.45
WinXP64 sp2
177.84 driver
6.3.14
8800GT

____________


Consciousness: That annoying time between naps......

Experience is a wonderful thing: it enables you to recognize a mistake every time you repeat it.

I think I fixed it. It might have been another application (not related to Boinc) that was started by mistake, and hogged the cpu cycles the GPU needed.

I'll know in a day or so...

____________


Consciousness: That annoying time between naps......

Experience is a wonderful thing: it enables you to recognize a mistake every time you repeat it.