Fingers crossed, knock on wood... ;-)

We hope so...

Thanks Stefan

How long are these supposed to take? My 680s have been crunching on it for about 27 hours and they're at 98% and my 980ti is at 9 hours and 70%

1060 3GB: 55% done so far at a rate of 6.12% per hour, so my first BNBS should complete in ~16.3 hours...

On my GTX 960 running under Linux, at 2 hours 10 minutes it is 7.965% complete, or 22.45 hours total. So it will get in just under the wire, considering the usual hangs at download.

Windows on GTX 970: task 15850957

Run time 66,657.64 seconds (18.5 hours)
Credit 492,000.00

Have had 2 finish so far. One on a 1060 in 71,824 seconds and another on a 670 in 100,793 seconds. These are not going to finish on the slower GPUs and should be in a separate 3rd queue. 14 of my 750Ti GPUs have them and it looks like about 40 hours completion (which is acceptable). There are a whole lot of GPUs on the project that are WAY slower (and less efficient) than the 750Ti.

I managed to get my first 2 of these tasks done.

Name ARG59ALA_S5F7_C2-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND4466_0
Workunit 12214546
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 10:38:53 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 10:40:06 UTC
Received 22 Dec 2016 | 0:57:29 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Success
Client state Done
Exit status 0 (0x0)
Computer ID 30790
Report deadline 26 Dec 2016 | 10:40:06 UTC
Run time 40,101.94
CPU time 37,868.64
Validate state Valid
Credit 492,000.00
Application version Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65)

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15852421


On my windows xp, GPU usage is 97%, power usage is 91%, and over 11 hours to finish.

On my windows 10, GPU usage is 92%, power usage is 89% and 11 hours to finish.

Name ARG59ALA_S0F6_C2-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND1278_0
Workunit 12214024
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 10:23:47 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 10:23:54 UTC
Received 22 Dec 2016 | 1:00:49 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Success
Client state Done
Exit status 0 (0x0)
Computer ID 263612
Report deadline 26 Dec 2016 | 10:23:54 UTC
Run time 39,596.54
CPU time 39,512.66
Validate state Valid
Credit 492,000.00
Application version Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65)

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15851889


These are good! Give us more of these tasks.

14 of my 750Ti GPUs have them and it looks like about 40 hours completion (which is acceptable).

I can't get new tasks on my Linux host (with a GTX 1080), while there's a plenty of workunits in the queue.
It seems that the scheduler is lying about the number of available workunits in the long queue:

[OT]
"csütörtök"= thursday

When I was in Budapest two years ago I had a very, very big problem with this dots above almost every letter. Still have no idea how to spell name of the street on which I was staying :P
But I had great time, city is beautiful but what is the most important - people are very kind :)
[/OT]

I can't get new tasks on my Linux host (with a GTX 1080), while there's a plenty of workunits in the queue.
It seems that the scheduler is lying about the number of available workunits in the long queue:

2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:10 CET | GPUGRID | Sending scheduler request: Requested by project. 2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:10 CET | GPUGRID | Requesting new tasks for CPU and NVIDIA GPU 2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:12 CET | GPUGRID | Scheduler request completed: got 0 new tasks 2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:12 CET | GPUGRID | No tasks sent 2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:12 CET | GPUGRID | No tasks are available for Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card)

("csütörtök"= thursday)

Here are some data points for my BNBS results, see below.

Note: I run GPUGrid 2-tasks-per-GPU, alongside a full boat of CPU tasks, on Windows 10 x64. My main rig has 2 GTX 980 Ti GPUs, but only runs GPUGrid part of the time. My secondary rig has 1 GTX 970 and 2 GTX 660 Ti GPUs, and runs GPUGrid at all times.

I did have 1 "Validate error" that I cannot explain:

Validate error
ARG59ALA_S8F6_C2-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND0619_0
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15852757
GeForce GTX 980 Ti
Validate state Invalid

But I did have several successful runs, with healthy GPU usage, fans a-blazing! :)

ARG59ALA_S14F6_C3-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND6925_1
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15854987
GeForce GTX 980 Ti
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 11:56:24 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 12:06:08 UTC
Received 24 Dec 2016 | 9:57:30 UTC
Run time 83,311.57
CPU time 12,704.97
Credit 328,000.00

ARG59ALA_S3F20_C0-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND0205_1
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15854167
GeForce GTX 980 Ti
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 11:33:32 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 12:06:08 UTC
Received 24 Dec 2016 | 9:44:08 UTC
Run time 82,628.58
CPU time 13,144.57
Credit 328,000.00

GLU73ALA_S0F12_C0-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND8050_0
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15853511
GeForce GTX 980 Ti
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 11:14:40 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 12:06:08 UTC
Received 24 Dec 2016 | 10:00:43 UTC
Run time 83,428.28
CPU time 12,700.48
Credit 328,000.00

ARG59ALA_S10F18_C2-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND2903_0
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15852984
GeForce GTX 970
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 10:54:59 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 11:12:43 UTC
Received 22 Dec 2016 | 23:49:16 UTC
Run time 126,085.77
CPU time 14,746.36
Credit 410,000.00

ARG59ALA_S12F12_C1-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND1879_0
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15853182
GeForce GTX 660 Ti
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 11:00:20 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 11:12:43 UTC
Received 24 Dec 2016 | 4:28:13 UTC
Run time 226,766.66
CPU time 14,399.27
Credit 328,000.00

ARG59ALA_S10F15_C3-SDOERR_BNBS-0-4-RND3170_0
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15852977
GeForce GTX 660 Ti
Created 21 Dec 2016 | 10:54:44 UTC
Sent 21 Dec 2016 | 11:12:43 UTC
Received 24 Dec 2016 | 4:12:56 UTC
Run time 226,686.38
CPU time 14,523.08
Credit 328,000.00

Here is my result for a BNBS Project

Took about 2 days on a gtx 960 with windows xp.

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15854803
____________
Cruncher/Learner in progress.

Here is my result for a BNBS Project

Took about 2 days on a gtx 960 with windows xp.

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15854803

Here is my result for a BNBS Project

Took about 2 days on a gtx 960 with windows xp.

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15854803

It would be much shorter if you would have a PCIe3.0 capable MB/CPU pair (at least a 3rd gen i5, or a 4th gen i3, Pentium or Celeron CPU)

Here is my result for a BNBS Project

Took about 2 days on a gtx 960 with windows xp.

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15854803

It would be much shorter if you would have a PCIe3.0 capable MB/CPU pair (at least a 3rd gen i5, or a 4th gen i3, Pentium or Celeron CPU)

I like that Stefan explains what the WUs are and how they interact. I wish the other researchers would do that, it takes 5 minutes of their time.

Here is my result for a BNBS Project

Took about 2 days on a gtx 960 with windows xp.

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15854803

It would be much shorter if you would have a PCIe3.0 capable MB/CPU pair (at least a 3rd gen i5, or a 4th gen i3, Pentium or Celeron CPU)

It would be much shorter if you would have a PCIe3.0 capable MB/CPU pair (at least a 3rd gen i5, or a 4th gen i3, Pentium or Celeron CPU)

I dont think so... I have an old PCIe2.0 Mainboard and still it doesn't slow down my gtx 1080 noticeably, maybe 2-3%. PCIe2x16 yields the same speed as PCIe3x8 which is OK for most SLI settings. See multiple reviews in the web which have examined the speed difference in detail.

On my computer (1060 3GB), BNBS works take 17 hours. In general for 410.000 credits, for some 490.000.

First, I am happy to have a recent Pascal card...
In second: before the new server, I had 100.000 credits more by day. We don't do that just for credits but I am sad nevertheless. And the error rate is 30%, it is huge. (always good for me I have to say)
A BNB work (with a huge 50% error rate) finished with error couple days ago. Between 14 and 17 hours for ... nothing; sorry: still, I will always have my electricity bill :-(

On my computer (1060 3GB), BNBS works take 17 hours. In general for 410.000 credits, for some 490.000.

First, I am happy to have a recent Pascal card...
In second: before the new server, I had 100.000 credits more by day. We don't do that just for credits but I am sad nevertheless.

And the error rate is 30%, it is huge. (always good for me I have to say)

A BNB work (with a huge 50% error rate) finished with error couple days ago.

Between 14 and 17 hours for ... nothing; sorry: still, I will always have my electricity bill :-(

You should set a short work queue (less than 5 hours = 0.2 days) to achieve 490.000 credits per workunit (this amount includes the bonus for returning the result within 24 hours).

Between 14 and 17 hours for ... nothing; sorry: still, I will always have my electricity bill :-(

This is that workunit, it was aborted at 28,686.86 seconds (almost 8 hours).

You use operating systems which have WDDM (Windows Vista and later), and this is a much bigger bottleneck than PCIe bandwidth.
The reviews usually about gaming or bitcoin mining which does not need that much interaction between the GPU and the CPU as GPUGrid does, so the WDDM does not hinder their performance as much as GPUGrid's.

Well, even my PCIe2x16 conncected gtx1080 runs at pretty 95% per GPU-Z... which is a very pleasing figure. The BNBS accommodate the fast Pascal I presume and reduces the WDDM influence. Anyway, I am happy with the throughput.

As far as I could see, all BNBS WUs yield 492.000 credits if crunched within 24 hours.

this evening, for GLU73ALA_S13F6_C2-SDOERR_BNBS2-3-4-RND1150_1 which was crunched in about the same time as all the others before (i.e. approx. 18 hours on my GTX970) I got 328.000 points.
How come?

As far as I could see, all BNBS WUs yield 492.000 credits if crunched within 24 hours.

this evening, for GLU73ALA_S13F6_C2-SDOERR_BNBS2-3-4-RND1150_1 which was crunched in about the same time as all the others before (i.e. approx. 18 hours on my GTX970) I got 328.000 points.
How come?

Richard, thanks for the quick response. I would never have thought of something like that.
I had a similar case a few days ago already, where I could not explain the low credits either.
Still, a strange system though :-(

As far as I could see, all BNBS WUs yield 492.000 credits if crunched within 24 hours.

this evening, for GLU73ALA_S13F6_C2-SDOERR_BNBS2-3-4-RND1150_1 which was crunched in about the same time as all the others before (i.e. approx. 18 hours on my GTX970) I got 328.000 points.
How come?

Probably the same way I did with GLU73ALA_S2F7_C0-SDOERR_BNBS2-2-4-RND7864_1.

The first attempt was sent to a user with a slow card (by current standards), who took over 5 days and lots of restarts to complete the task.

When that task passed the initial deadline without response, a second copy was generated and sent to my host. I completed it within 24 hours, but in the meantime, the original task was returned and validated - earning its owner the basic credit score, without any fast completion bonus. That sets the 'tariff' for the workunit, and the second copy to be reported gets the same as the first. That's the way the bonus system has been set up, and it's the same for everyone - nothing personal about it.

This has been happening for years. See link below:
http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=2795#22917

Greetings;
First, I want to say that I really like supporting GPUGRID as a project. The team publishes results. Also, it seems so many other distributed (grid) computing projects are in theoretical math or in astronomy. I LIKE supporting a project which we can hope will improve human health down the road.
I have a pretty modest GPU (GT 640**) compared to many GPUGRID hosts. However, I have been averaging right at 11 WU a month. Also, I imagine that I am far from unique... that there are many BOINC volunteers 'out there' who have a more modest system (not costing a grand or more, and with no external power supply.)
I appreciate that timely turn-around is important, but there is no other BOINC project of which I am aware with such a short time-out limit on WUs (I am active in 15 projects, not counting several which have by now ended). Ten to 20 days is pretty typically the time limit. SETI has a time limit of over 5 weeks.
So, my First question: Is GPUGRID snubbing potential BOINC volunteers who have, say, a GeForce, but not a Titan or whatever? (This part of the post is perhaps better fitted to another forum.)

In the past couple of weeks, the lion's share of WUs have been BNBS -- and they have been running very, very long.
My second and MAIN question is: is the 5 day timeout enforced on tasks, even if they are making progress?
In the past week or so, I have abort a dozen or more BNBS WUs because, while running, they were heading to 300+ hours of compute time.
At this posting I have a WU running with anticipated completion time of jut over 11 days (270 hours). I really would like to run this one, since I have not been able to run any GPUGRID WUs in nearly two weeks. (In the past POEM was a good backup project, but they have recently terminated.)

My uncertainty about the timeout being enforced comes from the fact that the Performance page will list several batches with maximum run time (in the box-plots) of well over 120 hours.
Thanks.
LLP, PhD PE

** Some 6 years ago, I had a system with a 530. A couple of years later, I upgraded to a 640... I didn't go for more so as to keep a reasonable budget, and not to have to buy an external power source.
By the way, I am NOT a gamer at all. I bought the GPU solely to support distributed computing science projects.
____________
I think ∴ I THINK I am
My thinking neither is the source of my being
NOR proves it to you
God Is Love, Jesus proves it! ∴ we are

Hi,

Well, for that kind of hardware GPUGRID offers short runs. But I admit that this queue sometimes is barely stuffed. We hope that Stefan and his colleagues can get more work for this queue by opening GPUGRID for lab tutorials, educational purpose or something like that, but this is just guesswork for now and we have to wait for their own considerations and decision.

But in case you consider an GPU upgrade for accessing long runs without buying a new power supply, there is good News. The new Pascal GPU generation is so power efficient that you can triple your crunching speed at the same power usage. Most of the mainstream gtx 1050ti can manage without extra 6pin connector and get their power from the mainboard only. And it is relatively favorable, Zotac, Inno3D, Gigabyte, KFA and Palit offer their Mini/single fan cards from 150€. Alternatively there is the slower gtx1050 for 120€ and up. Still much faster than your gtx640.

In my humble opinion the gtx 1050ti (and probably the speed equivalent but less efficient gtx960 or 660ti; careful: unlike the 1050ti they need extra power) are the most favorable Cards for a long run (here: just one per GPU), it does not make sense to use slower cards. Having said this, even the 1050ti will miss the deadline for receiving the early completion bonus. So don't expect too much.
____________
I would love to see HCF1 protein folding and interaction simulations to help my little boy... someday.

Having said this, even the 1050ti will miss the deadline for receiving the early completion bonus. So don't expect too much.

Having said this, even the 1050ti will miss the deadline for receiving the early completion bonus. So don't expect too much.

You make this sound so much worse than it is. The 24 hour completion bonus for BNBS2 is 492k credits, the non-bonus is 410k. No matter what it is, it is hundreds of times faster than a gt640 and will dramatically contribute compared to it.

Well it takes him 11 days to complete a BNBS2, now it should take slightly over 24 hours, so over 10 times as fast. I like to exaggerate as well :)

Well it takes him 11 days to complete a BNBS2, now it should take slightly over 24 hours, so over 10 times as fast. I like to exaggerate as well :)

I'm sure it must be especially frustrating to you when completed tasks are queued up on volunteers' computers because the server isn't in a position to accept the uploads and/or reports, and then again because the BOINC clients have gone into an extended backoff because of the connection failures.

I've just manually retried and successfully reported two tasks which had completed overnight, and got replacement tasks on both machines: at least they started running almost immediately, so not too much time was lost. But do your IT guys have any idea why the new server seems to become unresponsive so much more often than the old one?

... But do your IT guys have any idea why the new server seems to become unresponsive so much more often than the old one?

My only disappointment is that my GPUs are showing their age: I cannot use the two GTX 650 Ti beasts any more and the GTX 660 Ti GPUs have very long run times. I can't afford to buy faster GPUs.....
____________
John

You could sell them

Also, I just posted 3 times because the server was too slow and took my post reply command 3 times. This would normally not be a problem but there is no way for us normal users to delete our own messages.