Hello,
Start situation : same host (46603). Same day of WU,always long run WUV9.22 cuda 80. I repeat again, on the same host.
One WU run 50,742 sec for credit of 181,050 (ratio : 3.56 cr/second)
A other run 32,598 sec credit : 110,400 (ratio : 3.38 cr / sec)
OK so fa it is more or less the same

A other run 24,129 sec credit : 63,750. Ratio : 2.64cr/sec

I repeat, I ompare three WU on the same host.
Between hot it can change. Here not it is the same host.



Can someone explain me the ratio difference ???
All my host are visible, als WU ???

____________

They are different apps. The short ones probably utilizes the GPU less efficiently.

Both BOINC and GPUGrid broke the equivalence between credits and processing power (GFlops) several years ago. Credit is now just a dimensionless number, enabling comparison between hosts and users within each separate project.

Here at GPUGrid, we went through a phase where there was a fairly high probability that tasks would fail mid-run. And tasks which fail get no credit at all.

The longer a task runs before failure, the greater the loss of potential credit. And the longer a task is planned to run, the higher the average loss per failed task. For that reason, the administrators here decided to grant a higher rate of credit per hour for longer running tasks, to provide some compensation for the observed failures.

Your figures illustrate perfectly - higher rate for longer tasks - that this policy still applies and is working as designed.

They are different apps. The short ones probably utilizes the GPU less efficiently.

Hello,
Once again I repeat : I compare differents tasks from the same apps (long run...) on the same host (46603) !!!
I look the credits on my stat page here ongpugrid.

I NOT compare host/apps/...
Only same apps on same host
Waiting explanation, best regards

I am running 5 BOINC projects. Each of them has a different method for assigning credits. My only opinion is that the more they are the less they are worth, exactly like money.
Tullio

Hello,
Once again I repeat : I compare differents tasks from the same apps (long run...) on the same host (46603) !!!
I look the credits on my stat page here ongpugrid.

I NOT compare host/apps/...
Only same apps on same host
Waiting explanation, best regards

I am running 5 BOINC projects. Each of them has a different method for assigning credits. My only opinion is that the more they are the less they are worth, exactly like money.
Tullio

Both credit calculated by GPUGrid

Hello,
Once again I repeat : I compare differents tasks from the same apps (long run...) on the same host (46603) !!!
I look the credits on my stat page here ongpugrid.

I NOT compare host/apps/...
Only same apps on same host
Waiting explanation, best regards

I repeat my answer. It is a deliberate policy applying to this project only.

@marsinph

I think I may have the final answer to this. I am honestly not sure how the GPU Work Unit credits are calculated, either by the staff or automatically based on total FLOPS. If it is the latter I think you will notice a lack of GPU usage on certain WUs. This directly affects the total WU time and therefore credit/second. Because the app sends all the data over the PCIe bus to the CPU for double precision compute, if you single threaded CPU speed is lacking or you have a less than optimal PCIe configuration, this can lead to low GPU usage.

If the WU is a very large number of molecules, very little CPU usage is required as compared to GPU usage and most likely your credit/second will be higher.

I am honestly not sure how the GPU Work Unit credits are calculated, either by the staff or automatically based on total FLOPS.

I don't know how many molecules are in the GPU tasks but Toni wrote that the CPU tasks treat only one molecule. I have tried to understand in the "output" directory of stderr.txt what the program is doing but it is beyond my knowledge of computer chemistry. I only remember that SCF stands for Self Consistent Field and DFT for Density Functional Theory.
Tullio
____________

Here at GPUGrid the same app does very different simulations between different workunit batches (they are named differently).
The granted credits are set manually by the GPUGrid staff for every batch one by one based a short test run on their systems. This gives approximate results.
The lower the number of atoms, the utilization (~credit/time ratio) of faster GPUs will be lower.
All of the above together explains the different credits and the different credit/time ratio.
When you compare the credit/time ratio of different batches (done by the same app), you compare apples to oranges.
Look at the end of the stderr.txt output for clues:
ADRIA_FOLDADAH2
PABLO_2IDP
ADRIA_FOLDUCB

Something seems wrong with the credit calculation:

today, a WU did NOT get granted the "below 24 hours" extra bonus of 20%.
The total time from download till upload was 23 hours and 35 minutes. I received the 20% bonus for "below 48 hours", and that was it.
http://gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=20416897

Okay, no big deal, but my efforts to make to make it below 24 hours, like giving it an extra GPU glock speed, were for nothing :-(

The total time from download till upload was 23 hours and 35 minutes.

I received the 20% bonus for "below 48 hours", and that was it.
http://gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=20416897

The total time from download till upload was 23 hours and 35 minutes. I received the 20% bonus for "below 48 hours", and that was it.
http://gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=20416897

Okay, no big deal, but my efforts to make to make it below 24 hours, like giving it an extra GPU glock speed, were for nothing :-(

I have downloaded a QC task on my main Linux box. It is there, waiting to run. No other task is running. Disk space is abundant.
Tullio

Zoltan wrote:

Perhaps the download of the task and/or the upload of the result took more than normal. I see a couple of stalled uploads on my hosts lately, also the project's website can't be reached sometimes on my hosts.

Hello, I have a similar problem (or rather anomaly) - my credit got quadrupled today from ~70k to ~280k. I noticed that I finished a long GPU task, but why is this one particular task worth so much? How to find out?

Edit: found it - http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=20499467


____________
I am a software developer and I know absolutely nothing about medicine. So I want to help those, who do know :)

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 1600
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1050Ti (upgrade to 1070 coming soon™)

Hello, I have a similar problem (or rather anomaly) - my credit got quadrupled today from ~70k to ~280k. I noticed that I finished a long GPU task, but why is this one particular task worth so much? How to find out?

Edit: found it - http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=20499467

For the last 79 valid WUs today I calculate:
Mean, Standard Deviation
57.12, 16.95 Credit/RT-second
60.05, 16.98 Credit/CPU-second

The standard deviation is almost 30% of the mean. Lots of variability driven by outliers both high and low, e.g. 112, 120, 26.18, 22.47

My credit per unit dropped 75% yesterday. I will see about today as I get a few units to crunch.

250% increase in run times, for a quarter of the credits. It is like pre-Turing days

:(

My credit per unit dropped 75% yesterday. I will see about today as I get a few units to crunch.

Toni stated in this thread the granted credits for the new batch of work was miscalculated and would be corrected.

I hope you also had a nice Christmas bonus, lol.

Thank you for the explanation.

Back to the grindstone it is then :-)