How to write app info for the current application?

Message boards : Number crunching : How to write app info for the current application?

Author	Message
gravitonian Send message Joined: 24 May 13 Posts: 3 Credit: 20,738,042 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 53758 - Posted: 24 Feb 2020 \| 21:31:01 UTC
	My GPU is loaded at 95% or less in most wu. I would like to write an app info file (or should it be called an app config?) So that the gpu processes two wu simultaneously, but I don’t know how to do it. Maybe someone has a finished file?
	ID: 53758 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 11 Jul 09 Posts: 1620 Credit: 8,881,729,343 RAC: 19,839,558 Level Scientific publications	Message 53759 - Posted: 24 Feb 2020 \| 22:32:46 UTC - in response to Message 53758.
	My GPU is loaded at 95% or less in most wu. I would like to write an app info file (or should it be called an app config?) So that the gpu processes two wu simultaneously, but I don’t know how to do it. Maybe someone has a finished file? App_config would be easier. Details are in the User Manual
	ID: 53759 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Azmodes Send message Joined: 7 Jan 17 Posts: 34 Credit: 1,371,429,518 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 53760 - Posted: 25 Feb 2020 \| 6:28:03 UTC Last modified: 25 Feb 2020 \| 6:28:18 UTC
	Does that actually help, though? I haven't seen any obvious improvement, at least not on Windows.
	ID: 53760 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Aurum Send message Joined: 12 Jul 17 Posts: 401 Credit: 16,755,010,632 RAC: 180,567 Level Scientific publications	Message 53763 - Posted: 25 Feb 2020 \| 16:00:55 UTC - in response to Message 53758.
	Maybe someone has a finished file? <app_config> <app> <name>acemd3</name> <gpu_versions> <cpu_usage>1.0</cpu_usage> <gpu_usage>0.5</gpu_usage> </gpu_versions> </app> <app> <name>acemdlong</name> <gpu_versions> <cpu_usage>1.0</cpu_usage> <gpu_usage>0.5</gpu_usage> </gpu_versions> </app> <app> <name>acemdshort</name> <gpu_versions> <cpu_usage>1.0</cpu_usage> <gpu_usage>0.5</gpu_usage> </gpu_versions> </app> <app> <name>QC</name> <max_concurrent>8</max_concurrent> </app> <app_version> <app_name>QC</app_name> <plan_class>mt</plan_class> <avg_ncpus>4</avg_ncpus> </app_version> <app> <name>QC_beta</name> <max_concurrent>1</max_concurrent> </app> <app_version> <app_name>QC_beta</app_name> <plan_class>mt</plan_class> <avg_ncpus>4</avg_ncpus> </app_version> <project_max_concurrent>4</project_max_concurrent> </app_config>
	ID: 53763 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Toni Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 9 Dec 08 Posts: 1006 Credit: 5,068,599 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 53765 - Posted: 25 Feb 2020 \| 17:10:10 UTC - in response to Message 53763.
	I would be surprised if it resulted in higher performance.
	ID: 53765 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Aurum Send message Joined: 12 Jul 17 Posts: 401 Credit: 16,755,010,632 RAC: 180,567 Level Scientific publications	Message 53768 - Posted: 25 Feb 2020 \| 18:03:33 UTC
	My gut says at most it might increase 5% from filling small gaps. I was thinking of testing it but the problem is the RAC is a 10-day average. Therefore I need to run without changes for over 10 days to establish a baseline. Double up and then run over 10 days to see if it changed. And, hope that you didn't increase your protein length in the mean time.
	ID: 53768 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Toni Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 9 Dec 08 Posts: 1006 Credit: 5,068,599 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications	Message 53769 - Posted: 25 Feb 2020 \| 18:16:03 UTC - in response to Message 53768.
	All systems have different sizes and therefore efficiencies already.
	ID: 53769 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Aurum Send message Joined: 12 Jul 17 Posts: 401 Credit: 16,755,010,632 RAC: 180,567 Level Scientific publications	Message 53770 - Posted: 25 Feb 2020 \| 19:17:03 UTC Last modified: 25 Feb 2020 \| 19:17:49 UTC
	What's a "system" to you? You know we're all very curious what you're up to. I opened one of your files trying to double click app_config and saw a very long epitope or a very short protein. The amazing thing was it had a dozen prolines in a row. I've been trying to imagine what conformation that would have and concluded a pig tail.
	ID: 53770 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Bedrich Hajek Send message Joined: 28 Mar 09 Posts: 485 Credit: 11,121,491,466 RAC: 15,389,251 Level Scientific publications	Message 53772 - Posted: 26 Feb 2020 \| 1:02:48 UTC - in response to Message 53768.
	My gut says at most it might increase 5% from filling small gaps. I was thinking of testing it but the problem is the RAC is a 10-day average. Therefore I need to run without changes for over 10 days to establish a baseline. Double up and then run over 10 days to see if it changed. And, hope that you didn't increase your protein length in the mean time. I ran that experiment, a while back when the new app came out, and running 2 WUs at once reduced productivity. See link: http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=4989&nowrap=true#52749 You don't need 10 days to see the results. Just run 2 WUs simultaneously for a few minutes on one machine. In Boinc Manager, under task bar, highlight the tasks and click properties, and see the progress rate. Then you can suspend one of the tasks, and see the change in the progress rate, in the task still running after a few minutes. You can also compare that to your base line of running one unit at a time. It is not an exact science, especially since the unit vary in length. but it will give you a good idea of what the difference is.
	ID: 53772 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Aurum Send message Joined: 12 Jul 17 Posts: 401 Credit: 16,755,010,632 RAC: 180,567 Level Scientific publications	Message 53775 - Posted: 26 Feb 2020 \| 17:52:14 UTC
	Your test is too short. The biggest gain when running 2 WUs per GPU is the gap when a WU finishes. I think one needs to test for a few WUs.Be nice if one used the same pair of WUs. I thought of an easier way to test it. The Statistics graph in BOINC Manager. I'll run for a few days with singletons and then double up and see if the slope changes.
	ID: 53775 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Bedrich Hajek Send message Joined: 28 Mar 09 Posts: 485 Credit: 11,121,491,466 RAC: 15,389,251 Level Scientific publications	Message 53776 - Posted: 26 Feb 2020 \| 22:38:13 UTC - in response to Message 53775.
	Your test is too short. The biggest gain when running 2 WUs per GPU is the gap when a WU finishes. I think one needs to test for a few WUs.Be nice if one used the same pair of WUs. I thought of an easier way to test it. The Statistics graph in BOINC Manager. I'll run for a few days with singletons and then double up and see if the slope changes. Good, test it. Maybe results for this batch will be different than the previous batch. Let's know what you find.
	ID: 53776 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Aurum Send message Joined: 12 Jul 17 Posts: 401 Credit: 16,755,010,632 RAC: 180,567 Level Scientific publications	Message 53782 - Posted: 27 Feb 2020 \| 9:06:10 UTC Last modified: 27 Feb 2020 \| 9:06:38 UTC
	There's a problem that prevents a good test. With only 2 WUs per GPU I will constantly have several GPUs running one or none. If Toni sees fit to increase the limit to 3 WUs per GPU a test would work.
	ID: 53782 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: / Reply Quote

Post to thread

Message boards : Number crunching : How to write app info for the current application?

	About	Science	Volunteers	Performance	Forum	Join us	Donate