Looks like this ACEMD beta 6.05 workunit has a severe underestimate of how much CPU time it uses:

1/30/2010 5:28:36 AM GPUGRID Starting L25-TONI_TEST2901-0-10-RND7574_3
1/30/2010 5:28:36 AM GPUGRID Starting task L25-TONI_TEST2901-0-10-RND7574_3 using acemdbeta version 605

It claims to be using 0.18 CPUs + 1.00 NVIDIA GPUs, but it's actually making full use of the CPU core.

Suspending the workunit, then resuming, does not help.

BOINC 6.10.18
64-bit Windows Vista SP2

Processor: 4 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9650 @ 3.00GHz [Intel64 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10]

NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce 9800 GT (driver version 19038, CUDA version 2030, compute capability 1.1, 1024MB, 336 GFLOPS peak)

I have just uploaded acemdbeta6.06 that should use less CPU as before.
It would be interesting to see how much slower it is.
If it is a lot slower what if we also credit for the usage of the CPU? In such case, we would ask for 1 CPU and 1 GPU of course.

Let me know if there are problems, as I cannot test it from home.

gdf

L36_TONI_TEST2901-1-10-RND9113_0

Been running for 4hrs 55 mins. The last 50 mins the counter has been at zero.

Abort or keep it going ?

Its on a 9800GTX

Regards
Zy

The earlier Beta, L45-TONI_TEST2901-0-10-RND5880_0 completed as expected in 11h 34m.

Downloaded several new Beta tasks including,
L49-TONI_TEST2901-1-10-RND8544_0 (GT 240)
B5-TONI_TEST2901-3-5-RND7970_0 (GTX 260 sp216)
1796887...

Some have already been reported back:

1796949 1130301 30 Jan 2010 20:11:34 UTC 30 Jan 2010 20:28:19 UTC Completed and validated 176.94 34.37 36.03 48.64

Looks like the CPU time may have been sorted!



Thanks,

The shorter tasks are all reported.

Now running 3 longer tasks.

Each TEST Tasks using less than 10% CPU of a quad core - so under 40% of one Quad's core.

Please note that no tasks show a rise in % complete, as reported by Zydor.

I will allow them to run, unless advised otherwise.

............ If it is a lot slower what if we also credit for the usage of the CPU? In such case, we would ask for 1 CPU and 1 GPU of course.

That could get expensive in pure credit terms, and therefore go headlong into a lot of controversy. For that to work, the cpu element would need to compensate for the loss of one core at the highest rate given by Projects for cpu. Arguably thats Aqua, and currently their high end app on my phenom2 runs for 32 hrs at 32,000 credits - an i7 does it in around a quarter of that time.

The problem comes when lower rated machine run GPUGRID capable cards. A fixed rate would bring a howl of protest as the lower capacity machine gets the higher rate for cpu. I've used extremes to illustrate the issue. As Aqua found out to its cost a few months ago, its a foolish person who ignores this kind of credit issue. Whatever anyone thinks of credits and the reality that they are worthless, the S%$T storm a high fixed rate will cause is going to slam the Project into the deck.

Therefore to get out of that one, the cpu element would need to be calculated using the classic BOINC sliding scale and the whole crazy world of cobblestones, benchmarks and built in elements to the app to make it work.

You take the view that going for a mid level fixed cpu rate would be "fair", you will just get it in the neck both ways "Low end machines get too much" or "high end machines dont get enough". Yup its a silly nightmare, but it will happen, dont even dream you'll avoid it, because you will not. The only way round it all is the classic sliding scale based on the "power" of the machine.

However do the latter, and GPU based Projects will scream blue murder that a GPU Project is giving out far too many credits.......

Theanswer? I have no idea, it will depend how much Flak you are prepared to take ....

Turn left your dead, turn right your dead, go straight ahead your probably dead .... :)

Aint BOINC fun :)

Regards
Zy

I have just uploaded acemdbeta6.06 that should use less CPU as before.
It would be interesting to see how much slower it is.
If it is a lot slower what if we also credit for the usage of the CPU? In such case, we would ask for 1 CPU and 1 GPU of course.

Let me know if there are problems, as I cannot test it from home.

gdf

Thanls gdf and others for what you're doing.
Here is my POV
Usually, a lot of people really like using their GPU on one specific project and their CPU on another. (I do).
I don't really like seeing 100% of CPU usage for feeding a GPU.
Well if it is really slower and then don't really have the choice, then I will accept that. However, crediting CPU usage is a fair way but I dislike this way as 1k/d is almost nothing on this project but so much on others. Usually when a project has a GPU app, I'm stopping my CPUs on these projects and put them in others.

Anyway I cannot compare that as I didn't receive any beta WU on my gentoobox (GTX275)

EDIT :
By the way, with this new app, I guess task are running faster and we will get the same amount of point, then I deduce we will have a higher RAC ? right ?
I'm not sure rather it is the good topic or not, but even if I have to admit I'm crunching with GPU, a bit for the points (Not solely otherwise I would have been on Collatz now, which I did anyway, but I guess I won't), I'm not sure if it is really correct to do so...
It will be very easy for a new project to play with the credit to attract ppl with an easy method : Release first a "crappy" GPU app, get a fair credit/WU and then improve this new app and them increase the global RAC. (if the new app is 10 times faster than the first one...then 10 times more credits...well..this is not good for BOINC I think). I really don't mean you are doing that ! (Not at all !!) so in fact because I know that, I prefer explain here this opinion. May be GPUGrid can once again lead the way xD.
A fair credit system will be not to increase (in my example) 10 times the credit, but far less, just to continue to be consistent.

My long Beta tasks stayed at Zero % for a while, but one is now at 9%, the other 2 are still at Zero and.

O/T
You are going off topic, but good argument Zydor and well said.
Frankly I agree. However, and for the sake of playing devil’s advocate, I will try to pose a counter argument:
The contribution of a CPU compared to a GPU is insignificant. So it does not really matter how much CPU time is spent or what the power of the CPU is. The CPU performance in the very top multi socket systems is not even as powerful as a GT9800, hence the GPUGrid’s CPU project was suspended until significant improvements can be made on the computational power of CPU’s.
If a CPU is used to facilitate a 60% increase in performance of a GPU it is well worth the sacrifice even without any CPU points.

Anyone done a L36_TONI_TEST2901 app? Mine been running for 7hrs 36mins countdown clock not working, showing 0% for ages - have a feeling its a bust but dont want to sell it short if in fact its likely to run through.

Its running on a 9800GTX

EDIT
Must be a bust - aborted at 8hrs 15mins

Regards
Zy

Just started L42-TONI_TEST2901-3-10-RND1170_0 acemdbeta version 606 on a 9800GTX, it'll run overnight

CPU utilisation is reported as "2" in Task manager - which is fine, so looks like that problem goes away. Too early to say about likely total completion time.

Countdown percentage clock not working

Regards
Zy

All my Beta tests show 0% until they're finished. I'm going through my 4th & 5th ones if I'm not mistaken.

---

If a CPU is used to facilitate a 60% increase in performance of a GPU it is well worth the sacrifice even without any CPU points.

That is quite logical. But some people will value their cpu projects much higher than GPU-Grid and are thus not fine with that sacrifice.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Just had a 6.05 WU that refused to start. Instead the machine downloaded a new WU and left the 6.05 WU sitting "ready to start". I aborted it and it was immediately sent back out as a 6.06 WU. Hopefully 6.06 is better. IMO the old app (6.71) was far preferable to 6.05. The CPU usage really needs to be improved before this gets released. Think what will happen when the beta in it's current form hits a single core machine.

That is quite logical. But some people will value their cpu projects much higher than GPU-Grid and are thus not fine with that sacrifice.

MrS

I agree ETA. The high CPU usage is a show stopper IMO.

Let me get this right ... a GIANNI_BIND use to take 8 hours on my GPU and I get 6118 points ... times 3 per day and I get 18354. Now if I throw in a CPU I can run the same WU in 4.8 hours. So that means I can do 5 WUs per day for 30590 points and you guys are bi^&chin about using 1 CPU core to get the additional 12236???
>10000 is too many points for a CPU per day as it is.
While this conversation is important and we need GPUGrid to be clear on what they are doing and how they are determining how many points a WU is worth, unless they are way off the mark then the ony people who are going to leave because they don't think they are getting enough are the point whores ... yes, I said it! And they will leave anyway when it comes time to hop on a project that has crazy points simply to get attention, not because they have a great piece of science or optimized software.
GDF and team ... from my perspective, I really only care that my system remain in some reasonable state of usefulness while running your WUs. If it take 1 GPU + 1 CPU that's OK by me but I think you should use the CPU as a set resource (like Einstein does) instead of stealing cycles from other processes.

---

Thanks - Steve

Wow, I'm on almost 20 hours with L6-TONI_TEST2901-1-10-RND2222_0 & 18 hours with L13-TONI_TEST2901-1-10-RND4450_1

It's as if it went dormate, b4 BoincTasks activated it.

Is someone being funny?

---

Mixed results with 6.06. Had two long units complete with the 60% improvement in performance and even less cpu utilisation than a 6.71 unit. Both were awarded 6000 or so points.
However, another 6.06 long unit L37 is performing poorly, as the poster LIVEONC above states. Temperature was as to be expected but it was going to take 21hrs to complete, so I aborted it after 4hrs.
The successful ones were on 260's while the slow one was on a 275, though I doubt that is relevant.

There were 2 sets of Betas released containing short Betas and long Betas. The short Betas lasted about 5 minutes. CPU time usage was fixed for the second release of the long Betas going by the posts.

My long Betas lasted many hours,

37,082.82s on a GTS 250 (10 ½h) CC1.1
29,239.43s on a GTX 260 216sp (8 ½h) CC1.3
45,470.80 on a GT 240 (12 ½h) CC1.2
41,658.85 on a GT 240 (11 ½h) CC1.2

Each of my systems run CPU tasks for other Boinc projects, which slows down the GPUGrid tasks somewhat. I have one tasks still running on a 8800 GTS 512 (CC1.1), and still showing 0% complete, but the system was off overnight and I would not expect it to complete under 12h. Anyone with a GT9800 or GT8800 should expect these Betas to last longer than 12h! The estimated times to completion were higher than observed finish times for each of my tasks. For the tasks that did report a % complete, I could accurately work out how long the tasks would actually taks.

Hi
If you want to run CPU projects then run them.
If you want to run GPU projects then run them.
If runing GPU efficiently involves using 100% CPU then do it.
The projects come first and the points are a separate issue.

The application with low cpu usage works well, so no problem.

gdf