My next attempt to participate.
Q. What I found as NEW in the project?
A. New and heavy ACEMD2 tasks are at least 2 times bigger as previous tasks by the same deadline for only 5 days.
So, my GTS 250 is now too weak. Hopeless...
Bye... :-)

---

Yes, ultra-heavy tasks and computation errors after hours of processing on my GPU.
See You later (maybe)... :-)
Good luck!

You ran one task.

The GTS250 is not a great card for crunching here.

You ran one task.

Yes, of course - I ran one task and got more than 104K points for my one result. ;-)

The GTS250 is not a great card for crunching here.

I said exactly the same already in my previous reply. Few weeks ago my GPU was "great" enough - it was possible to process 2 tasks pro 1 day. But today this "welcome to project, GTS250" stage is gone.
I agree with liveonc - "this is a rich people only club".
Maybe, server status explains a lot? 1K tasks ready to send, 4K - in progress...
Not very much... :-)

Few weeks ago my GPU was "great" enough - it was possible to process 2 tasks pro 1 day. But today this "welcome to project, GTS250" stage is gone.
I agree with liveonc - "this is a rich people only club".
Maybe, server status explains a lot? 1K tasks ready to send, 4K - in progress...
Not very much... :-)

Things change... New projects are introduced, new applications built, new drivers used, new cards get supported, and new crunchers come along with their new cards to have a go.

One of my GT240's presently takes about 18h to run a TONI_KKi4 task, 19h for an IBUCH task and 15h for a KASHIF_HIVPR.
The GT240 is a more reliable card for crunching than a GTS250 and it is faster, Much Cheaper and uses less electric, so I dont go along with rich club crunchers. Further, a £50 GT240 can do more work here than an i7-980X in many CPU only projects. Yes the top end GTX200 range of card and the Fermi's are more expensive, but they also do more work. You could buy 4 GTX470's for the price of an i7-980X and get a RAC of 250K with that lot. If you want to crunch get a GPU you can afford, and dont spend a fortune on the CPU.

So we recommend a GT240 as an entry level crunching card. We do not recommend buying Compute Capable 1.1 cards to crunch here, but if you have one and it runs reasonably well by all means use it. Getting it to work well will be the difficult part, especially saying as it is 2 generations old now. If you want to spend more then there are other cards to look at.

The server status?
On this project each running tasks is generated from a previous task. When it is returned it will be used to generate the next task, and so on. Having tens of thousands of tasks would slow the research down. So the present ratio is excellent.

Not only do computation times change, so does the data volume.

I'm just finishing off idc4-IBUCH_GCY_101021-4-200-RND2150, and I see that the main uploaded result file (_4) is 35,919 KB.

That doesn't matter to me - I'm on uncapped broadband, and it can take as long as it likes - but some people on expensive data tariffs might like to be warned in advance of changes like this.

I would agree that a bit more info might have been posted when the team announced these new tasks, but I know the team are presently very busy. Perhaps a list of running apps with upload & download requirements would be useful on the site. A list of some tasks is on the site but it is out of date and does not contain any info on task size. I'm sure regularly updating the web pages is low priority at the minute, so if people PM me their observed task upload & download sizes I can maintain a list in the Forum.

While these IBUCH tasks do not utilize the GPU very well and do use a lot of bandwidth, even more than most other tasks, the system requirements are similar to other GPUGrid tasks, and within the size of the longer WU's. GPUGrid task upload sizes generally vary between about 20MB and 60MB. So there is some change but all GPUGrid tasks are heavy when it comes to bandwidth. Fortunately no bandwidth requirement restrictions are applied here, so many users can crunch. For those only uploading one or two tasks a day there is not too much to worry about, at least compared to some CPU projects; you could easily be uploading 40MB every 6h per core/thread attached to some projects. That's about 1.3GB daily on one i7-920.

Since the average WU time has increased greatly (close to double) I think the time allowed for the bonuses should be increased too. With a 4 hour queue a GT 240 can barely make the bonus deadline and the older cards are out of luck. Who thinks a bonus deadline increase is in order?

We can do smaller workunits, but then the deadline must be smaller too to keep the same pace, so it would not be of much help.

There is a lot of space to improve things though. Shorter workunits have several advantages and we are trying to figure out how to use them in a useful way.

gdf

We can do smaller workunits, but then the deadline must be smaller too to keep the same pace, so it would not be of much help.

It's not like we're going to slow down so the pace should be the same. It's just that the longer WUs are pushing a lot of cards past the 1 day bonus limit. The average WU has gotten a LOT longer while the bonus time has not. How's that fair? The real effect is that as cards stop getting the bonuses people pull them off, so a net project slowdown. For instance, I used to run a number of 9600GSO and 8800GT (96 - 112 shader) cards here but pulled them a while ago. Now the GT 240 cards are starting to approach that point.