Actually skgiven explained the 2000 credit difference. The 2nd WU didn't quite make the new 24hr cutoff for receiving the 50% bonus. The 1st one did.

I repeat. There is nothing strange about these two workunits, one is simply longer than the other one (time/step is the same but number of timesteps is different).

gdf

They are different workunits with different number of steps. Look at the result report for a confirmation.
gdf

While the speed increased for some GPUs, it looks like the credit awarded is going down by 2000 points:

p5-IBUCH_0510_pYEEI_long_100420-1-4-RND1103_0 1382090 21 Apr 2010 2:37:48 UTC 22 Apr 2010 6:13:51 UTC
Completed and validated 49,845.25 5,175.23 7,954.42 9,943.03 Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=1381327

p43-IBUCH_0511_pYEEI_long_100420-1-4-RND4049_0 1381327 20 Apr 2010 20:47:15 UTC 21 Apr 2010 16:22:57 UTC
Completed and validated 49,555.66 5,158.56 7,954.42 11,931.63 Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=1382090

I don't think so. Time/step was nearly identical as was the total time for the WU Same computer/GPU.

It seems the v6.72 WUs have been very hard to get since yesterday. Any chance of generating some more? Thanks!

These are the User Account Preference Settings that matter most:

- Run test applications?

Run only the selected applications
- ACEMD:
- ACEMD ver 2.0:
- ACEMD beta:

- If no work for selected applications is available, accept work from other applications?


For Windows systems we presently have the following tasks:

. 6.03
. 6.72
. 6.73
. Betas

It is not clear which settings will select for the Fermi tasks (6.73), which select the 6.72 tasks and which select the 6.03 tasks.

This is what I am guessing:
. ACEMD = 6.73 (Fermi)
. ACEMD ver 2.0 = 6.03 & 6.72
. ACEMD Beta = any beta tasks (server can determine card type is Fermi or Not)

Can someone Confirm or Correct this?

Thanks,

For Windows systems we presently have the following tasks:

. 6.03
. 6.72
. 6.73
. Betas

It is not clear which settings will select for the Fermi tasks (6.73), which select the 6.72 tasks and which select the 6.03 tasks.

This is what I am guessing:
. ACEMD = 6.73 (Fermi)
. ACEMD ver 2.0 = 6.03 & 6.72
. ACEMD Beta = any beta tasks (server can determine card type is Fermi or Not)

Can someone Confirm or Correct this?

Thanks,

As of yesterday some more v6.72 WUs became available. They were pretty much nonexistent for over a week. I think they started flowing the same time as the v6.73 WUs. Wonder if the WU part is actually the same except the Fermi only gets the v6.73 app, all others get the v6.72 app. If this is correct then maybe:

. ACEMD = 6.73 for Fermi, 6.72 if Fermi not detected
. ACEMD ver 2.0 = 6.03

That's my guess anyway. I have no idea about the beta.

GDF - can you please help us out?

what version app relates to which preference and if Windows / Linux WUs availablity for each. I bet you could tell us right off the top of your head and it would only take a minute to post ... please?

---

Thanks - Steve

Acemdbeta are the beta

Acemd is from now giving only Fermi applications, it is just for testing but on a larger number that the beta.

Acemd ver 2 is our production application (6.03/6.04).

Soon we will move the latest application into the acemd ver 2.

Application termed cuda3 are given only to Fermi as cuda3 is slower on older hardware.

gdf

Acemd is from now giving only Fermi applications, it is just for testing but on a larger number that the beta.

What, no more v6.72? ARG :-(

I think 6.72 is still set to replace 6.03; as 6.72 is faster and works for non-Fermi's.

6.72 looked like the longer version of the 6.22 Betas, in the same way 6.73 is a large scale Fermi test and the 6.23 WU's are the smaller Betas.

Well, I hope so; the 6.72 tasks were faster for my CC1.3 and CC1.2 cards.

Getting runaway 6.72 TONI_HERGunb Failures:

2301778 1453161 10 May 2010 22:19:27 UTC 10 May 2010 22:21:08 UTC Error while computing 6.37 4.82 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301768 1453151 10 May 2010 22:17:49 UTC 10 May 2010 22:19:27 UTC Error while computing 7.38 4.62 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301761 1453144 10 May 2010 22:12:37 UTC 10 May 2010 22:14:16 UTC Error while computing 7.44 4.79 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301760 1453143 10 May 2010 22:16:11 UTC 10 May 2010 22:17:49 UTC Error while computing 7.38 4.99 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301755 1453138 10 May 2010 22:14:16 UTC 10 May 2010 22:16:11 UTC Error while computing 7.38 4.70 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301750 1453133 10 May 2010 22:10:50 UTC 10 May 2010 22:12:37 UTC Error while computing 6.36 4.70 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301744 1453128 10 May 2010 22:07:31 UTC 10 May 2010 22:09:09 UTC Error while computing 7.38 4.88 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301730 1453114 10 May 2010 22:05:48 UTC 10 May 2010 22:07:31 UTC Error while computing 6.41 4.77 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301712 1453098 10 May 2010 21:55:29 UTC 10 May 2010 22:05:48 UTC Error while computing 7.24 4.90 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301711 1453097 10 May 2010 22:09:09 UTC 10 May 2010 22:10:50 UTC Error while computing 7.41 4.70 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301659 1453046 10 May 2010 21:12:42 UTC 10 May 2010 21:14:38 UTC Error while computing 6.33 4.76 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301635 1453022 10 May 2010 21:02:38 UTC 10 May 2010 21:12:42 UTC Error while computing 6.19 4.79 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301623 1453010 10 May 2010 20:44:56 UTC 10 May 2010 20:46:57 UTC Error while computing 8.31 4.74 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301614 1453001 10 May 2010 20:43:06 UTC 10 May 2010 20:44:56 UTC Error while computing 6.33 4.74 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301607 1452994 10 May 2010 21:30:15 UTC 10 May 2010 21:41:00 UTC Error while computing 7.23 4.93 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301548 1452936 10 May 2010 19:46:31 UTC 10 May 2010 20:43:06 UTC Error while computing 6.18 4.68 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)

DESELECTED ACEMD and Betas for now.

Getting runaway 6.72 TONI_HERGunb Failures:

Seems v6.72 and v6.73 use the same WUs and the TONI_HERG are failing for both apps. Here's an example:

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=1453358

No problems with 6.72 with Windows-xp-pro and gtx295.

Now running 6.72 on 4 different machines!

---

Ton (ftpd) Netherlands

Getting runaway 6.72 TONI_HERGunb Failures:

Seems v6.72 and v6.73 use the same WUs and the TONI_HERG are failing for both apps. Here's an example:

Even though SK and a few others have had some trouble, the v6.72 TONI_HERG WUs are running OK here so far. Maybe it was some bad WUs at the start of the run?

I have seen runaway errors before, they are not always the result of bad WU's; more often a system issue. I just wanted to make sure my cards kept picking up work; too many failures = no tasks!
One 6.72 task did manage to complete.

Counted a total of 4 successful 6.72 tasks, and 67 failures on the one system with 4 GT240's.
Now just running 6.03 on that system.

Counted a total of 4 successful 6.72 tasks, and 67 failures on the one system with 4 GT240's.
Now just running 6.03 on that system.

You've got a problem, but it's not the project's fault. I've recently had 53 successful v6.72 tasks and 1 failure. The failure was my fault (accidentally unplugged the machine, oops). Most were run on 3 GT240 cards, the rest on a GTX260/216. I have had some bad v6.03 TONI_GAUS2 WUs though.

Maybe a problem supplying power to all those GT240 cards through the PCIe buss?

Counted a total of 4 successful 6.72 tasks, and 67 failures on the one system with 4 GT240's.
Now just running 6.03 on that system.

Try lowering shader clocks to 1580

---

Radio Caroline, the world's most famous offshore pirate radio station.
Great music since April 1964. Support Radio Caroline Team -
Radio Caroline

I might have a problem, but the system is very stable (Corsair 550W PSU and native CPU & RAM). The CPU does clock up to 3.3GHz without manually upping the voltage. The cards are OC'd but use stock voltage.
Most of the 6.03 tasks run fine. Picked up a few v6.03 TONI_GAUS failures over the last week or so, and some 6.22 failures, but not too many.
The 6.72 mostly crash after 7seconds, suggesting an app/WU issue.
Using Vista x64, so the drivers are the same as yours, 197.45.
Boinc 6.10.45

For now all the 6.03 tasks are running well, and I am averaging over 50K per day on the system, so it's hardly a disaster;

Average, 50,077.21. Total 5,267,924

Boinc 6.10.45
AuthenticAMD AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor [Family 16 Model 4 Stepping 2](4 processors)
[4] NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 (474MB) driver: 19745
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate x64 Edition, Service Pack 1, (06.00.6001.00) 14 May 2010 10:44:37 UTC

I suppose the shader clocks might be the issue with these faster WU's (the 6.72 units use more GPU so probably draw slightly more power from the board). I might try to drop the clocks as you suggest.
I did notice a similar situation with my GTX260sp216; (6.72 fail after a few seconds but 6.03 run fine). It has raised shaders too.

I might have a problem, but the system is very stable (Corsair 550W PSU and native CPU & RAM). The CPU does clock up to 3.3GHz without manually upping the voltage. The cards are OC'd but use stock voltage.

If I remember correctly that PSU has a single rail which is preferable for your use, with everything running on the rail that powers the MB. I'd suggest pulling 1 of the cards and then run some v6.72 WUs. If it works your output from v6.72 with 3 cards would probably be as high or higher than v6.03 with 4 cards. Lower power consumption too. Also maybe try cutting back the OC a bit.

I might try that over the weekend.
I did set my GTX260 clocks back to stock and tried a 6.72 task on that card but it failed immediately. I have another couple of GT240s that I can set to stock and try first - I dont want to mess too much with the quad system as there are always tasks running at different stages.

- Just checked and the +12V rating is 41A (492W) for the Corsair 550.
There is no way I am pushing that with 4 GT240s and a stock CPU.
The CPU has a 125W TDP and the GT240s are 69W TDP.
The one HDD, one DVDRW, and 2 sticks RAM wont do much damage either.

- Just measured it on a Watt metre and the whole system is only drawing 235W when crunching (CPU 90%, 4 GPUs at about 75%).