They are finished. We simulated more than enough and now it's time to analyse them with some collaborators. Thank you very much for crunching them :)

On the project status page, I just noticed though that the number of unsent SDOERR_BNB tasks is growing.
How come?

They are finished. We simulated more than enough and now it's time to analyse them with some collaborators. Thank you very much for crunching them :)

On the project status page, I just noticed though that the number of unsent SDOERR_BNB tasks is growing.
How come?

That would be explained in the BNBS thread.

That would be explained in the BNBS thread.

I guess you talks about this posting:

I can't get new tasks on my Linux host (with a GTX 1080), while there's a plenty of workunits in the queue.
It seems that the scheduler is lying about the number of available workunits in the long queue:

2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:10 CET | GPUGRID | Sending scheduler request: Requested by project.
2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:10 CET | GPUGRID | Requesting new tasks for CPU and NVIDIA GPU
2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:12 CET | GPUGRID | Scheduler request completed: got 0 new tasks
2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:12 CET | GPUGRID | No tasks sent
2016. dec. 22., csütörtök, 09:50:12 CET | GPUGRID | No tasks are available for Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card)

("csütörtök"= thursday)

The big difference to my current observation though is that all my hosts do in fact still download BNBS tasks. So, this time, they are not just shown on the project status page, they really exist and are available for download.

That would be explained in the BNBS thread.

I guess you talks about this posting:

No, I was talking about the precise message 45808 that my link pointed to:

In case anyone is wondering what these WUs are, we are running some extra simulations on the Barnase Barstar system (previously called BARNA: http://gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=3709#36142 ) to answer some questions of the reviewers. If the results get us through the review process this will be a major publication :)

At first view it seems that Pascal cards may benefit from this kind of job. My GTX 1080 is now utilized to 90-95% (even with WDDM) which is an amazing plus of 10% compared to other long runs.

Having said this, the total computing time is from dissapointing 7-8 hours (I run two concurrent tasks) which is slower than the 770 and 780ti below mentioned. How can this be?

---

I would love to see HCF1 protein folding and interaction simulations to help my little boy... someday.

How can this be?

Because Erich has re-activated a two year old thread relating to the original research run. The parameters for the new 'pre-publication review questions' run - more properly discussed in the new thread - are likely to have been set differently, to take advantage of the increased computing power available in 2016 compared with what we were running in 2014.

I see... looked at that way the 8 hours of the 1080 seem to be a good value. I wonder what time the "older" hi-end GPUs like a 780ti, 980 and 980ti need to finish this job. Just from the specs, the Pascal should have a major advantage over these cards, but in practice a 1080 was hardly faster. At least as far as regular long runs concerned.

---

I would love to see HCF1 protein folding and interaction simulations to help my little boy... someday.

I wonder what time the "older" hi-end GPUs like a 780ti, 980 and 980ti need to finish this job.

My 980ti's crunch these tasks in slightly above 10 hours (no WDDM).

At first view it seems that Pascal cards may benefit from this kind of job. My GTX 1080 is now utilized to 90-95% (even with WDDM) which is an amazing plus of 10% compared to other long runs.

I just started up my GTX 970 running SDOERR_BNBS-2-4-RND5876_0 under Ubuntu 16.10.
At 1.5 hours, it shows 8.8% complete, or 17 hours total.

I am not sure how the Nvidia X Server Settings compare to GPU-Z, but it shows a Graphics Clock of 1366 MHz and a GPU Utilization of about 95-96%. So I think that is the card to use for me; even the 960s are a bit slow for this series.

The GTX 970 in one my PCs needs between 17 and 18 hours for these jobs;
GPU clock is set at 1390MHz, Memory at 3505MHz (with NVIDIA Inspector), the GPU load, however, is not more than 88-89%, which may be due to the older CPU (Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3,74GHz).

I see... looked at that way the 8 hours of the 1080 seem to be a good value. I wonder what time the "older" hi-end GPUs like a 780ti, 980 and 980ti need to finish this job. Just from the specs, the Pascal should have a major advantage over these cards, but in practice a 1080 was hardly faster. At least as far as regular long runs concerned.

I run 2 at a time per card on my 980Tis and these are running 17-21 hours each so far. But the credit reward is amazing!

---

1 Corinthians 9:16 "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!"
Ephesians 6:18-20, please ;-)
http://tbc-pa.org

1060-3GB 18h 20min on Linux, with mostly 1 CPU task running. GPU ran just shy of stock with fan speed increased. Utilization was up to 98%. Would likely perform a bit better on a higher end system. Seemed a bit less susceptible to CPU usage. Did take 30% longer with 3/3 CPU tasks running, but with other WU's GPU utilization would have dropped to 60% with just 2 CPU tasks running and with 3 running it was a wast of time (10-20% GPU usage). Good credit as well. Overall these are very friendly tasks.

---

FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help