Hey all. The next weeks I will be sending out some simulations starting with the CASP name. It will consist of a total of 3600 simulations running at any time (meaning that once some of them complete, new ones are sent to reach again 3600) probably for a month or so.
It will probably be my most thorough and organized method test so far so it should be fun :D

The simulations have their length written in their name (1ns, 5ns, 20ns and 50ns). Some will end up in the short queue and some in the long queue. Longest simulation time I measured on a 780 was 8 hours for one of the proteins at 50ns and shortest at 0.1 hour.

Right now I sent out the first protein called NTL9 to test if everything works as expected (so no 3600 simulations yet) but the next week I will probably send out another 4 proteins. So there should be lots to crunch in the coming days :)

Thank you very much, Stefan!

I'll be more than happy to assist with the short ones! I'm looking forward to trying them out!

---

Cruncher/Learner in progress.

From my experience these workunits tolerate less overclocking.
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15343984
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15343983
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15343948

The simulations have their length written in their name (1ns, 5ns, 20ns and 50ns). Some will end up in the short queue and some in the long queue. Longest simulation time I measured on a 780 was 8 hours for one of the proteins at 50ns and shortest at 0.1 hour.

Right now I sent out the first protein called NTL9 to test if everything works as expected (so no 3600 simulations yet) but the next week I will probably send out another 4 proteins. So there should be lots to crunch in the coming days :)

Just had 3 run through my GTX 670 (Win7-64):

Two 1ns took about 7 minutes each.
The 50ns took just over 6 hours.

All 3 WUs ran fine.

I got 2 of these tasks, both completed successfully:

15344547 30790 14 Oct 2016 | 0:26:27 UTC 14 Oct 2016 | 1:34:35 UTC Completed and validated 214.88 207.75 600.00 Short runs (2-3 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65)

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=11766563

15341790 263612 13 Oct 2016 | 14:55:46 UTC 13 Oct 2016 | 21:49:50 UTC Completed and validated 11,318.60 11,237.88 63,750.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65)

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=11765049

Even the long runs seemed short. It seems to me that all the tasks have been getting shorter and shorter, recently.

https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15344597

https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15344565

https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15344564

https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15343964

^ These are all of the short runs I did so far. Hopefully the results can help a few people or the scientists. I have ran these just fine on my GTX 960 with windows XP and it worked amazing!

---

Cruncher/Learner in progress.

@Bedrich The experiment I'm doing dictates the length of the simulations. If I make them longer I won't be able to prove my point. So unfortunately I can't make them longer.

@Bedrich The experiment I'm doing dictates the length of the simulations. If I make them longer I won't be able to prove my point. So unfortunately I can't make them longer.

Hi Stefan, I don't think Bedrich was complaining. Personally very happy that WUs have returned to a more manageable size. Everything's running smoother and I thank you guys for that. BTW, the 1ns WUs are taking about 9-10 minutes on a 750Ti and the 5ns WUs average about 47 minutes on a 750Ti (Win7-64). Looks like the 20ns are running about 3 hours and the 50ns about 8.5 hours on the same GPUs.

Edit: made a quick list since someone asked on the other thread. SDOERR_CASP times:
GTX 670: 1ns about 7 minutes, 5ns about 35 minutes, 20ns about 2.5 hours, 50 ns about 6 hours.
GTX 750Ti: 1ns about 9.5 minutes, 5ns about 47 minutes, 20ns about 3 hours, 50ns about 8.5 hours.

10.5 mins
1ns
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15348016

7 mins
1ns
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15348045

7 mins
1ns
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15348088

24.4 mins
5ns
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15345748

01:35:00
20ns
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15346512

25 mins
5ns
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15346067

24.8 mins
5ns
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15345539

01:40:00
20ns
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15344861

07:33:00
50ns
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15342889

This one here ran and errored out about 6 hours ago. It was a 50ns one. It says the runtime was about 30.5 minutes, but from the time it was sent to the time it reported back was almost 2 hours. It must have gotten lost in transmission to and/or from me to the server for the other hour and a half. (And obviously, the second user [10esseeTony] failed without running because the card is a 1070 with an expected 100% error rate since Oct 3.)
https://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=11768069

This 20ns WU is currently running at 6.5% after 13:47 minutes.
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15348080

This 50ns WU is currently running at 32.7% after 02:02:50.
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15347994

This 50ns WU is currently running at 56% after 02:17:50.
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15347985

These are on GTX 980TI Classified cards running 2 WUs per card adding 18% usage to each card for their runs along side long runs on the same card.

---

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

@Bedrich The experiment I'm doing dictates the length of the simulations. If I make them longer I won't be able to prove my point. So unfortunately I can't make them longer.

Hi Stefan, I don't think Bedrich was complaining. Personally very happy that WUs have returned to a more manageable size. Everything's running smoother and I thank you guys for that. BTW, the 1ns WUs are taking about 9-10 minutes on a 750Ti and the 5ns WUs average about 47 minutes on a 750Ti (Win7-64). Looks like the 20ns are running about 3 hours and the 50ns about 8.5 hours on the same GPUs.

Edit: made a quick list since someone asked on the other thread. SDOERR_CASP times:
GTX 670: 1ns about 7 minutes, 5ns about 35 minutes, 20ns about 2.5 hours, 50 ns about 6 hours.
GTX 750Ti: 1ns about 9.5 minutes, 5ns about 47 minutes, 20ns about 3 hours, 50ns about 8.5 hours.

For the record, I was merely stating my observation and opinion, not complaining nor intending to be derogatory.

And here is some more: I was able to finish the 50ns task in under 3 hours, so that would technically make it a short run, not a long run:

15345412 30790 14 Oct 2016 | 6:05:02 UTC 14 Oct 2016 | 13:46:26 UTC Completed and validated 9,970.77 9,892.05 63,750.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65)

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=11767231

Also, the GPU usage on windows 10 computer was 72% and power usage was 59%, which are low. On the windows xp machine, the GPU usage was 87% and power usage was 65%, which are also a little low.

For the record, I was merely stating my observation and opinion, not complaining nor intending to be derogatory.

Oh, come on be derogatory, this forum could do with it.

For the record, I was merely stating my observation and opinion, not complaining nor intending to be derogatory.

Oh, come on be derogatory, this forum could do with it.

You can take the lead on derogatory, I'll just be sarcastic.

01:30:00
5ns
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15349944

On a Quadro K2100M laptop video card.

I had 2 tasks (labeled as a long runs) each completed in a little over 1 hour:

15364004 30790 18 Oct 2016 | 20:16:24 UTC 18 Oct 2016 | 22:24:38 UTC Completed and validated 3,955.64 3,920.84 25,500.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65)

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=11781198

15360119 30790 18 Oct 2016 | 9:23:49 UTC 18 Oct 2016 | 11:54:12 UTC Completed and validated 3,956.91 3,925.63 25,500.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65)

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=11778232


I also had short runs finish in a little over 3 minutes.

Maybe, it's time to redefine short and longs runs.

Short runs would take under 3 hours to complete on the fastest cards.
Long runs would take 3 to 12 hours to complete on the fastest cards.
We could add another category for runs over 12 hours on the fastest cards.

That is what has been basically happening, recently, for the most part.

And please put the tasks in the correctly category!

I had 2 tasks (labeled as a long runs) each completed in a little over 1 hour:

15364004 30790 18 Oct 2016 | 20:16:24 UTC 18 Oct 2016 | 22:24:38 UTC Completed and validated 3,955.64 3,920.84 25,500.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65)

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=11781198

15360119 30790 18 Oct 2016 | 9:23:49 UTC 18 Oct 2016 | 11:54:12 UTC Completed and validated 3,956.91 3,925.63 25,500.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65)

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=11778232


I also had short runs finish in a little over 3 minutes.

Maybe, it's time to redefine short and longs runs.

Short runs would take under 3 hours to complete on the fastest cards.
Long runs would take 3 to 12 hours to complete on the fastest cards.
We could add another category for runs over 12 hours on the fastest cards.

That is what has been basically happening, recently, for the most part.

And please put the tasks in the correctly category!

Stefan already answered you why "@Bedrich The experiment I'm doing dictates the length of the simulations. If I make them longer I won't be able to prove my point. So unfortunately I can't make them longer."

CASP WU on (2) GTX 970 at 1.5GHz are 2.5~2.7x slower with PCIe 2.0 x1 compared to PCIe 3.0 x4.
WU's require PCIe 3.0 x8 for proper OC scaling.

1ns: 900/sec vs. 350/sec
5ns: 4770/sec vs. 1761/sec

PCIe 2.0 x1: 46% GPU / 7% MCU / 80% BUS usage / 75W GPU power
PCIe 3.0 x4: 57% GPU / 12% MCU / 40% BUS / 107W

CASP WU on (2) GTX 970 at 1.5GHz are 2.5~2.7x slower with PCIe 2.0 x1 compared to PCIe 3.0 x4.
WU's require PCIe 3.0 x8 for proper OC scaling.

Or PCIe 2.0 x16...

I had 2 tasks (labeled as a long runs) each completed in a little over 1 hour:

15364004 30790 18 Oct 2016 | 20:16:24 UTC 18 Oct 2016 | 22:24:38 UTC Completed and validated 3,955.64 3,920.84 25,500.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65)

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=11781198

15360119 30790 18 Oct 2016 | 9:23:49 UTC 18 Oct 2016 | 11:54:12 UTC Completed and validated 3,956.91 3,925.63 25,500.00 Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.48 (cuda65)

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=11778232


I also had short runs finish in a little over 3 minutes.

Maybe, it's time to redefine short and longs runs.

Short runs would take under 3 hours to complete on the fastest cards.
Long runs would take 3 to 12 hours to complete on the fastest cards.
We could add another category for runs over 12 hours on the fastest cards.

That is what has been basically happening, recently, for the most part.

And please put the tasks in the correctly category!

Stefan already answered you why "@Bedrich The experiment I'm doing dictates the length of the simulations. If I make them longer I won't be able to prove my point. So unfortunately I can't make them longer."

My post was not about the length of the tasks. It was about classifying the tasks correctly, and updating the definition of each category.

Please read the post more carefully next time.

I notice with the CASP units I have around 80% GPU usage using windows XP and a gtx 960. I see that other's are having lower gpu usage as well. Will the casp units always use this low of a gpu usage?

I'm not complaining by the way I'm just curious. Thanks.

---

Cruncher/Learner in progress.

I notice with the CASP units I have around 80% GPU usage using windows XP and a gtx 960. I see that other's are having lower gpu usage as well. Will the casp units always use this low of a gpu usage?

Most probably they will. I think it's because the models these units are simulating have "only" 11340 atoms, while others have 2-5 times of this. The smaller the model is, the more frequent the CPU has to do the DP part of the simulation, resulting in lower GPU usage. (However there were high atom count batches with low GPU usage in the past, so a larger model could also need relatively high CPU-GPU interaction.)