Two changes were made yesterday:

* CPU threads are limited to 4 (you should still be able to crunch multiple WUs at once, please check)
* Credits should be in line with other projects'

Let us know.

I have a 2600K processor with 6 logical cores available for the QC app.

This app_config.xml starts 3 concurrent QC apps with 2 cores each. We'll see how it goes.

<app_config>
<app>
<name>QC</name>
<max_concurrent>3</max_concurrent>
</app>
<app_version>
<app_name>QC</app_name>
<plan_class>mt</plan_class>
<avg_ncpus>2</avg_ncpus>
<cmdline>--nthreads 2</cmdline>
</app_version>
</app_config> 

It seems one task of 3 is progressing much more slowly than the other 2 so I'll reduce max concurrent tasks to 2 in the app_config.

Is there a limit to using 4 logical cores per processor?

Toni, there has been an other reason, I abstained from the QMML app on the AMD1700x computer apart from failing WUs and freezing the computer:

QMML app clogs the scheduler of BOINC and therefor blocks the other projects to download additional WUs automaticly when requiered (I do run only one instance of QMML app on this computer). So the computer ends-up to run only one instance of QMML app and a GPU app. When I ask manually for additional WUs on the other projects, then they get downloaded. So it is to run only GPUGRID on this computer or run GPUGRID only on the GPU.

* CPU threads are limited to 4 (you should still be able to crunch multiple WUs at once, please check)

This would not have been necessary as it could easily changed by app-config. And a working app_config is already circulating in the forums. This now limits power user to make there own adjustments, means let run all threads on one single QMML app WU. See problem above.

I haven't had any issue with the QC tasks running alongside my usual SETI tasks. I reduce the number of Seti cpu tasks when I run the QC task set to use 4 cores. The Seti and Einstein projects download and run tasks normally without any manual intervention.

I did have to increase my disk space for the QC task I ran this morning when GPUGrid complained it needed an additional 600 MB of space. I have a larger than normal amount of Seti work on board today to make through the scheduled outage.

Maybe the disk space needs to be increase or the resource share changed.

I have a AMD 1800X in my Ryzen cruncher.

Thanks Keith for your comments.

I do not run SETI on the CPU, I run PRIMEGRID and SETI on the GPU only.

I do run ODLK1 on the CPU, as this is the only project that does not freeze frequently my computer/CPU (once a day).

The ODLK1 tasks however do not download when I am crunching the QMML app.

The freezing might as well be that I am mildly overclocked the CPU (3770 MHz) and run the RAM at 2966 MHz (RAM is rated at 3000 MHz), but I have not had the time to investigate further.

I've gotten pretty good at tuning Ryzen for 24/7 distributed computing. I have had the 1700X since launch in March of last year.

I run the 1700X at 3.9Ghz and the memory at 3333Mhz CL14 with fast timings.

The 1800X being newer and better made runs at 3.95 Ghz and 3333Mhz CL14 fast timings.

Do you get BSOD's or black screens? BSOD's are almost invariably due to aggressive memory clocks, memory instability or IMC weakness.

Black screens, (computer appears frozen, no display or keyboard or mouse input recognized) with no error logs generated are caused by cpu lockup because of insufficient VDDCR cpu voltage for the desired cpu clocks.

Both my Ryzens run for weeks without errors. Only reason uptime is not longer is because of OS updates or whatever.

Black screens, (computer appears frozen, no display or keyboard or mouse input recognized) “with no error logs generated” are caused by cpu lockup because of insufficient VDDCR cpu voltage for the desired cpu clocks.

It is a black screen with the symptoms you describe. I would even say, I am not overclocking at all: I do have a ASUS Prime X370-Pro motherboard and in Bios Settings it asks me, if I am on Water-Cooling, which I am (Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler H60) and then it gives me 3770 MHz, that is all what I did. Similar with RAM: I just adjusted the frequency in BIOS to the Frequency of the RAM specification nothing else.

So if you might help with overclocking or with stabilizing the system at these frequencies, would be highly appreciated.

Then I will try to switch back to the QMML app.

We probably should converse via PM so as to not pollute or hijack the thread.

Wow, how did you manage to get 1200-1300 credits for your QC tasks today. What's your secret?

So far with testing, I have only been able to run QMML work units on systems with up to 4 cores.

On any of my systems with 8 or 16 cores, attempting to run multiple QMMLs, they all end prematurely with a computational error.

So far with testing, I have only been able to run QMML work units on systems with up to 4 cores.

On any of my systems with 8 or 16 cores, attempting to run multiple QMMLs, they all end prematurely with a computational error.

Probably because there are issues if two tasks start up at the same time. You'll have to limit QC tasks to 1 concurrent task at a time.

@Keith: Thanks for you PM.
@Keith: I did nothing! Toni changed the credits and my two computers have higher credits.

@NUCCpod_NAPTIMELABS_01 and mmonnin: It is correct you have to limit QMML app to only one concurrent task at a time. Then it works on my AMDs. There is circulating an app_config in the forums that works.

@klepel: Well Toni didn't change the credits for me it appears.

I just downloaded a couple more QC tasks hoping that the one I did yesterday was a fluke or carryover from the "old" tasks with the tiny credit.

Nope. Still getting very little credit for these QC tasks and not worth tying up 4 cores.

Haven't a clue why I get such little credit and others are getting 24 times more for the same cpu elapsed times.

Run time 1,854.06
CPU time 7,224.95
Validate state Valid
Credit 47.13

Haven't a clue why I get such little credit and others are getting 24 times more for the same cpu elapsed times.

Not consistently. They vary all over the place. Your values are a little low for the moment, but you need more data points to draw much of a conclusion. Mine vary a lot too (Ryzen 1700, not overclocked).
http://www.gpugrid.net/results.php?hostid=452287&offset=0&show_names=0&state=3&appid=

Note that those are with two cores per work unit, but that should not affect the credit per work unit, in a perfect world at least. And note that the longer work units often get less credit than the shorter ones, so the credit system is strange in any case.

I think the points are a little more consistent on my Intel machines, and probably a little higher than on the Ryzen machine on average, though I have not tried to calculate it yet.
i7-3770: http://www.gpugrid.net/results.php?hostid=433866&offset=0&show_names=0&state=3&appid=
i7-4790: http://www.gpugrid.net/results.php?hostid=334241&offset=0&show_names=0&state=3&appid=

However, I normally pay no attention to credits, and the Ryzen seems to run comparably fast as the Intels insofar as I can see at the moment, which is the only thing that matters to me.

Just give me one QC task that gets as much credit as yours or klebel's and I would have hope. Alas the 110 credits I got yesterday for this Task 16998146 is the most I've ever seen. My credits have ranged from 6-47 over 35 tasks so far with the one above the only outlier.

OK, so I once again crunched some more QC task. This time I reduced the core count to two to see if it made any difference. Nope. Still extremely low credit compared to everyone else that has posted in these threads.

Run time 4,362.76
CPU time 8,635.24
Validate state Valid
Credit 91.52

Run time 4,270.13
CPU time 8,440.52
Validate state Valid
Credit 90.31

Task 17003892
Task 17003905

The problem with multiple WUs starting at the same time, should be fixed (or otherwise a lot of calculation errors will be produced).

Or just set max_concurrent to 1 and avoid the issue entirely until the applications and software for the problem gets resolved.