BOINC provides the capabilities/procedures to run a BOINC application in a test environment outside of the normal download/upload process. The licensing problem has nothing to do with BOINC, otherwise other projects would be failing right and left...

This particular issue everyone is having is 100% reproducible on Windows. I am probably providing what you already have, but see...

https://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/AppDebug

---

Just out of interest, my question is: what slows up GPUGRID crunching more: the Windows WDDM or the missing Swan_sync with Linux?

I will offer my 2 cents. There is a much bigger gain getting rid of WDDM and going to Linux. I have used Swan_sync with Windows only, but I would be surprised if you see much gain using Swan_sync with Linux, even if you can figure out how to do it.

I will be a patient donator, and my systems will gladly do work when the admins have had enough time to fix the problems. Some of you guys get upset too easily, and your knee-jerk reactions are a bit rude.

Well their data still needs to be processed at the end of the day, and if we wait around and don't adapt to the situation the simulations will still be sitting there waiting to be processed and we will be that much further away from a cure.

I will be switching all of my crunching systems to Linux as I don't see this will be fixed anytime soon.

+1
I've swapped my GTX 1080 Ti from my main rig and installed Linux to my 3 online hosts on the last weekend.
I wanted to do it anyway to get rid of WDDM.
I'd like to have SWAN_SYNC in the Linux app too.

SWAN_SYNC is not needed. I have never had to adjust priority of CPU apps or reserve a CPU thread for GPU projects in Linux. GPU apps just take what is needed and the CPUs apps get what is left.

GPU utilization is just higher in Linux w/o any settings and CPU util is around 15-20% for GPUGrid.

I am currently running FAH on a GPU and 4 BOINC CPU tasks on one PC. Another PC is running GPUGrid and 16 CPU tasks.

I've swapped my GTX 1080 Ti from my main rig and installed Linux to my 3 online hosts on the last weekend.
I wanted to do it anyway to get rid of WDDM.
I'd like to have SWAN_SYNC in the Linux app too.

SWAN_SYNC is not needed. I have never had to adjust priority of CPU apps or reserve a CPU thread for GPU projects in Linux. GPU apps just take what is needed and the CPUs apps get what is left.

Well, the stats pages do not support your argument.
1. Before the Windows app broke down, I was the #1 on the "Performance" tab in the "Top average performers (last week Long Runs)" with my three Windows 10 + SWAN_SYNC ON + GTX 1080 Ti hosts (my GPUs are factory overclocked, but I don't use fancy water cooling)
2. Check the following batches on the Performance page the "Top performers per batch":
PABLO_IDP_P01106_2_ASNP21P_ID
PABLO_IDP_P01106_2_ASNP3P_ID
PABLO_IDP_P01106_4_LEUP14P_ID

You'll find that my GTX 980 Ti beats, or gets very close to GTX 1080 Tis, and GTX TITAN X (Pascal) GPUs running under Linux.
That's because it was running under Windows XP (without WDDM) and with SWAN_SYNC ON.

GPU utilization is just higher in Linux w/o any settings and CPU util is around 15-20% for GPUGrid.

True, but it could be even higher with SWAN_SYNC ON.

I am currently running FAH on a GPU and 4 BOINC CPU tasks on one PC. Another PC is running GPUGrid and 16 CPU tasks.

Well, that's irrelevant for me, as I don't run CPU tasks at all, as I want to optimize my PC for GPUGrid.

All in all: I'd like to have the option under Linux to assign a full CPU thread / core to my GPUGrid tasks with SWAN_SYNC on, as it will make tasks crunch faster on Linux too.

I've swapped my GTX 1080 Ti from my main rig and installed Linux to my 3 online hosts on the last weekend.
I wanted to do it anyway to get rid of WDDM.
I'd like to have SWAN_SYNC in the Linux app too.

SWAN_SYNC is not needed. I have never had to adjust priority of CPU apps or reserve a CPU thread for GPU projects in Linux. GPU apps just take what is needed and the CPUs apps get what is left.

Well, the stats pages do not support your argument.
1. Before the Windows app broke down, I was the #1 on the "Performance" tab in the "Top average performers (last week Long Runs)" with my three Windows 10 + SWAN_SYNC ON + GTX 1080 Ti hosts (my GPUs are factory overclocked, but I don't use fancy water cooling)
2. Check the following batches on the Performance page the "Top performers per batch":
PABLO_IDP_P01106_2_ASNP21P_ID
PABLO_IDP_P01106_2_ASNP3P_ID
PABLO_IDP_P01106_4_LEUP14P_ID

You'll find that my GTX 980 Ti beats, or gets very close to GTX 1080 Tis, and GTX TITAN X (Pascal) GPUs running under Linux.
That's because it was running under Windows XP (without WDDM) and with SWAN_SYNC ON.

GPU utilization is just higher in Linux w/o any settings and CPU util is around 15-20% for GPUGrid.

True, but it could be even higher with SWAN_SYNC ON.

I am currently running FAH on a GPU and 4 BOINC CPU tasks on one PC. Another PC is running GPUGrid and 16 CPU tasks.

Well, that's irrelevant for me, as I don't run CPU tasks at all, as I want to optimize my PC for GPUGrid.

All in all: I'd like to have the option under Linux to assign a full CPU thread / core to my GPUGrid tasks with SWAN_SYNC on, as it will make tasks crunch faster on Linux too.

I never once mentioned overall performance and was not referencing anything about performance but GPU utilization.

You failed to see that even with many things running in different situations that the GPU is fully utilized in Linux w/o wasting a CPU thread.

You failed to see that even with many things running in different situations that the GPU is fully utilized in Linux w/o wasting a CPU thread.

You failed to see that a GTX 1080 Ti can't be fully utilized under Linux if a fully utilized GTX 980 Ti (previous generation) can achieve 98.66% of its performance.
I see that you and I use or computers in a different manner:
I do not consider feeding a GPU with a full CPU thread as waste, because I know that otherwise I'm wasting 5-15% performance of my GPUs. The lack of SWAN_SYNC in the Linux client forces me to waste that much GPU performance. I want to have this choice, while you don't. Therefore you don't need SWAN_SYNC, while I (and many others) do. So there's no point for us to go on with this argument.
Also, this argument is off topic here. This is my last post in this thread about this topic.

The GPU is clocked up to its maximum clock frequency when computing, let's say 1999mhz for Pascal. It takes upwards of 1.0620 volts to maintain this frequency. If you aren't feeding this frequency with data at an acceptable rate, you are technically wasting power because most of the cycles are going to waste. The GPU only draws slightly more current when loading the GPU at the same voltage, thus making the whole process more efficient.

I too, would like SWAN_SYNC on Linux as an OPTION so we can choose whether or not we can use it. But if this means development work for the researchers then I definitely think fixing the GPU windows app is the main priority and making a windows CPU app comes before this new option.

Is our crunching work directly used for a cure / medicine, or is it just published as theoretically simulated / calculated results?

Toni said (23 Jul 2018 | 8:40:32 UTC):

As far as I know a new app was uploaded but still not working. Licensing is not related to BOINC.

The problem with BOINC is that it runs the apps in an almost opaque environment, so when things go wrong there is no useful indication on the direction to take to a speedy fix.

James C. Owens said (23 Jul 2018 | 19:29:45 UTC):

BOINC provides the capabilities/procedures to run a BOINC application in a test environment outside of the normal download/upload process. The licensing problem has nothing to do with BOINC, otherwise other projects would be failing right and left...

This particular issue everyone is having is 100% reproducible on Windows. I am probably providing what you already have, but see...

https://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/AppDebug

Exactly!

I've been told that BOINC provides tons of tools for figuring where and why failures happen. And that link seems very useful.
https://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/AppDebug

Also, if the admins are looking for help in ways to solve problems or improve BOINC, they might post to the boinc_projects email list:
https://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/EmailLists

Regards,
Jacob

Is our crunching work directly used for a cure / medicine, or is it just published as theoretically simulated / calculated results?

Keep in mind, both are useful. Other researchers can use simulated protein folding to calculate what to do for their drug.

Is our crunching work directly used for a cure / medicine, or is it just published as theoretically simulated / calculated results?

The short answer is no to the first part and yes to the second.

One of its purposes is as a teaching tool for PHD students. If they discovered a method or an insight that was commercially valuable and helped the biomedical industry they would patent it and sell or license it.

In the meantime they produce scientific papers with methods or insights that gets the student their PHD or not.

The best you can hope for as far as a cure is concerned is that the simulations may point the way for someone else to explore or that one of their successful PHD students goes on in later years to make a difference such as finding a real cure for cancer or other major disease.

But really, they are never going to run anything seriously groundbreaking on your computer

---

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

The short answer is no to the first part and yes to the second.

Well, my answer to the first part would be a little more optimistic, say "not...yet", as it is all about computing power. Imagine, modern high end GPUs are now as powerful as super-computers back in the year 2000. Still too slow to handle big proteins, but there is some progress. The upcoming Turing Generation seems to be again 20-40% faster than its predecessor Pascal and this will continue until tunnel effects obstruct further shrinks. Having said this, there are some new technologies in development to reduce that effects. And of course Quantum Computers will be in the ascendant in a couple of years, as big companies like IBM, Microsoft or Google put a lot of capital in it (but for reasons other than drug science).

Lets keep on crunching and see where this road goes to. One is for sure, computers science and medicine will be entirely different in 10 years from now.

---

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

As I wrote, there is some progress...
https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031022

---

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

It appears to use a 4 qubits quantum computer, probably provided by Google since one of the authors is a Goggle person.
Tullio

Eh, I would not go as far as to say it's mostly a tool for PhD students as BettingSlip mentioned (although I'm sure he didn't mean it in a negative way). The theoretical research being published is used to progress science and the specific field, it's not like this work ends up as fluff for a PhD thesis.

Simulations we have done have provided interesting insights in disordered proteins, protein-protein associations and more which can be used by the industry as BettingSlip mentioned.

Currently we are also trying to get more into drug design in our lab so you might see interesting more direct applications in the next few years.

But yes, the connection between theoretical and direct application is often hard to see or appreciate, which is what leads to lack of funding for basic research which is arguably inefficient in the long term.

Eh, I would not go as far as to say it's mostly a tool for PhD students as BettingSlip mentioned (although I'm sure he didn't mean it in a negative way). The theoretical research being published is used to progress science and the specific field, it's not like this work ends up as fluff for a PhD thesis.

Simulations we have done have provided interesting insights in disordered proteins, protein-protein associations and more which can be used by the industry as BettingSlip mentioned.

Currently we are also trying to get more into drug design in our lab so you might see interesting more direct applications in the next few years.

But yes, the connection between theoretical and direct application is often hard to see or appreciate, which is what leads to lack of funding for basic research which is arguably inefficient in the long term.

Good clarification - then it's just the way I already assumed it to be.

In the realm of non-profit research, it is entirely collaborative. Even if what someone is researching doesn't seem like it would make a difference, what they discovered could be the holy grail for another researcher team. You see this time and time again throughout our scientific history.

Question related to the thread-title:

any idea when an app for Windows will be available?
Further, will there be a version for XP as well?

Question related to the thread-title:

any idea when an app for Windows will be available?
Further, will there be a version for XP as well?

I know you're not directing your question at me but as far as XP is concerned read this post https://gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=4552&nowrap=true#46982

---

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

In the realm of non-profit research, it is entirely collaborative. Even if what someone is researching doesn't seem like it would make a difference, what they discovered could be the holy grail for another researcher team. You see this time and time again throughout our scientific history.

I am electrical engineer and software developer myself, so I'm aware of how development processes take place in general. Also I know, that our work is / can be helpful, otherwise I would not be here, of course - but this did not answer my question / is nothing new to me. But then finally Stefan answered my question perfectly. I would like to see direct drug design in the future :)