Steve replied:

yes this make sense unfortunately. In the previous round of "inputs_v3**" it was calculating things incorrectly for any molecule containing Iodine. This is heaviest element in our dataset. The computational cost of this QM method scales with the size of the elements (it depends on the number of electrons). We are resending the incorrect calculations for Iodine containing molecules in this round of "v4" work units. Therefore the v4 set is a subset of the previous v3 WUs containing heavier elements, hence there are more OOM errors.

Any change in this situation?

I got my 12GB card back and my haphazard data collection seems to have it under a 9% error rate and with the very last grab showing 5.85%.

The 8GB & 10GB cards are still on NNW (other than 3 WUs i let thru on 10GB cards. They completed).

Skip

Steve replied:

yes this make sense unfortunately. In the previous round of "inputs_v3**" it was calculating things incorrectly for any molecule containing Iodine. This is heaviest element in our dataset. The computational cost of this QM method scales with the size of the elements (it depends on the number of electrons). We are resending the incorrect calculations for Iodine containing molecules in this round of "v4" work units. Therefore the v4 set is a subset of the previous v3 WUs containing heavier elements, hence there are more OOM errors.

Any change in this situation?

I got my 12GB card back and my haphazard data collection seems to have it under a 9% error rate and with the very last grab showing 5.85%.

Somethings coming around... error rates for 10GB cards are now under 13% and the 12GB card is ~3%.

Skip

I also see about 3% on my 12GB cards.

I think it will vary depending on what kind of molecules are being processed.

---

Right now, I am seeing less than a 2% error rate on my computers, each has a 11 GB card. This does vary over time.

I'm only seeing a single Memory error in the last 300 results for my gtx 1080Ti (11GB), so 0.33%

Something I do get quite often are CRC errors on UnZipping the input files. So failing within the first 30 seconds.

Anybody else seeing this?

https://www.gpugrid.net/results.php?userid=571263&offset=0&show_names=0&state=5&appid=47

No, I've not had any CRC errors unzipping the tar archives.

Sounds like a machine problem. Memory, heat, high workload latency??

Error rate for QChem tasks seems to have pretty decreased lately on my 4GB VRAM graphics cards.
And currently ~0% error rate on a recently installed RTX 3060 12GB VRAM.

Average error % rate as of early 5/7/24 using last 3 data scrapes -


AVG – last 3: 15.0 all cards

8GB – last 3: 22.58 (2x 3070)
10GB – last 3: 13.74 (2x 3080)
12GB – last 3: 2.30 (1x 4070S)


Skip

any news on as to whether QC will ever run on Windows machines ?

Believe the news still is that until the external repositories that the QC tasks use, create and compile Windows libraries, there won't ever be any Windows apps here.

Average error % rate as of early 5/7/24 using last 3 data scrapes -

AVG – last 3: 15.0 all cards

8GB – last 3: 22.58 (2x 3070)
10GB – last 3: 13.74 (2x 3080)
12GB – last 3: 2.30 (1x 4070S)

5/14/24. 8:57am Zulu using last 3 data scrapes -

AVG – last 3: 20.4 all cards

8GB – last 3: 25.22 (2x 3070)
10GB – last 3: 24.62 (2x 3080)
12GB – last 3: 2.11 (1x 4070S)

Skip

Hello Steve,

I resumed BOINC recently. It appears PYSCF remains allocated to cards without CC 6.0, since I got tasks for my GTX 980 Ti (CC 5.2 unfortunately). Right now the rig with this card is set to "do not accept new work" from GPUGRID.

It would be worth correcting the assignement process. Thank you.

Nicolas