Nbody 1.04
log in

Advanced search

Message boards : News : Nbody 1.04

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 6 · Next
Author Message
Jeffery M. Thompson
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Sep 12
Posts: 145
Credit: 12,432,611
RAC: 4,698

Message 56691 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 18:06:49 UTC

We have finished testing a new version of Nbody.
I will be packaging the release to push it in 24 hours.

Due to the holidays I am posting this ahead of time so everyone can be aware that a new version of the nbody software will be available. It will be version 1.04.

We will also be starting a run with the new nbody version.

I keep updates in this thread as we go live with the new version.

Thank you,
Jeff Thompson


Profile microchip
Send message
Joined: 25 Feb 09
Posts: 77
Credit: 6,869,202
RAC: 0

Message 56693 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 18:58:54 UTC

in case of errors (hopefully there are none), should we be posting them here or should we start another thread?
____________

Team Belgium

Jeffery M. Thompson
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Sep 12
Posts: 145
Credit: 12,432,611
RAC: 4,698

Message 56694 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 20:51:53 UTC

I was going to post everything to this thread. To keep it in one place.


Jeff Thompson

Jeffery M. Thompson
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Sep 12
Posts: 145
Credit: 12,432,611
RAC: 4,698

Message 56700 - Posted: 3 Jan 2013, 15:48:14 UTC

I have updated the binaries on the server and am getting ready to push a run of nbody code. The version reported by the nbody software should display as 1.04.

Thank you,


Jeff Thompson

Profile Arif Mert Kapicioglu
Send message
Joined: 14 Dec 09
Posts: 159
Credit: 573,720,351
RAC: 0

Message 56701 - Posted: 3 Jan 2013, 16:58:51 UTC

Hello,

I can proudly confim that it works, reports and validates.

Congrats

Jeffery M. Thompson
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Sep 12
Posts: 145
Credit: 12,432,611
RAC: 4,698

Message 56702 - Posted: 3 Jan 2013, 17:06:19 UTC - in response to Message 56701.

Thank you for the confirmation.

Jeffery M. Thompson
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Sep 12
Posts: 145
Credit: 12,432,611
RAC: 4,698

Message 56705 - Posted: 3 Jan 2013, 18:02:09 UTC

I am noticing a fair amount of linux users posting with version 0.94 of the nbody software reporting errors. Please update your version to 1.04 if this is happening to you.


Thank you,

Jeff Thompson

Jake Bauer
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 12
Posts: 66
Credit: 406,916
RAC: 0

Message 56706 - Posted: 3 Jan 2013, 18:02:37 UTC

I'm getting work units and they are computing, reporting, and validating successfully.

Jake

Ameyah
Send message
Joined: 6 Dec 12
Posts: 1
Credit: 11,546
RAC: 0

Message 56708 - Posted: 3 Jan 2013, 19:20:12 UTC

works good here.
just wondering what its computing there. anymore info there?

Ameyah

Jake Bauer
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 12
Posts: 66
Credit: 406,916
RAC: 0

Message 56710 - Posted: 3 Jan 2013, 22:01:38 UTC - in response to Message 56708.

Right now, we are trying to fit several orbital parameters of a fictitious stellar stream that is loosely modeled after the Orphan Stream. Each work unit is computing a different set of parameters, and the idea is to see if we can obtain the expected values (the ones that we generated the stream with). After doing this test, we can move on to give you guys workunits that will be intended to fit real streams, ones where we don't know the parameters since they aren't generated according to our will (unfortunately).

Thanks to the users for their continued support and being patient with us as we push this application forward.

Jake

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 12
Posts: 218
Credit: 448,778
RAC: 0

Message 56712 - Posted: 4 Jan 2013, 0:47:34 UTC

Pleased to say that the Windows version (Win7/64) is running fine on host 465695.

It's not trusted enough for instant validation yet, but the signs are good. I'll check how it's doing it in the morning.

Phil
Send message
Joined: 20 Nov 12
Posts: 3
Credit: 4,248,153
RAC: 0

Message 56713 - Posted: 4 Jan 2013, 6:13:34 UTC
Last modified: 4 Jan 2013, 6:57:48 UTC

I seem to be having issues since the new version on nbody 1.04. 2 items, one is it no longer uses all available cpu threads, in the past it used all 8 threads and now is using between 2 and 7. and when I checked log it seems that all of the new work I've completed states "computation error".

Phil
ID 481742
____________

Profile microchip
Send message
Joined: 25 Feb 09
Posts: 77
Credit: 6,869,202
RAC: 0

Message 56715 - Posted: 4 Jan 2013, 9:14:36 UTC

no issues here, all crunches fine and validates. One question, though. How come the granted credit is so low for nbody? I have one nbody WU at 550 seconds crunch time and it only granted a few points.
____________

Team Belgium

Profile Arif Mert Kapicioglu
Send message
Joined: 14 Dec 09
Posts: 159
Credit: 573,720,351
RAC: 0

Message 56720 - Posted: 4 Jan 2013, 14:10:31 UTC

CPU Runtime variation is huge: 32 to 4700 seconds. I wonder why?
Wasn't nbody supposed to be multi-thread? Currently, the app runs single thread (app per core)

Freeze_XJ
Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 12
Posts: 4
Credit: 14,849,001
RAC: 0

Message 56721 - Posted: 4 Jan 2013, 14:19:13 UTC - in response to Message 56720.

I missed this topic before (and accidentally started my own in Number Crunching), but to me, the 104s are multithreaded, which seems to work well. However runtimes vary between 10 seconds and several hours, I pre-emptively aborted a 62(!)hour WU, since my computer may well shutdown before that time, and I'm not willing to test checkpointing on such a large job.

Although the WU says it's OpenCL, it does nothing with my GPU, has the -np 6 --device 0 options, and is only using CPU. Credits are thus low to very low, but that might be correct.

ken
Send message
Joined: 5 Oct 11
Posts: 1
Credit: 3,089,000
RAC: 0

Message 56723 - Posted: 4 Jan 2013, 14:49:07 UTC

I have 4 nbodies running one at 14hrs and 60hrs to go, one at 14hrs and 1000+ hrs to go and 2 at 100+ hrs to go.should I abort these.I also notice that that they are version 104, but in my account they are listed as 100.

Profile Saenger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Aug 07
Posts: 127
Credit: 7,649,026
RAC: 19,252

Message 56724 - Posted: 4 Jan 2013, 14:50:05 UTC

Please look in this thread in numbers as well, these WUs should probably not be sent to GPUs, as they just obviously waste their power.
____________
Grüße vom Sänger

Jeffery M. Thompson
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Sep 12
Posts: 145
Credit: 12,432,611
RAC: 4,698

Message 56727 - Posted: 4 Jan 2013, 17:51:35 UTC

The CPU usage variations or workunits are coming from the parameter sweeps, some sets of parameters will be computationally easy while others more complex.

We are looking at the range of parameters we are going to use on the next runs that should address some of these issues in the variation in CPU usage of workunits.

We are looking into the other issues and may have some tweaks released in the near future. I don't have specifics right now but I am taking the units with error and looking at the different issues with the group.

For the threads and GPU usage I can not answer on right now.


I tested the threads because of observations on a previous run where only one thread was generated and could not duplicate the issue but I will look at host specifics on that.

Updates will follow in this thread and I will get a reply in the other threads shortly.


Jeff Thompson

fractal
Send message
Joined: 26 Oct 07
Posts: 10
Credit: 35,870,159
RAC: 0

Message 56759 - Posted: 6 Jan 2013, 3:24:58 UTC
Last modified: 6 Jan 2013, 3:26:07 UTC

The 1.04 work units are very bad on a linux machine.

boinc 3439 0.2 0.3 64572 15496 ? Ss 18:57 0:02 ./boinc --allow_remote_gui_rpc --daemon boinc 7164 35.3 0.0 14940 1820 ? RNl 18:57 7:05 \_ ../../projects/volunteer.cs.und.edu_subset_sum/SubsetSum_0.11_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu 52 27 190600788427830 2203961430 boinc 7165 34.3 0.0 14940 1828 ? RNl 18:57 6:54 \_ ../../projects/volunteer.cs.und.edu_subset_sum/SubsetSum_0.11_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu 52 27 190605196350690 2203961430 boinc 7166 35.1 0.0 14940 1820 ? RNl 18:57 7:03 \_ ../../projects/volunteer.cs.und.edu_subset_sum/SubsetSum_0.11_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu 52 27 189606801822900 2203961430 boinc 7167 33.9 0.0 14940 1824 ? RNl 18:57 6:48 \_ ../../projects/volunteer.cs.und.edu_subset_sum/SubsetSum_0.11_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu 52 27 189646473128640 2203961430 boinc 7645 326 1.1 77160 46400 ? RNl 19:05 40:07 \_ ../../projects/milkyway.cs.rpi.edu_milkyway/milkyway_nbody_1.04_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu_mt__opencl_amd_ati -f nbody_parameters.lua -h histogram.t


Yes, it is taking all of 3 1/4 cores from a 4 core machine leaving precious little for other work. Is this intentional behavior?

Profile microchip
Send message
Joined: 25 Feb 09
Posts: 77
Credit: 6,869,202
RAC: 0

Message 56761 - Posted: 6 Jan 2013, 8:06:57 UTC
Last modified: 6 Jan 2013, 8:07:40 UTC

just had to abort a WU whose estimated time was 70 hours to complete... it crunched for 10 hours before I noticed it.
____________

Team Belgium

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 6 · Next
Post to thread

Message boards : News : Nbody 1.04


Main page · Your account · Message boards


Copyright © 2018 AstroInformatics Group