rpi_logo
N-Body 1.38
N-Body 1.38
log in

Advanced search

Message boards : News : N-Body 1.38

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

Message 59942 - Posted: 20 Sep 2013, 19:52:44 UTC

Expect N-Body 1.38 on Monday or Tuesday.

When the time comes, post comments here.

Jake

Ron
Send message
Joined: 22 Sep 11
Posts: 1
Credit: 2,279,459
RAC: 299

Message 59958 - Posted: 23 Sep 2013, 8:03:15 UTC

Hello, I had to quit this job de_separation_DR_8_rev_3_1_2_1378743565_3063657
and another one that seemed to be running forever (over 60 hours). I also see that lately 4 out of 5 tasks have errors in them.
____________

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

Message 59968 - Posted: 24 Sep 2013, 0:12:20 UTC - in response to Message 59958.

Try posting this in one of the separation threads. This thread is specifically for issues with the n-body application. Someone on the other thread should have an answer for you.

Jake

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

Message 60106 - Posted: 4 Oct 2013, 18:49:13 UTC - in response to Message 60105.

and all I get is 1.28 which I have to abort because all they do is crash.

The ones you have been aborting are "Milkyway@Home Separation (Modified Fit) v1.28"

Not N-Body. Not this thread.

greg_be
Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 09
Posts: 89
Credit: 4,855,930
RAC: 6,072

Message 60107 - Posted: 4 Oct 2013, 22:26:38 UTC

yeah..sorry...getting my tasks confused.

Profile Werinbert
Send message
Joined: 30 Dec 12
Posts: 5
Credit: 1,008,772
RAC: 0

Message 60355 - Posted: 11 Nov 2013, 1:12:50 UTC

With MT or without MT...

Is there any project advantage to running the MT app over the non-MT app? I have been running both for a while now and for the most part they return about the same cr/effort across my computers. If anything, the non-MT actually has a better cr/effort ratio.

MT on the other hand plays "less nice" with other WU's as they demand all threads and kick the other WUs into the "waiting to run" state. Thankfully the MT WUs are quite fast and only a minor inconvenience. [Try Yafu and their 12+hr mt WUs messing up Boinc scheduling big time.]

So I am wondering, if there is no project advantage to MT why not just go the non-MT route? Or create a preference allowing one or the other or both?

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

Message 60357 - Posted: 11 Nov 2013, 5:40:07 UTC - in response to Message 60355.

We noticed this was a problem. I am of the opinion that there is no inherent advantage to running MT tasks and plan to release only non-MT versions for the next n-body release.

TJ
Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 09
Posts: 262
Credit: 92,028,931
RAC: 370

Message 60536 - Posted: 7 Dec 2013, 21:28:47 UTC

These N-Body 1.38 simulation WU's use 8 cores of my i7 with HT on. If I set to use only 90% of the cores to use, si that I can use one for GPU feeding, they don't run anymore, waiting to run.
Why is that? In the past these N-Body's run with all the available cores.
Thanks.
____________
Greetings from,
TJ

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

Message 60537 - Posted: 8 Dec 2013, 2:47:53 UTC - in response to Message 60536.

There is a long overhead time in these runs due to the way we generate our particle distributions. This process is not multithreaded and takes awhile, but it should still say that it is running. I will look into it.