Message boards :
Number crunching :
BOINC 6.10.12 fixes Ati issues? (6.10.13 has been released as well)
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 24 May 09 Posts: 8 Credit: 11,850,851 RAC: 0 |
According to the thread "Development BOINC 6.10.13 released" in the Number crunching forum of Seti@Home there are a number of Ati related issues fixed in BOINC 6.10.12. The unofficial change log mentions the following: - client: if downloaded project list file is garbage, ignore it. Nice, Gipsel is in there! By the way, the 6.10.13 change log has the following: - client: fix crashing bug introduced in [18605] Do the fixes in 6.10.12 mean we don't have to rename the DLL's anymore? And could this possibly mean we can now use the latest Catalyst drivers with Milkyway on XP? Uhm, actually, what does it all mean? Does anybody know if this will have any effect on the way we run the Ati GPU version of Milkyway@Home? |
Send message Joined: 4 Oct 08 Posts: 1734 Credit: 64,228,409 RAC: 0 |
Would someone be kind enough to provide me with the link to the newer BM versions - say the 6.10.xx types. I have been there before but forgot the URL. The versions I specifically look for are compatible with Windows XP 32 bit Getting 6.10.1 now, thanks! That is if ADSL contention allows me to! Go away, I was asleep |
Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0 |
Well Boinc has them and others I have seen as well. http://boinc.berkeley.edu/dl/ Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected? If it makes sense, DON'T do it. |
Send message Joined: 12 Apr 08 Posts: 621 Credit: 161,934,067 RAC: 0 |
Would someone be kind enough to provide me with the link to the newer BM versions - say the 6.10.xx types. If you are getting a 6.10 version, stick to .3, .7, .11, and .13 all the others have serious problems that will eventually bite you. Note that .13 is newest and highest risk to use though the changes from .11 are relatively minor. |
Send message Joined: 24 Dec 07 Posts: 1947 Credit: 240,884,648 RAC: 0 |
I'm seeing some really BAD behaviour with BOINC 6.10.13 and .10 before it. I have Collatz and MW cached. I have 2 GPUs - a 4850 and a 4870. MW is set up with 0.33 ATI in an app_info file and Collatz is set with its default which is 1.0 ATI. Resource share is 54% MW and Collatz 3%. (SETI 20%, Aqua 20%, Spinhenge 3%). I'm only going to describe the GPU behaviour. When BOINC is running only MW it runs 3 wu's on each card which is the deired behaviour. When it schedules Collatz and BOINC to run it stops 3 MW wu's and starts a Collatz wu, which is also the desired behaviour. But its which 3 MW wu's it stops is the problem. BOINC stops 1 wu on one card and 2 on the other, then starts Collatz on the card it has 2 MW wu's running. Needless to say the Collatz wu takes forever and the 2 MW wu's also take longer than with 3 running. But wait, that's not all. I've seen the situation where 2 Collatz wu's are scheduled to run and it tries to run them both on the same card, leaving one card idle. I have also seen the correct behaviour of 1 wu per card. Go figure. Back to micromanaging BOINC. BUGGER! |
Send message Joined: 15 Jul 08 Posts: 383 Credit: 729,293,740 RAC: 0 |
Does it work correctly if you set it to run 1 MW WU at a time? |
Send message Joined: 12 Apr 08 Posts: 621 Credit: 161,934,067 RAC: 0 |
Does it work correctly if you set it to run 1 MW WU at a time? It does for me... When you opt to have 3 MW tasks "running" at the same time in theory on one card, they are not really running at the same time. I know I asked this of Gispel (CP) elsewhere and this is what he said... what you may be gaining is to shave off a start up second or so per task. The problem is that the BOINC Resource Scheduler does not know about this and does not properly account for it when changing between projects. You may also need his latest beta .20b for tasks here because of another issue I found that seems to be cleared up with it ... lastly I only say it works if you are also running 2.05 on Collatz... :) But I have been running the two projects for the last day and have had no issues with task handover or running them on the correct GPU. Then again, I never did like running 3 MW tasks "at the same time" ... |
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0 |
Does it work correctly if you set it to run 1 MW WU at a time? So, essentially, the "at the same time" are similar to timeslicing...and may be just "smoke and mirrors", much like the "RAM Booster" software programs for Win95 and higher (not talking about QEMM here)... Maybe there should be some sort of FAQ or README that goes with the GPU applications to explain things like this. It may cut down on some of the angst. |
Send message Joined: 15 Jul 08 Posts: 383 Credit: 729,293,740 RAC: 0 |
Does it work correctly if you set it to run 1 MW WU at a time? That's what I suspected :-) You may also need his latest beta .20b for tasks here And where can that be found? |
Send message Joined: 26 Jul 08 Posts: 627 Credit: 94,940,203 RAC: 0 |
Maybe there should be some sort of FAQ or README that goes with the GPU applications to explain things like this. It may cut down on some of the angst. Actually there is a readme included in every download of the GPU applications that explains these things. The people only have to read it ;) |
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0 |
Maybe there should be some sort of FAQ or README that goes with the GPU applications to explain things like this. It may cut down on some of the angst. Yeah...that's the hard part...getting people to read... If there's not really that much benefit and it introduces more confusion, why not just remove that "capability"? |
Send message Joined: 12 Apr 08 Posts: 621 Credit: 161,934,067 RAC: 0 |
Maybe there should be some sort of FAQ or README that goes with the GPU applications to explain things like this. It may cut down on some of the angst. I spent the better part of several years doing just that to no avail ... I could not get people to spend even a few moments of their time to go look something up ... |
Send message Joined: 24 Dec 07 Posts: 1947 Credit: 240,884,648 RAC: 0 |
Does it work correctly if you set it to run 1 MW WU at a time? I'll try that when I get home tonight. As for the other comments.... Can CP give a better description of the time slicing of MW tasks on the GPU? BTW...I've read the readme file many times over the past few months and am pretty certain it says nothing about the issues I have indicated. Yes it says doing more than 2 or 3 wu's may not benefit over crunching. In any case. If Collatz says 1.0 ATI and MW says 0.33 ATI, how could BOINC even schedule a MW and Collatz to run on one GPU? I'd also like to know where 0.20b can be found....planet3dnow maybe? |
Send message Joined: 30 Dec 07 Posts: 311 Credit: 149,490,184 RAC: 0 |
.....BTW...I've read the readme file many times over the past few months and am pretty certain it says nothing about the issues I have indicated...... Collatz v2.04, 2.05 and 2.05b readme file regarding the n parameter which is the same thing but only for use on a non ATI aware BOINC version: "If you run more than one GPU project (Collatz and Milkyway), this will be a shared setting and should be the same for both in all cases!" |
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0 |
Maybe there should be some sort of FAQ or README that goes with the GPU applications to explain things like this. It may cut down on some of the angst. Well, if running them "at the same time" really does not have a significantly measurable benefit to the total runtime, then as a developer, I wouldn't include it, especially if it causes additional confusion and/or anger because things don't "work right"... That's just my opinion mind you... I don't have the skill in C or C++ to pour through things like what has been done, so I appreciate what has been done, but if the pros of doing it are outweighed by the negative side-effects, then why put it in there? |
Send message Joined: 12 Apr 08 Posts: 621 Credit: 161,934,067 RAC: 0 |
Maybe there should be some sort of FAQ or README that goes with the GPU applications to explain things like this. It may cut down on some of the angst. Because people wanted it ... and it may increase throughput in some cases ... if I am running tasks off at 55 seconds or less then a one second improvement in hand-over from one MW task to another is pretty significant... for those that want maximum performance/throughput... But like all settings it is use at your own risk as is all anon platform installs. If it does not work right it is on your head. I would rather CP (Gispel) and UCB gave us more options than less because there are many situations where the available controls are just not good enough to let us manage the operation of the system. Sadly the UCB philosophy is "trust us, we be smarter than you" rather than adding some common sense controls that would allow us flexibility ... To pick one not at random, we asked that the "return results immediately" be configurable by project not by client... why? Because I want to return results for GPU Grid ASAP as it helps the project and me (credit bonus for early returns) but maybe not for MW because of server load... I can go on ... :) |
Send message Joined: 9 Feb 09 Posts: 166 Credit: 27,520,813 RAC: 0 |
Maybe there should be some sort of FAQ or README that goes with the GPU applications to explain things like this. It may cut down on some of the angst. Pfff read, omg he said read and look something up whats that xD Serious Paul, CP stop saying such nasty things ;) Its new, its relative fast... my new bicycle |
Send message Joined: 30 Dec 07 Posts: 311 Credit: 149,490,184 RAC: 0 |
My experiments have indicated that running 2 Collatz tasks concurrently takes slightly longer per task than running one at a time. With MilkyWay the runtime for each individual task is the same but it results in a small increase in daily throughput, possibly about 5% on my HD 4890. The shorter the task and the faster the card the greater the increase in daily throughput would be. My HD 4890 has no trouble running 2 MilkyWay tasks concurrently and it means the GPU load is more constant not dropping to zero every 40 seconds during changeover. This may be better for card longevity although it results in a higher average temperature so is unsuitable here for hot days. My HD 3850 however was very unstable when running 2 MilkyWay tasks concurrently and regularly froze, requiring a stop and restart of BOINC. It was very stable when running one at a time. |
Send message Joined: 9 Feb 09 Posts: 166 Credit: 27,520,813 RAC: 0 |
My dual 4850 did 3 per card untill the last 0.20 version after which i got freezing desktop problems so set it back to 2 per card I think 3 units per 4890 should be bit better since its much faster, but then again i don't have such a beast. Its new, its relative fast... my new bicycle |
Send message Joined: 24 Dec 07 Posts: 1947 Credit: 240,884,648 RAC: 0 |
My experiments have indicated that running 2 Collatz tasks concurrently takes slightly longer per task than running one at a time. With MilkyWay the runtime for each individual task is the same but it results in a small increase in daily throughput, possibly about 5% on my HD 4890. The shorter the task and the faster the card the greater the increase in daily throughput would be. Interesting about your 3850. I've never seen mine lock up and it's running 2 at a time - > but then again on my 4850 / 4870 combination I get regular lockups. I might try n1 for those and since I'm away for the weekend it may be very fortuitous timing. |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group