Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Getting more than 18 work units at a time


Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Getting more than 18 work units at a time
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
ProfilePartyDroid

Send message
Joined: 19 Oct 10
Posts: 4
Credit: 10,702,535
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43404 - Posted: 1 Nov 2010, 23:49:21 UTC

Just wondering if its possible to get more than 18 units from the server. My internet connection's a bit sketch at the moment and i can complete all 18 units in 10-15 minutes when i run my graphics at 950Mhz which can give me some time where i'm not computing
ID: 43404 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
John Clark

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 08
Posts: 1734
Credit: 64,228,409
RAC: 0
50 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43405 - Posted: 1 Nov 2010, 23:56:00 UTC

Milkyway allows 6 WUs per core. So, if you have a quad then the limit is 24.
Go away, I was asleep


ID: 43405 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
55degrees

Send message
Joined: 8 Sep 09
Posts: 62
Credit: 61,330,584
RAC: 0
50 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43474 - Posted: 4 Nov 2010, 19:51:04 UTC - in response to Message 43404.  

and that applies to crunchers with 'no cpu' setting. I get 48 for an i7 and the gpus go through them <36min.
ID: 43474 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemdhittle*
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Jun 10
Posts: 284
Credit: 260,490,091
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43475 - Posted: 4 Nov 2010, 20:04:01 UTC

ID: 43475 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
John Clark

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 08
Posts: 1734
Credit: 64,228,409
RAC: 0
50 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43478 - Posted: 4 Nov 2010, 20:49:19 UTC

Mike

Believe the reasons why they need a 6 core limit, as these are not excuses and based on things that have happened over the last many months.

If this is still a problem, then get a back up GPU project (Collatz/DNETC/etc).

End of argument.
Go away, I was asleep


ID: 43478 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemdhittle*
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Jun 10
Posts: 284
Credit: 260,490,091
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43480 - Posted: 4 Nov 2010, 21:12:38 UTC - in response to Message 43478.  

Mike

Believe the reasons why they need a 6 core limit, as these are not excuses and based on things that have happened over the last many months.

If this is still a problem, then get a back up GPU project (Collatz/DNETC/etc).

End of argument.


Good deal on ending the argument with you, since you are in no position to change the cache size, or confirm that it will never be changed. I wasn't addressing my comments to you. I am really not sure why you would think that you have the final say in this.

A person should not need a backup project. That is what the cache is for. The cache is supposed to provide enough work for the computer so it doesn't need to download work every 90 seconds. It should also provied a buffer for the times that the server has failed.

-Mike

ID: 43480 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilebanditwolf
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 2425
Credit: 524,164
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43481 - Posted: 4 Nov 2010, 21:21:09 UTC - in response to Message 43480.  


A person should not need a backup project. That is what the cache is for. The cache is supposed to provide enough work for the computer so it doesn't need to download work every 90 seconds. It should also provied a buffer for the times that the server has failed.

-Mike


Well this is still classified as a beta project. And frequent outages have almost always occured, especially when anything is touched.
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.
ID: 43481 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemdhittle*
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Jun 10
Posts: 284
Credit: 260,490,091
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43482 - Posted: 4 Nov 2010, 22:10:51 UTC - in response to Message 43481.  

Well this is still classified as a beta project. And frequent outages have almost always occured, especially when anything is touched.


Agreed, it is still a BETA project.

That is why this is a good time to work out the problems with the cache size. CPU crunchers probably do not notice the frequent outages as much as the GPU crunchers due to the cache size.

Due to the fact that an ATI GPU can do in 90 seconds the same amount of work a CPU can do in 10 hours, this project wouldn't be as far along as it is right now without the GPUs.

Due to the frequent failures of the server, the processing power of the GPUs is not being fully realized by the project.

It isn't the end of the project or the end of the world, if they adjusted the size of the cache that a GPU can have.

-Mike
ID: 43482 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 08
Posts: 519
Credit: 284,043,349
RAC: 911
200 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 43485 - Posted: 4 Nov 2010, 23:51:21 UTC - in response to Message 43480.  

Mike, one of the rationales for the BOINC client early on was for multiple project support. So, 'a person should not need a backup project' -- well no, that doesn't state the case fairly. It is clear that *you* believe that *you* should not need a backup project. Fair enough, then for *you* MW is likely not a good *single* project to run, just as SETI is a lousy single project to run.

If you feel that you should only run a single project (as you've stated) then perhaps you should look into projects that are 1) more reliable than MilkyWay and/or 2) support larger caches.

Projects that fit that mode for GPU folks include Dnetc and Collatz (which John mentioned).

Ideally, no project should 'require' that you run multiple projects. Ideally, the unemployment rate should be under 5%. I suspect you (and everyone else here) has as much control over either of these.





A person should not need a backup project. That is what the cache is for. The cache is supposed to provide enough work for the computer so it doesn't need to download work every 90 seconds. It should also provied a buffer for the times that the server has failed.

-Mike



ID: 43485 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemdhittle*
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Jun 10
Posts: 284
Credit: 260,490,091
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43486 - Posted: 5 Nov 2010, 0:28:05 UTC - in response to Message 43485.  
Last modified: 5 Nov 2010, 0:28:59 UTC

ID: 43486 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 08
Posts: 519
Credit: 284,043,349
RAC: 911
200 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 43487 - Posted: 5 Nov 2010, 0:48:36 UTC - in response to Message 43486.  

ID: 43487 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilebanditwolf
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 2425
Credit: 524,164
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43488 - Posted: 5 Nov 2010, 1:28:30 UTC

I believe that MW has amassed quite a pile of data with the addition of gpu processing that they aren't exactly worried about some down time or maxing outgpu usage in down time. Also the data done now is many 100's of times faster and much more data being done as well per wu than initially.
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.
ID: 43488 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bill

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 09
Posts: 12
Credit: 45,145,989
RAC: 0
30 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43490 - Posted: 5 Nov 2010, 2:35:43 UTC - in response to Message 43486.  

(snippage)

The people who are willing to DONATE their time, money, and resources to THIS project more (snippage)
-Mike


Are owed nothing by this, or any other, project. You should look up what "donate" means. Or do you have a contract that states otherwise?
ID: 43490 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileThe Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43491 - Posted: 5 Nov 2010, 2:56:43 UTC

Yes the cache size is a joke for the newer cards, but the Project Admins have explained why this is needed many times - a little research is required by the newer complainers - with me being an older complainer.

ID: 43491 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemdhittle*
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Jun 10
Posts: 284
Credit: 260,490,091
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43492 - Posted: 5 Nov 2010, 3:34:35 UTC - in response to Message 43491.  
Last modified: 5 Nov 2010, 3:38:53 UTC

ID: 43492 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 08
Posts: 519
Credit: 284,043,349
RAC: 911
200 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 43493 - Posted: 5 Nov 2010, 4:51:26 UTC - in response to Message 43492.  

ID: 43493 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 08
Posts: 519
Credit: 284,043,349
RAC: 911
200 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 43494 - Posted: 5 Nov 2010, 4:57:26 UTC - in response to Message 43491.  

I'll readily agree that the cache size here is one of the reasons my farm supports Dnetc and Collatz for more work than here. That, and of course the support those projects are able to offer for the stack of less powerful GPU's I tend to run.

While there is seeming agreement regarding the limited size of the cache, it seems there is a debate with Michael regarding the simplicity (or complexity) of changing things to support a larger cache. Regarding this, having watched that discussion over the years (yup years), I tend to accept, rather than reject out of hand, the explanations offered from the project folks. Then again, I'm certainly no expert regarding database design in general, let alone the specifics of the project specific design involved.


Yes the cache size is a joke for the newer cards, but the Project Admins have explained why this is needed many times - a little research is required by the newer complainers - with me being an older complainer.



ID: 43494 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Logforme

Send message
Joined: 13 Aug 10
Posts: 10
Credit: 115,945,904
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43497 - Posted: 5 Nov 2010, 8:42:05 UTC

To me this seem to boil down to:
1. Pick the projects that maximize your credits
or
2. Pick the projects that do work you find worthwhile

I'm solidly in camp #2. The "worthiness" of the MW project is far more important to me than any rank I have on some list and me losing credits when the server goes down.
ID: 43497 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
John Clark

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 08
Posts: 1734
Credit: 64,228,409
RAC: 0
50 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43501 - Posted: 5 Nov 2010, 9:33:42 UTC - in response to Message 43494.  

I support the comments made by Barry, and other, about the MW cache size, and would like to see it larger.

My faster card(s) tend to be concentrated, ATM, on DNETZC and I leave my slower ATI GPU (an AGP one) to Milkyway. So, even this GPU gets affected by the restricted cache size, and the newer faster cards (568xx series) get a worse and worse deal as they are introduced (the 69xx will really feel it). I use Collatz as the back up project, and accept the position because that is how it is!

I have every sympathy with "mdhittle's" (Mike is it?) points and position. Indeed I agree with most of them.

But, this cache size issue has been going on for 2 years now, since the introduction of the GPU capability, which showed, and was causative, of the current cache limits. We have lived with them for this time, and, unfortunately, it is not likely to change anytime soon.




I'll readily agree that the cache size here is one of the reasons my farm supports Dnetc and Collatz for more work than here. That, and of course the support those projects are able to offer for the stack of less powerful GPU's I tend to run.

While there is seeming agreement regarding the limited size of the cache, it seems there is a debate with Michael regarding the simplicity (or complexity) of changing things to support a larger cache. Regarding this, having watched that discussion over the years (yup years), I tend to accept, rather than reject out of hand, the explanations offered from the project folks. Then again, I'm certainly no expert regarding database design in general, let alone the specifics of the project specific design involved.

The main reason for change, I see, is if the high precision mapping of the Milkyway needed a new approach and new calculations which may result in a different approach to the science.

I will apologise to Mke for my rather abrupt last post, when others have, and are, taking a more relaxed posting reply.


Yes the cache size is a joke for the newer cards, but the Project Admins have explained why this is needed many times - a little research is required by the newer complainers - with me being an older complainer.




Go away, I was asleep


ID: 43501 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profileverstapp
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jan 09
Posts: 589
Credit: 497,834,261
RAC: 0
300 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 43503 - Posted: 5 Nov 2010, 11:56:41 UTC

Easily fixed, Mike - just get a slower GPU. :)
Google Nvidia.
Cheers,

PeterV

.
ID: 43503 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Getting more than 18 work units at a time

©2020 Astroinformatics Group