Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Separation updated to 0.82


Advanced search

Message boards : News : Separation updated to 0.82
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

AuthorMessage
Profilebanditwolf
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 2425
Credit: 524,164
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 49414 - Posted: 19 Jun 2011, 2:16:30 UTC

Saw this in a result of mine:

de_separation_10_3s_fix20_2_1352770_1308235885_0

<stderr_txt>
Error loading Lua script 'astronomy_parameters.txt': [string "number_parameters: 4..."]:1: '<name>' expected near '4'
Error reading astronomy parameters from file 'astronomy_parameters.txt'

Trying old parameters file
Using SSE2 path
Integral 0 time = 32865.269092 s
Integral 1 time = 7446.439993 s
Likelihood time = 5.785704 s
<background_integral> 0.000305972286305 </background_integral>
<stream_integral> 92.469354042897564 1736.230670756624500 205.096107473016390 </stream_integral>
<background_likelihood> -3.063092013626213 </background_likelihood>
<stream_only_likelihood> -5.857693463583072 -4.498928880820719 -3.983584257926393 </stream_only_likelihood>
<search_likelihood> -2.826062392501479 </search_likelihood>
<search_application> milkywayathome_client separation 0.84 Windows x86 double </search_application>
21:55:56 (1600): called boinc_finish

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.
ID: 49414 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Matt Arsenault
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 8 May 10
Posts: 576
Credit: 15,979,383
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge9 year member badge
Message 49415 - Posted: 19 Jun 2011, 2:21:18 UTC - in response to Message 49414.  

Saw this in a result of mine:
That's normal and OK
ID: 49415 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Chris S
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 08
Posts: 1387
Credit: 186,726,858
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 49479 - Posted: 22 Jun 2011, 9:54:58 UTC
Last modified: 22 Jun 2011, 9:56:10 UTC

Interesting: Same gpu, same clocks, same mem size but 10% slower on the calculations.
You are using cat 11.2 right? Mine runs with cat 11.3.
Wonder if it's the different cat version or something else slowing your gpu down.

I think I know why. Despite what the log file reports, according to GPU-Z the figures for the defaults and current settings are :-

Clock 725Mhz - 775Mhz
Memory 1000MHz - 500MHz

As you can see I have upped the clock by an extra 50MHz, and lowered the memory by 500Mhz to keep the heat down. Also my stock memory speed was 1000Mhz not 1150Mhz. It depends upon the make of card what the stock speeds are, some are higher than others, and run 10% faster out of the box.
ID: 49479 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Zydor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Feb 09
Posts: 620
Credit: 100,587,625
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 49483 - Posted: 22 Jun 2011, 18:01:27 UTC

A fully committed CPU can bring it down a bit eg two CPU WUs running on a Dual CPU, and a GPU application running at the same time (2WUs + (say) 2x0.05 GPU assist = overcomitted CPU). Not going to be a lot for sure, but it will definitely slow the GPU app(s) a little.

As to how much, variations are nearly infinite, core useage, GPU efficiency yaddie yadda. Nontheless the effect would still be there to a greater or lesser degree - even comparing similar PCs if different CPU apps were run on both or non-BOINC useage was different.

Regards
Zy
ID: 49483 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Chris S
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 08
Posts: 1387
Credit: 186,726,858
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 49490 - Posted: 23 Jun 2011, 9:25:00 UTC

I run 1 x Milkyway GPU @ 0.05 CPU, plus 2 x Seti CPU on a Pent D3.2. GPU-Z says I'm using 92-94% GPU utilisation, so I expect that explains it as well. I could run 2 x MW at a time for 100% utilisation but the card is quite happy at 73C and I'm inclined to leave it as it is.

If I had 1/2 dozen of these cards an extra 10% RAC across the board would be useful, as it is I'm nowhere near the high crunching figures so I'm happy with what I get, coupled with a longer card life.
ID: 49490 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
cncguru
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 10
Posts: 329
Credit: 1,166,222,661
RAC: 0
1 billion credit badge9 year member badge
Message 49491 - Posted: 23 Jun 2011, 9:36:47 UTC - in response to Message 49490.  
Last modified: 23 Jun 2011, 9:52:46 UTC

If I had 1/2 dozen of these cards an extra 10% RAC across the board would be useful, as it is I'm nowhere near the high crunching figures so I'm happy with what I get, coupled with a longer card life.[/quote]


I've been overclocking the bejeezus out of many cards for just over a year now without a single card failure(except for a few fans replacements)
You have to TRY and do something crazy to kill a good graphics card!
I've even woke up to find my four 5870's below my cpu sitting in pooled water from the cpu watercooling blowout with no lost anything!!
(yeah, gotta say I got lucky there,LOL)
and sorry, didn't mean to spam this thread!!!
ID: 49491 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Zydor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Feb 09
Posts: 620
Credit: 100,587,625
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 49493 - Posted: 23 Jun 2011, 14:15:28 UTC
Last modified: 23 Jun 2011, 14:17:48 UTC

...... coupled with a longer card life.


Thats the bit that gets my Vote Big Time ..... often gets forgotten. Cards these days are resilient beasts at component level, and dont instantly go *poof*, they slowly burn out (hence the claims of some card makers over "military standard" components, they are trying to covince us their cards cantake the hassles).

Unfortunately this increase resilience, and lack of instant burnout, gives rise to a false sense of security in many. The card is degrading if its operating over recommended safe limits, it just takes longer as components are more resilient - but it is slowly going bang. Eventual Burnout happens 1-3 months later.

That delay will give rise to a false sense of security in many running extreme overclock, it may not go bang immediately .... but be under no illusion, its going downhill and the card will melt - period.

All that is not a statement against overclocking, I'm in there with the best of 'em when I get the urge, but it is a very cautionary statement to those just starting overclocking, about ignoring safe limits. Just because there is not instant fireworks, it doesnt mean there are no problems - there are, terminal ones.

Hence:
... coupled with a longer card life.

.. gets my vote every time.

Regards
Zy
ID: 49493 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
PDelgado

Send message
Joined: 16 Nov 10
Posts: 17
Credit: 4,064,257
RAC: 5
3 million credit badge9 year member badge
Message 49580 - Posted: 25 Jun 2011, 20:19:20 UTC

I'm running an nvidia GTS450 and tried updating the drivers to the latest WHQL release, 275.33, hoping 0.82 had taken CUDA V4 into account. SETI liked the new drivers, MW not so much. My crunch times doubled yet MSI Afterburner didn't show downclocking, just erratic GPU utilization averaging about 50%.

Are there any work arounds or do we nvidia folk have to stick to the older 266.58 drivers?
ID: 49580 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
LouisH

Send message
Joined: 13 Mar 09
Posts: 5
Credit: 1,366,490
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 50200 - Posted: 18 Jul 2011, 20:40:35 UTC

Hi,

My computer can't finish this work : MilkyWay@Home v0.82 (ati14)
It says : Computing error

:(

Somebody know why?



Thanks!
ID: 50200 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Link
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Jul 10
Posts: 356
Credit: 16,317,754
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge9 year member badge
Message 50204 - Posted: 18 Jul 2011, 21:01:42 UTC - in response to Message 50200.  

Hi,

My computer can't finish this work : MilkyWay@Home v0.82 (ati14)
It says : Computing error

:(

Somebody know why?

Yes, see this thread, in particular the descriptions of different attempts to work around the problem.
.
ID: 50204 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
FruehwF

Send message
Joined: 28 Feb 10
Posts: 120
Credit: 109,840,492
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge9 year member badge
Message 50205 - Posted: 18 Jul 2011, 21:01:49 UTC - in response to Message 50200.  

Hi,

My computer can't finish this work : MilkyWay@Home v0.82 (ati14)
It says : Computing error

:(

Somebody know why?



Thanks!

Yes. Please have a look here:

http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/forum_thread.php?id=2468&nowrap=true#49994

for further help pM me

regards Franz
ID: 50205 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
lacdesmonts

Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 11
Posts: 5
Credit: 140,086,219
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge8 year member badge
Message 50237 - Posted: 19 Jul 2011, 14:25:09 UTC

System is Linux 64 - Catalyst 11.6 - HD5830

Last night was getting "maximum time limit elapsed" errors on all GPU WUs.

Upgraded to 6.12.18
now I'm getting this -

<core_client_version>6.12.18</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
Maximum elapsed time exceeded
</message>
<stderr_txt>
Error loading Lua script 'astronomy_parameters.txt': [string "number_parameters: 4..."]:1: '<name>' expected near '4'
Error reading astronomy parameters from file 'astronomy_parameters.txt'
Trying old parameters file
Using SSE3 path
Found 1 CAL devices
Chose device 0

Device target: CAL_TARGET_CYPRESS
Revision: 2
CAL Version: 1.4.1417
Engine clock: 825 Mhz
Memory clock: 1050 Mhz
GPU RAM: 1024
Wavefront size: 64
Double precision: CAL_TRUE
Compute shader: CAL_TRUE
Number SIMD: 14
Number shader engines: 2
Pitch alignment: 256
Surface alignment: 256
Max size 2D: { 16384, 16384 }

Estimated iteration time 152.765152 ms
Target frequency 30.000000 Hz, polling mode 1
Dividing into 4 chunks, initially sleeping for 0 ms
Integration range: { nu_steps = 640, mu_steps = 1600, r_steps = 1400 }
Using 4 chunk(s) with sizes: 400 400 400 400
Integration time = 127.293641 s, average per iteration = 198.896314 ms
Integral 0 time = 130.222443 s
Likelihood time = 5.456142 s
<background_integral> 0.000125639127066 </background_integral>
<stream_integral> 409.950098617738433 13.735900627600021 </stream_integral>
<background_likelihood> -3.063023849357760 </background_likelihood>
<stream_only_likelihood> -4.212400995965620 -173.914236733988474 </stream_only_likelihood>
<search_likelihood> -3.026010903920815 </search_likelihood>
<search_application> milkywayathome_client separation 0.82 Linux x86_64 double CAL++ </search_application>
01:31:06 (9368): called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>
ID: 50237 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

Message boards : News : Separation updated to 0.82

©2019 Astroinformatics Group