Welcome to MilkyWay@home

app_info.xml file for 2 WUs/nVIDIA GPU ?


Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : app_info.xml file for 2 WUs/nVIDIA GPU ?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2

AuthorMessage
Paul D Harris

Send message
Joined: 16 Feb 12
Posts: 10
Credit: 2,954,753
RAC: 0
2 million credit badge7 year member badge
Message 53575 - Posted: 7 Mar 2012, 4:05:16 UTC

OK thanks arkayn
ID: 53575 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
WilMar

Send message
Joined: 13 Aug 09
Posts: 2
Credit: 1,017,322
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 53815 - Posted: 27 Mar 2012, 13:07:23 UTC - in response to Message 53325.  

Please, how much is the advantage of crunching 2 tasks in parallel?
This question is, as the GPU load for these files is very high - 90% or even more - and the CPU load very little - much less than 1% - for single task crunching. So one would expext only some advantage during the change of tasks at the end of a task.
Kind reagrds
Martin
ID: 53815 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
swiftmallard
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Jul 09
Posts: 299
Credit: 303,427,018
RAC: 752
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 53816 - Posted: 27 Mar 2012, 15:07:39 UTC - in response to Message 53815.  

Please, how much is the advantage of crunching 2 tasks in parallel?
This question is, as the GPU load for these files is very high - 90% or even more - and the CPU load very little - much less than 1% - for single task crunching. So one would expext only some advantage during the change of tasks at the end of a task.
Kind reagrds
Martin

It is not less than 1%. Every GPU work unit uses several seconds of CPU time at the end. For example, my card crunches a WU in about 1:06, the last 0:06 is CPU only. Crunching two WUs at once allows my card to work on the other GPU WU while the CPU is finishing the first.
ID: 53816 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
WilMar

Send message
Joined: 13 Aug 09
Posts: 2
Credit: 1,017,322
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 53820 - Posted: 27 Mar 2012, 22:29:08 UTC - in response to Message 53816.  
Last modified: 27 Mar 2012, 23:09:12 UTC

Hallo Swiftmallard!
I´m using a GT440 and a GTX550Ti and here are some data I took in the last few days:

GT440:
Run Time 1498.22 +/- 122.06 [sec]
CPU Time 8.63 +/- 3.55 [sec]
That does give a total relative CPU Load of 0.576 +/- 0.245 [%]
That was derived from 61 observed tasks.

GTX550Ti:
Run Time 660.83 +/- 82.60 [sec]
CPU Time 5.94 +/- 1.61 [sec]
That does give a total relative CPU Load of 0.899 +/- 0.268 [%]
That was derived from 277 observed tasks.

The Run Times and CPU Times are taken from my Results Page at MW.
All GPU taks where running at priority level of "Above Normal".

I´d observe for a short time only the CPU load by the MS Process Explorer and found only about 0.2% load for these tasks, if I remember correctly. (I didn´t put this data to paper.)

As you mentioned
Every GPU work unit uses several seconds of CPU time at the end.

All that explaines easily, why the the realtive CPU Load for the slower card is less. From this I would conclude, that only very fast GPU cards will realy profit from crunching multitasks on a single GPU.

I would be pleased to get your and other comments.

Kind regards
Matin
ID: 53820 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 May 09
Posts: 2273
Credit: 384,213,636
RAC: 343,652
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 53824 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 10:55:30 UTC - in response to Message 53820.  

Hallo Swiftmallard!
I´m using a GT440 and a GTX550Ti and here are some data I took in the last few days:

GT440:
Run Time 1498.22 +/- 122.06 [sec]
CPU Time 8.63 +/- 3.55 [sec]
That does give a total relative CPU Load of 0.576 +/- 0.245 [%]
That was derived from 61 observed tasks.

GTX550Ti:
Run Time 660.83 +/- 82.60 [sec]
CPU Time 5.94 +/- 1.61 [sec]
That does give a total relative CPU Load of 0.899 +/- 0.268 [%]
That was derived from 277 observed tasks.

The Run Times and CPU Times are taken from my Results Page at MW.
All GPU taks where running at priority level of "Above Normal".

I´d observe for a short time only the CPU load by the MS Process Explorer and found only about 0.2% load for these tasks, if I remember correctly. (I didn´t put this data to paper.)

As you mentioned
Every GPU work unit uses several seconds of CPU time at the end.

All that explaines easily, why the the realtive CPU Load for the slower card is less. From this I would conclude, that only very fast GPU cards will realy profit from crunching multitasks on a single GPU.

I would be pleased to get your and other comments.

Kind regards
Matin


It also depends on the memory your gpu has onboard, a card with 512 meg of memory would not do nearly as well as a card with 3 gig of memory when doing multiple units at once. You need to know how much of the available gpu memory each workunit is using. Then double that and see how much leftover there is before you get to the total memory the gpu has on it. If there is not enough headroom, which varies by project, then it is not effective to crunch more than one unit at a time. To crunch the fastest the WHOLE workunit needs to fit in the gpu cards memory, with enough to spare so it can actually crunch.
ID: 53824 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 08
Posts: 204
Credit: 219,354,537
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 53830 - Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 19:43:29 UTC - in response to Message 53824.  

In principle correct, but MW doesn't need much memory. I think any card with DP should be fine running 2 WUs at once. And running more than that is pointless at MW anyway.

MrS
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002
ID: 53830 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
juan BFB

Send message
Joined: 8 Jun 10
Posts: 2
Credit: 2,941,827
RAC: 0
2 million credit badge9 year member badge
Message 56513 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 10:16:44 UTC

Anyone could post a new working app_info.xml for 2 WUs for use with the 670/690?
ID: 56513 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 May 09
Posts: 2273
Credit: 384,213,636
RAC: 343,652
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 56515 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 12:31:23 UTC - in response to Message 56513.  

Anyone could post a new working app_info.xml for 2 WUs for use with the 670/690?


If MW would update the Server Software side we could do it via the website and NOT need an app_info file, like at Einstein now. Updating the Server Software OFTEN causes problems and can be very time consuming in the long run.
ID: 56515 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Richard Haselgrove

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 12
Posts: 219
Credit: 448,778
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge7 year member badge
Message 56529 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 9:25:46 UTC - in response to Message 56515.  

Anyone could post a new working app_info.xml for 2 WUs for use with the 670/690?

If MW would update the Server Software side we could do it via the website and NOT need an app_info file, like at Einstein now. Updating the Server Software OFTEN causes problems and can be very time consuming in the long run.

Einstein uses very old server code, with a few extra bells and whistles they've written themselves (this is one of them). So even with a server update, this feature wouldn't automatically appear.

However, all is not lost. With a new client feature, you can run multiple tasks without either a full app_info.xml file or a server upgrade.

BOINC 7.0.40-42 and new app_config.xml
ID: 56529 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 May 09
Posts: 2273
Credit: 384,213,636
RAC: 343,652
300 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 56531 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 12:41:12 UTC - in response to Message 56529.  

Anyone could post a new working app_info.xml for 2 WUs for use with the 670/690?

If MW would update the Server Software side we could do it via the website and NOT need an app_info file, like at Einstein now. Updating the Server Software OFTEN causes problems and can be very time consuming in the long run.

Einstein uses very old server code, with a few extra bells and whistles they've written themselves (this is one of them). So even with a server update, this feature wouldn't automatically appear.

However, all is not lost. With a new client feature, you can run multiple tasks without either a full app_info.xml file or a server upgrade.

BOINC 7.0.40-42 and new app_config.xml


Now THAT is cool!!!! THANKS!!!
ID: 56531 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : Number crunching : app_info.xml file for 2 WUs/nVIDIA GPU ?

©2019 Astroinformatics Group