Message boards :
News :
New N-Body
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 20 Aug 12 Posts: 66 Credit: 406,916 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Hello everyone, I have posted a new run for N-Body. Post feedback here. Thanks, Jake |
Send message Joined: 8 Apr 10 Posts: 25 Credit: 268,525 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
All of my n-body WU are erroring out with a DLL error (can't find entry point - I believe) Ed F |
Send message Joined: 23 Jul 10 Posts: 1 Credit: 820,128 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Excessively long completion time. Workunit name de_nbody_100K_1_30_13_1358941502_18929 E computation size 1012820000 GFLOPS ET Remaining 23255:40:00 I think this might be a small issue. Craig[/img] |
Send message Joined: 8 Apr 10 Posts: 25 Credit: 268,525 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
o.k. I continued to get the procedure entry point pthread_attr_destroy could not be so I reset, removed, and reconnected to the project. I set pref's to n-body only and " ... use at most 12.50% of the processors" The n-body appears to be running fine with a est time of 56Hrs. The 1 WU is consuming 46% of the system CPU resources. Ed F win-7 (64 bit core-7 "8" cpu's) |
Send message Joined: 8 Apr 10 Posts: 25 Credit: 268,525 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
well at 2:00:00 the WU is 2.606% done ... I think that implies about 76.75Hours total time. I ASSUME ;-) it will bomb out before then ( disk space exceeded) ... but we'll see ... Ed F |
![]() Send message Joined: 23 Sep 12 Posts: 159 Credit: 16,977,106 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
We are sweeping a wide range of parameters and I have been seeing really small units and massive units from the combination of parameters. We are seeing some 12 hour estimates running in minutes. So these units seem to be doing otherwise. Can you post the work unit name as in Craig's post so I can use the parameters as tests in the future versions. I can pull test points from the database but having these descriptions with the parameters makes it easy to use as a test case in resolving the issue. Jeff |
![]() Send message Joined: 19 Feb 08 Posts: 350 Credit: 141,284,369 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I have 2 not validated wu's, too many errors. The same for the wingmen. http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/workunit.php?wuid=303695888 http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/workunit.php?wuid=303864584 |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 27 May 11 Posts: 28 Credit: 209,380,724 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Linux64: Utilizing ".05 CPUs + 1 ATI GPU" in reality, a single nbody_100k task is using 156% cpu (1 task is maxing out both CPU cores) Granted they are only taking 2 - 20 minutes each to process, but they are not utilizing the GPU at all. -mpyusko AMD FX-8350 @ 4.3GHz AMD Radeon RX 480 8GB @ 1342MHz/2000MHz ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 23 Sep 12 Posts: 159 Credit: 16,977,106 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
If they have the error - exit code -1073741511 (0xc0000139) They may need to reset the project. A copy of the dlls messed up and the files had to be replaced in the database and download directory. That has been working on the windows 7 clients. As for windows 8 I have not had a test on that system yet so if it persists on the Windows 8 clients after a reset please let me know. Jeff |
Send message Joined: 8 Apr 10 Posts: 25 Credit: 268,525 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
With the WU 18.9% done and 16.5 hours into it ... it has consumed 59 hours of cpu time to date. this is a ratio of about 3.5cpu hrs to 1 wall hour. Some of this is due to computer usage no doubt but the remainder of the lost half hour I assume is due to thread synchronization. Is that a reasonable assumption? Ed F |
Send message Joined: 8 Apr 10 Posts: 25 Credit: 268,525 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
The WU finished with status "success". Wall time: 379,018 sec CPU time: 1,315,527 sec CT/WT = 3.471 (I was using 4 CPU's) credit: 3004. 9 If I was running the standard MW WU's this much CPU time would have yielded about 33000 Cobblestones (o.k. maybe 31000 would be closer ... ??) But the thing worked!! Ed F |
©2025 Astroinformatics Group