Welcome to MilkyWay@home

New Nbody version 1.48


Advanced search

Message boards : News : New Nbody version 1.48
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

AuthorMessage
Richard Haselgrove

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 12
Posts: 219
Credit: 448,778
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge6 year member badge
Message 63170 - Posted: 20 Feb 2015, 18:50:46 UTC - in response to Message 63165.  

Reporting on the split-run experiment. I ran six tasks with one thread to the first checkpoint, and multi-threaded thereafter. It shows in the stderr_txt:

<stderr_txt>
<search_application> milkyway_nbody 1.48 Windows x86_64 double OpenMP, Crlibm </search_application>
Using OpenMP 1 max threads on a system with 4 processors
Using OpenMP 3 max threads on a system with 4 processors
Poor likelihood. Returning worst case.
<search_likelihood>-9999999.900000000400000</search_likelihood>
21:46:43 (8552): called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>

So far, three WUs have validated against the extended quorum of three completed tasks, and three are still waiting for 64-bit clients to finish them off. No errors reported.

Wingmate 520623 was interesting:

Using OpenMP 16 max threads on a system with 24 processors

He's using an older BOINC v7.0.64 client, so he can't be using the same facility as me to reduce the thread count - maybe the server has been set to a maximum of 16 threads. But he's getting nothing like a 16::1 CPU time to runtime ratio for nbody tasks.
ID: 63170 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bowlinra
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Feb 15
Posts: 9
Credit: 13,905,328
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge4 year member badge
Message 63179 - Posted: 24 Feb 2015, 5:19:22 UTC
Last modified: 24 Feb 2015, 5:28:10 UTC

I've been running boinc for about 10 days now and was ran into your 1.46 wu. Pulled out most of my hair, because I thought I was doing something wrong. I've clear them out and have found two hung 1.48 WUs on different boxes.

I'm not sure how best to report / show this issue, that could help someone solve it. So here goes..

Server is 48 cores - Amd 61xxes 2.8Ghz 877 Watts [H] v9.1
Client: 7.0.65 on Ubuntu 12.04
Expected run should be about 1hr 30mins
App: ps_nbody_12_20_orphan_sim_3_1422013803_339990_3
Elapsed time: 03d,04:31:57 (03d,04:33:46) 100.0 100.0 - Deadline: 08d,17:27:28 16C Suspended by user

Server is 32 cores - Amd 6272es 3.1Ghz 495 Watts [H] v9.1
Client: 7.0.65 on Ubuntu 12.04
Expected run should be about 45mins
App: de_nbody_2_13_orphan_sim_1_1422013803_601749_1
Elapsed time: 01d,08:40:36 (01d,08:40:45) 100.0 100.0 -
Deadline: 10d,02:05:59 16C Suspended by user

Also the WU doesn't appear to be running with all 16C.. here is a top screen shot with 2 1.48 16C WUs running between 26% & 46% completed.

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
 7191 boinc     39  19  154m  14m 1860 R 1056  0.1 136:32.74 milkyway_nbody_
 7320 boinc     39  19 25260 7440 1684 R  100  0.1   3:39.90 milkyway_nbody_
 1206 root      20   0  214m  24m 7640 S    0  0.2   4:50.99 Xorg


Please let me know, if there a better way to report things like this in the future.
SMP: 4x AMD 61xx@3.0Ghz - 4x AMD 6176SE@2.71Ghz - 4x AMD 6172@2.41Ghz - 2x AMD 62xx@3.3Ghz

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
ID: 63179 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bowlinra
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Feb 15
Posts: 9
Credit: 13,905,328
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge4 year member badge
Message 63182 - Posted: 26 Feb 2015, 2:49:28 UTC - in response to Message 63179.  

Had another 4-6 stalled units, most appear be going thru ok.
SMP: 4x AMD 61xx@3.0Ghz - 4x AMD 6176SE@2.71Ghz - 4x AMD 6172@2.41Ghz - 2x AMD 62xx@3.3Ghz

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
ID: 63182 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bowlinra
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Feb 15
Posts: 9
Credit: 13,905,328
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge4 year member badge
Message 63184 - Posted: 28 Feb 2015, 7:42:22 UTC - in response to Message 63182.  

I have heard what to do with all these stalled 100% done WUs, except abort them.

Am I in the wrong message board to post these problems?
SMP: 4x AMD 61xx@3.0Ghz - 4x AMD 6176SE@2.71Ghz - 4x AMD 6172@2.41Ghz - 2x AMD 62xx@3.3Ghz

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
ID: 63184 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sidd
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 19 May 14
Posts: 73
Credit: 356,131
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge5 year member badge
Message 63191 - Posted: 2 Mar 2015, 20:27:51 UTC - in response to Message 63184.  

Hey,

It seems some of the runs you had were v1.46. If these are stalled you can abort them.
ID: 63191 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bowlinra
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Feb 15
Posts: 9
Credit: 13,905,328
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge4 year member badge
Message 63192 - Posted: 3 Mar 2015, 5:39:24 UTC - in response to Message 63191.  
Last modified: 3 Mar 2015, 5:42:43 UTC

I cleared out all the 1.46.. I'm still get some rare 1.48 that are stall at 100%. Here are all the one I can easily find from my BoincTasks History. 3 Unbuntu 32/48 core server on boinc 7.0.65 and 1 i7-920 PC on boinc 7.4.36.

I'd be glad to give you more information if you need it.

Here are some:
Project, Application, Name, Elapsed Time, Completed, Reported, Use, CPU%, Status, Computer, Virtual, Memory
Milkyway@Home	1.48 MilkyWay@Home N-Body Simulation (mt)	de_nbody_2_13_orphan_sim_1_1422013803_601749_1	01d,08:43:36 (01d,08:43:47)	25-02-2015 01:35 AM	25-02-2015 11:09 AM	16C	100.0	Aborted (203)	fah20 - Amd 6272es 3.1Ghz			

Milkyway@Home	1.48 MilkyWay@Home N-Body Simulation (mt)	de_nbody_2_13_orphan_sim_1_1422013803_643065_2	00:03:56 (00:03:56)	25-02-2015 01:35 AM	25-02-2015 11:09 AM	16C	100.0	Aborted (203)	fah20 - Amd 6272es 3.1Ghz			

Milkyway@Home	1.48 MilkyWay@Home N-Body Simulation (mt)	de_nbody_2_13_orphan_sim_1_1422013803_475467_1	00:01:19 (00:01:19)	25-02-2015 01:35 AM	25-02-2015 11:09 AM	16C	100.0	Aborted (203)	fah20 - Amd 6272es 3.1Ghz			

Milkyway@Home	1.48 MilkyWay@Home N-Body Simulation (mt)	de_nbody_2_13_orphan_sim_2_1422013803_808241_1	00:05:00 (00:05:00)	03-03-2015 12:21 AM		16C	100.0	Aborted (203)	fah20 - Amd 6272es 3.1Ghz	24.54 MB	6.82 MB	

Milkyway@Home	1.48 MilkyWay@Home N-Body Simulation (mt)	de_nbody_2_13_orphan_sim_1_1422013803_782698_1	10:10:25 (10:10:26)	02-03-2015 07:29 AM	02-03-2015 09:53 AM	16C	100.0	Aborted (203)	fah20 - Amd 6272es 3.1Ghz	26.34 MB	8.85 MB	

Milkyway@Home	1.48 MilkyWay@Home N-Body Simulation (mt)	ps_nbody_12_20_orphan_sim_3_1422013803_339990_3	14:13:21 (14:13:36)	26-02-2015 01:40 AM	26-02-2015 05:25 AM	16C	100.0	Aborted (203)	fah21 - Amd 61xxes 3.0Ghz	22.35 MB	4.68 MB	

Milkyway@Home	1.48 MilkyWay@Home N-Body Simulation (mt)	de_nbody_12_20_orphan_sim_3_1413455402_1688519_7	07:39:32 (07:39:39)	26-02-2015 06:31 PM	26-02-2015 09:08 PM	16C	100.0	Aborted (203)	fah21 - Amd 61xxes 3.0Ghz	21.19 MB	3.65 MB	

Milkyway@Home	1.48 MilkyWay@Home N-Body Simulation (mt)	de_nbody_2_13_orphan_sim_1_1422013803_730744_0	04:02:34 (04:02:36)	28-02-2015 02:35 AM	28-02-2015 03:14 AM	16C	100.0	Aborted (203)	fah21 - Amd 61xxes 3.0Ghz	26.73 MB	9.07 MB	

Milkyway@Home	1.48 MilkyWay@Home N-Body Simulation (mt)	de_nbody_2_13_orphan_sim_1_1422013803_505170_3	03:11:49 (03:12:03)	25-02-2015 01:33 AM	25-02-2015 01:36 AM	16C	100.0	Aborted (203)	fah18 - Amd 6176se 2.713Ghz			

Milkyway@Home	1.48 MilkyWay@Home N-Body Simulation (mt)	de_nbody_2_13_orphan_sim_1_1422013803_563877_0	00:51:54 (00:52:08)	25-02-2015 01:33 AM	25-02-2015 01:36 AM	16C	100.0	Aborted (203)	fah18 - Amd 6176se 2.713Ghz			

Milkyway@Home	1.48 MilkyWay@Home N-Body Simulation (mt)	de_nbody_2_13_orphan_sim_2_1422013803_652564_0	03:45:25 (21:35:00)	24-02-2015 06:34 PM	24-02-2015 07:34 PM	8C	100.0	Reported: Computation error (4,)	Christy-i7-920	33.69 MB	34.88 MB	

* This one has an ODD time stamp; I just start crunch in 2/14/15
Milkyway@Home	1.48 MilkyWay@Home N-Body Simulation (mt)	de_nbody_2_13_orphan_sim_2_1422013803_760581_0	05:20:30 (05:20:10)	01-03-2015 04:28 AM	01-03-2015 04:32 AM	8C	99.9	Aborted (203)	Christy-i7-920	5.42 MB	6.52 MB	

SMP: 4x AMD 61xx@3.0Ghz - 4x AMD 6176SE@2.71Ghz - 4x AMD 6172@2.41Ghz - 2x AMD 62xx@3.3Ghz

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
ID: 63192 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bowlinra
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Feb 15
Posts: 9
Credit: 13,905,328
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge4 year member badge
Message 63193 - Posted: 3 Mar 2015, 5:51:47 UTC - in response to Message 63192.  

Another observation, the 1.48 16C units are not full utilitizing all the cores. I would expect to close to 1600 on the %CPU.

I have 48 core AMD 6100ES, currently running 3x 1.48 16C and is only showing about 55% usage:
  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
57743 boinc     39  19  164m  25m 1788 R  936  0.1  21:28.01 milkyway_nbody_
57169 boinc     39  19  157m  16m 1824 R  897  0.1   1885:26 milkyway_nbody_
57711 boinc     39  19  154m  14m 1792 R  813  0.0  64:59.87 milkyway_nbody_
  267 root      20   0     0    0    0 S    0  0.0   0:16.82 kworker/28:1
 1503 root      20   0  203m  21m 7532 S    0  0.1  26:24.08 Xorg


Another server 32 core AMD 6272ES, currently running 2x 1.48 16C and is only showing about 70%
  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
32002 boinc     39  19  168m  29m 1848 R 1184  0.2  45:34.81 milkyway_nbody_
31999 boinc     39  19  154m  14m 1856 R 1082  0.1 102:30.81 milkyway_nbody_
 1206 root      20   0  214m  21m 7460 S    0  0.2  29:40.73 Xorg
32302 horde     20   0 17476 1408  944 R    0  0.0   0:00.18 top

SMP: 4x AMD 61xx@3.0Ghz - 4x AMD 6176SE@2.71Ghz - 4x AMD 6172@2.41Ghz - 2x AMD 62xx@3.3Ghz

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
ID: 63193 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Jacob Klein

Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 11
Posts: 32
Credit: 13,479,549
RAC: 45,466
10 million credit badge8 year member badge
Message 63194 - Posted: 3 Mar 2015, 8:18:11 UTC
Last modified: 3 Mar 2015, 8:21:49 UTC

Unless I am mistaken, the question "Can 1.48 tasks get stuck in a loop at 100%?" remains unanswered. Can we get a solid answer on it? And, if yes, can we get instruction as to what to do?

Simple questions, really. Trying to figure out what we can expect from the 1.48 mt app...
ID: 63194 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bowlinra
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Feb 15
Posts: 9
Credit: 13,905,328
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge4 year member badge
Message 63196 - Posted: 3 Mar 2015, 22:01:39 UTC - in response to Message 63192.  

Another one today:

Project, Application, Name, Elapsed Time, Completed, Reported, Use, CPU%, Status, Computer, Virtual, Memory
Milkyway@Home	1.48 MilkyWay@Home N-Body Simulation (mt)	ps_nbody_12_20_orphan_sim_3_1422013803_316785_5	09:23:50 (09:23:58)	100.0	100.0	-	11d,12:51:16	16C	Running	22.22 MB	fah21 - Amd 61xxes 3.0Ghz	

SMP: 4x AMD 61xx@3.0Ghz - 4x AMD 6176SE@2.71Ghz - 4x AMD 6172@2.41Ghz - 2x AMD 62xx@3.3Ghz

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
ID: 63196 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sidd
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 19 May 14
Posts: 73
Credit: 356,131
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge5 year member badge
Message 63203 - Posted: 5 Mar 2015, 21:28:54 UTC - in response to Message 63194.  

Hey,

The initialization procedure, unfortunately, is not currently worked into the time estimate. We are working on this. Since some parameters will take a bit longer to run than others, in some work units the estimate will say 100% but the simulation may still be running. However, if the simulation takes an egregious amount of time (on the order of a large fraction of the simulation time thus far) to finish after reaching 100% you can go ahead and cancel it. However, there should not be any infinite loops occurring in this version.
ID: 63203 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Odysseus

Send message
Joined: 10 Nov 07
Posts: 95
Credit: 9,184,857
RAC: 29
5 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 63205 - Posted: 8 Mar 2015, 0:43:05 UTC

I’ve got a troublesome 1.48 task on my MacBook Pro. (In case it’s relevant, BOINC is “throttled” to 25% usage on this machine, which has cooling issues including a bad fan.) Around 0h local time on Friday it showed 99.75% done after ~3 h “Running (2 CPUs)”, 30 s to go. The next morning it had reached 99.998% in ~5.7 h; the remaining estimate was down to 0 s.

Here’s where it gets weird. Late that afternoon the log shows Einstein@Home starting a task. I observed at about 18h that the progress was showing 100% complete, ~7.5 h time, 0 s to go—still claiming to use both CPUs despite obviously being down to one. It continued without change (aside from incrementing CPU time) until late this afternoon, when I noticed that the “00:00:00“ in the time-remaining column had changed to “---”, after about 13 h of CPU time. (Meanwhile the E@h task seems to be progressing normally.) I’m considering aborting this one if it doesn’t finish pretty soon.
ID: 63205 · 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 badge6 year member badge
Message 63206 - Posted: 8 Mar 2015, 1:04:36 UTC - in response to Message 63205.  

Try to use independent tools - Windows would be Task Manager and Process Explorer, I don't know what the Mac OS X equivalents would be - to distinguish between 'what BOINC says is going on' and 'what is really happening'.

Recent BOINCs give users a simulated 'pseudo %age' display to avoid anxieties. But it sounds as if this task is making no real progress at all, and all the time estimates are simulations.

You mention thermal problems and BOINC being 'throttled'. Is that a restriction on the number of cores used, or the proportion of time BOINC is allowed to run? There is a particular problem with the nbody tasks not checkpointing during the initialisation phase: If BOINC interupts computations during this time (especially if applications are not kept in memory while suspended), you might be re-winding to the very beginning at every interruption.
ID: 63206 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Odysseus

Send message
Joined: 10 Nov 07
Posts: 95
Credit: 9,184,857
RAC: 29
5 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 63207 - Posted: 8 Mar 2015, 4:43:59 UTC - in response to Message 63206.  

What I see in Apple’s Activity Monitor, which I gather is just a GUI for Unix’s top command, is consistent with one app running on each core, but it doesn‘t explicitly tell me what threads are running where.

I’ve always kept applications in memory. I had been running this machine at 50% on a single core until recently; after a v1.46 WU (now removed from the database) held up other projects until I aborted it, I changed the setting to 25% on both cores. Since I allow BOINC to run while the computer‘s in use, the interruptions are frequent but always brief.
ID: 63207 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Odysseus

Send message
Joined: 10 Nov 07
Posts: 95
Credit: 9,184,857
RAC: 29
5 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 63208 - Posted: 8 Mar 2015, 19:26:16 UTC - in response to Message 63207.  

Update: The E@H task is now complete, uploaded, and validated. Nothing seems to have changed with the MW@h task (except that it’s showing 18 h CPU time. No other project’s task has been resumed on the other CPU, but I don’t think MW@h is fully using both of them either (despite still saying so), because my “CPU Proximity” temperature reads about 5 C° below normal.
ID: 63208 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Odysseus

Send message
Joined: 10 Nov 07
Posts: 95
Credit: 9,184,857
RAC: 29
5 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 63209 - Posted: 9 Mar 2015, 6:16:42 UTC - in response to Message 63208.  

Well, I gave up (after 20:45 CPU time) to give my cached task a chance of getting done before deadline (and my other projects some time as well). We’ll see how this one goes …
ID: 63209 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bowlinra
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Feb 15
Posts: 9
Credit: 13,905,328
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge4 year member badge
Message 63215 - Posted: 12 Mar 2015, 4:03:26 UTC

Another stalled task 19+Hrs, other WU in this series (ps_nbody_12_20_orphan_sim_314*) run under 18 mins

Milkyway@Home	1.48 MilkyWay@Home N-Body Simulation (mt)	ps_nbody_12_20_orphan_sim_3_1413455402_1997284_5	19:48:43 (19:49:19)	100.0	100.0	-	11d,00:16:35	16C	Suspended by user		fah24 - Amd 6272es 3.1Ghz	

SMP: 4x AMD 61xx@3.0Ghz - 4x AMD 6176SE@2.71Ghz - 4x AMD 6172@2.41Ghz - 2x AMD 62xx@3.3Ghz

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
ID: 63215 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Odysseus

Send message
Joined: 10 Nov 07
Posts: 95
Credit: 9,184,857
RAC: 29
5 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 63216 - Posted: 12 Mar 2015, 7:15:41 UTC

My next WU seemed to run fine, but can’t validate—looks like the bugs in 1.46 are still biting …
ID: 63216 · 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 badge6 year member badge
Message 63218 - Posted: 12 Mar 2015, 8:55:24 UTC - in response to Message 63216.  

My next WU seemed to run fine, but can’t validate—looks like the bugs in 1.46 are still biting …

Well, as I pointed out three weeks ago, v1.46 is still being issued to 32-bit hosts, and still failing - the v1.48 deployment was incomplete.

Has anybody seen Sid(d)? Please tell him...
ID: 63218 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Knut Petter

Send message
Joined: 29 Apr 09
Posts: 4
Credit: 74,209,059
RAC: 0
50 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 63220 - Posted: 12 Mar 2015, 18:18:59 UTC
Last modified: 12 Mar 2015, 18:24:39 UTC

Not sure if this is because of the new N-Body. But basically one of my GPUs is not processing anything, because of CPU limitations.

12/03/2015 19:17:11 | Milkyway@Home | [cpu_sched_debug] all CPUs used (8.38 >= 8), skipping de_80_DR8_Rev_8_5_00004_1422013802_26039449_0

I never had this issue before. Computing preferences are set to no restriction. Though the "Use at most" always jumps back to 100% from 0.

EDIT: And earlier I was able to process CPU jobs on all eight cores, while running a GPU job on each of my GPUs.

12/03/2015 19:10:09 | | CUDA: NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 460 (driver version 347.09, CUDA version 7.0, compute capability 2.1, 1024MB, 685MB available, 1075 GFLOPS peak)
12/03/2015 19:10:09 | | CAL: ATI GPU 0: AMD Radeon HD 6900 series (Cayman) (CAL version 1.4.1720, 2048MB, 2016MB available, 5914 GFLOPS peak)
12/03/2015 19:10:09 | | OpenCL: NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 460 (driver version 347.09, device version OpenCL 1.1 CUDA, 1024MB, 685MB available, 1075 GFLOPS peak)
12/03/2015 19:10:09 | | OpenCL: AMD/ATI GPU 0: AMD Radeon HD 6900 series (Cayman) (driver version CAL 1.4.1720 (VM), device version OpenCL 1.2 AMD-APP (923.1), 2048MB, 2016MB available, 5914 GFLOPS peak)
12/03/2015 19:10:09 | | OpenCL CPU: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2384 (OpenCL driver vendor: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., driver version 2.0 (sse2), device version OpenCL 1.2 AMD-APP (923.1))

EDIT2( :D ): Suspended the N-Body task, it started a new N-Body simulation AND a opencl_amd_ati computation.
ID: 63220 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Jacob Klein

Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 11
Posts: 32
Credit: 13,479,549
RAC: 45,466
10 million credit badge8 year member badge
Message 63221 - Posted: 12 Mar 2015, 18:26:23 UTC - in response to Message 63220.  

Is it possible that your CPU task(s) are in jeopardy of meeting their deadline? If BOINC thinks any of them are, they correctly get prioritized ahead of GPU tasks, and GPUs can be left idle. It happens sometimes to me, especially on projects that have tasks with tight (5 days or less) deadlines.
ID: 63221 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : News : New Nbody version 1.48

©2019 Astroinformatics Group