Welcome to MilkyWay@home

source v0.18


Advanced search

Message boards : Application Code Discussion : source v0.18
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

AuthorMessage
Cluster Physik

Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 08
Posts: 627
Credit: 94,940,203
RAC: 0
50 million credit badge13 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 15461 - Posted: 15 Mar 2009, 10:23:00 UTC - in response to Message 15442.  

Would something like this help to find the error when a wu errors out? Or add any other usefull information. I'm sure you've thought of some of this Cluster. I think your addition of the CPU & wall time is great.
[..]

So I guess it comes down to the question what is really useful. Did you have a look on the ouput of 0.19e?

Running Milkyway@home ATI GPU application version 0.19e by Gipsel
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz (2 cores/threads) 2.99264 GHz (1105ms)

CAL Runtime: 1.3.145
Found 1 CAL device

Device 0: ATI Radeon HD 4800 (RV770) 512 MB local RAM (remote 28 MB cached + 256 MB uncached)
GPU core clock: 750 MHz, memory clock: 900 MHz
800 shader units organized in 10 SIMDs with 16 VLIW units (5-issue), wavefront size 64 threads
supporting double precision

3 WUs already running on GPU 0
No free GPU! Waiting ... 54.1299 seconds.
Starting WU on GPU 0

main integral, 160 iterations
predicted runtime per iteration is 145 ms (33.3333 ms are allowed), dividing each iteration in 5 parts
borders of the domains at 0 320 640 960 1280 1600
Calculated about 3.70012e+012 floatingpoint ops on GPU, 6.34181e+007 on FPU. Approximate GPU time 26.0078 seconds.

cut number 0, 40 iterations
predicted runtime per iteration is 18 ms (33.3333 ms are allowed)
borders of the domains at 0 400
Calculated about 1.15629e+011 floatingpoint ops on GPU, 5.38792e+006 on FPU. Approximate GPU time 1.25113 seconds.
Calculated about 2.48101e+009 floatingpoint ops on FPU (stars).

WU completed.
CPU time: 3.67188 seconds, GPU time: 27.259 seconds, wall clock time: 142.62 seconds, CPU frequency: 2.99265 GHz

I've actually thought about removing some of the partitioning information (the domain border values) as this was something for debugging and is not really helpful for the user.
Do you have any wishes?
ID: 15461 · 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 badge14 year member badge
Message 15470 - Posted: 15 Mar 2009, 12:45:27 UTC - in response to Message 15461.  
Last modified: 15 Mar 2009, 12:48:10 UTC

I've actually thought about removing some of the partitioning information (the domain border values) as this was something for debugging and is not really helpful for the user.
Do you have any wishes?


You beat me to it. Guess I'm on an earlier 19 version. I don't have any requests now. Nevermind. :p Good Job Cluster (thumbs up).

*edit* Realized I am using 19 as it the only one for windows. I can't use 19.e as it's for Gpu's.
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.
ID: 15470 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

Message boards : Application Code Discussion : source v0.18

©2021 Astroinformatics Group