Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Posts by Bill

1) Message boards : Number crunching : nbody: Trying to run on 2 cores, but downloading 4 core tasks (Message 70099)
Posted 1 Sep 2020 by Bill
Post:
Unfortunately, this did not work. Steps to reproduce:
1. BOINC running. MW set to NNT.
2. Edit app_config as Jim1348 mentions above. Save and close.
3. Continue running BOINC until all MW tasks are completed. I did not reload the app_config file at this time.
4. Once all MW tasks have been returned, exited BOINC.
5. After waiting a minute, re-loaded BOINC.
6. Set MW to receive tasks, and 4-core Nbody tasks were downloaded.

Additionally, I still have the 0.5 CPU/0.5 GPU setting for the separation tasks. When I started recieving new files again, it is running five tasks total (4 separation tasks, 2 per GPU), and one nbody task. That doesn't seem right, either.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : nbody: Trying to run on 2 cores, but downloading 4 core tasks (Message 70092)
Posted 31 Aug 2020 by Bill
Post:
Keith, no dice. After inputting your suggestion, I set MW@H to NNT, ran through all CPU tasks (I had no other tasks from other projects, fwiw). Once I started accepting new tasks again I kept getting 4 core nbody.


Try this....set MW to no new tasks and get rid of all the n-body tasks by either aborting them or running them, then set your pc to use only 50% of the cpu's and allow more n-body tasks and see if they don't come in as 2 core tasks. Once your cache is full turn off all new n-body tasks again and change the pc to use all 4 cpu cores and your pc should happily crunch the n-body tasks with only 2 cpu cores. Yes it's a pain in the butt but it should work until you can figure out the right app_config file setting.
I could try that, but I am running other projects, and I'm using all four cores. I haven't limited my core usage before on this computer and I don't want to start now. Additionally, I don't have the time to babysit this computer.

Is there a list of command line options for this application? I know SETI@Home did with their MB and AP applications.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : nbody: Trying to run on 2 cores, but downloading 4 core tasks (Message 70089)
Posted 31 Aug 2020 by Bill
Post:
Keith, no dice. After inputting your suggestion, I set MW@H to NNT, ran through all CPU tasks (I had no other tasks from other projects, fwiw). Once I started accepting new tasks again I kept getting 4 core nbody.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : N-body sim processing time issues (Message 70087)
Posted 30 Aug 2020 by Bill
Post:
I have Ryzen 3900x with 64 GB ram, I just had n-body use 16 cores for 1 day 18 hrs with 10 hrs remaining. After reading through some posts, I shut down bionic, restarted it. it now says that it has been running 58 mins with 11 mins left to finish but it is waiting to run. if this keeps up I will remove this program as I am the one paying the electric bill, I feel that if you cant keep this corrected, I will not spend my money on your messed up WU's.


Just go into the Boinc Manager and click Suspend on the MilkyWay Project, that way it will stop what it's doing and not get any new tasks. You can then abort all the workunits, click update on the MilkyWay Project and they will be gone and your pc is yours again.

The n-body workunits use every cpu core you allow Boinc to use and will wait for them to be free if they aren't all free. So apparently you have allowed Boinc to use 16 cpu cores so that's what the n-body tasks are trying to do. If you want it to use less cpu cores you can use an app_config file but if you don't know how it's not exactly a plug and play thing but here's an app_config file that tells MilkyWay to only use 2 cpu cores on the n-body workunits.

<app_config>

<app>
<name>milkyway</name>
<gpu_versions>
<gpu_usage>0.5</gpu_usage>
<cpu_usage>0.5</cpu_usage>
</gpu_versions>
</app>
<app_version>
<app_name>milkyway_nbody</app_name>
<max_concurrent>1</max_concurrent>
<plan_class>mt</plan_class>
<avg_ncpus>2</avg_ncpus>
<cmdline>--nthreads 2</cmdline>
</app_version>
</app_config>

Fewer cpu cores means longer tasks so you will have to play with it to find a sweet spot, but any tasks you have on your pc will be crunched using the old settings and only NEW tasks will use any changes.


Mikey, I appreciate that you are offering to help, but why are you posting my app_config from this thread that is having problems? At least trim out the section for the Milkyway Separation tasks that are using 1/2 a CPU and GPU, it isn't relevant to this particular subject.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : nbody: Trying to run on 2 cores, but downloading 4 core tasks (Message 70071)
Posted 29 Aug 2020 by Bill
Post:
Mikey, the section of app_config I just added was everything contained in the <app_version> section. Everything else was there prior to me re-engaging with nbody. I don't understand why I have specified 2 cores max for nbody, but for some reason I'm still downloading 4 core tasks. I don't think this has nothing to do with my GPUs nor the separation tasks.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : nbody: Trying to run on 2 cores, but downloading 4 core tasks (Message 70065)
Posted 29 Aug 2020 by Bill
Post:
So I've decided to start running the Nbody tasks again. I have a 4 core CPU that has 2 GPUs. I want to limit Nbody to run on 2 cores maximum so my GPUs stay busy. I added the following to my app_config file (my whole app_config included, just in case, but the nbody section is what I added):

<app_config>

	<app>
		<name>milkyway</name>
		<gpu_versions>
			<gpu_usage>0.5</gpu_usage>
			<cpu_usage>0.5</cpu_usage>
		</gpu_versions>
	</app>
	<app_version>
		<app_name>milkyway_nbody</app_name>
			<plan_class>mt</plan_class>
			<cmdline>--nthreads 2</cmdline>
	</app_version>
</app_config>

However, when I reloaded my app_config, I have downloaded 4 CPU Nbody tasks. I'm missing something obvious, I just don't know what it is. Any ideas?

On a side note, I think I observed these 4 CPU Nbody tasks running while my 2 GPUs were also running...so 4 GPU tasks (using a sum of 2 CPUs), and a 4 CPU task. The Nbody task seemed to run slow, but once I suspended GPU tasks, the nbody sped up. I haven't had a chance to experiment with it more, but I'm curious if anyone else has noticed this.
7) Message boards : News : New Separation Runs 6/19/2020 (Message 70028)
Posted 14 Aug 2020 by Bill
Post:
Did you suspend the nbody task, or abort it? I find BOINC doesn’t fetch new work if a task is suspended. I don’t remember if that is per project or for the computer as a whole.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Long crunch time on new N-Body simulations? (Message 69163)
Posted 8 Oct 2019 by Bill
Post:
Well for now I'm going to just stick with the separation task and not crunch n-body. I only received a few 4 CPU n-body tasks, the rest were 1 core tasks. This seems more like a bug than a feature to me. IMHO, this would be a deterrent to people that just want to "set and forget" Boinc. However, I think I've stood on this soap box for long enough, so I'll drop this for now unless someone else wants to address this.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Long crunch time on new N-Body simulations? (Message 69159)
Posted 5 Oct 2019 by Bill
Post:
That's fair, but when my settings are a minimum of 2 days, 5 days additional, how is it I can't complete tasks within a 2 week deadline? The computer runs 24/7 crunching, 100% of the CPU time and all cores. I am not restricting boinc from attempting to complete tasks at all.
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Long crunch time on new N-Body simulations? (Message 69156)
Posted 5 Oct 2019 by Bill
Post:
I don't think I'm the only one that has had this problem. Check out https://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/workunit.php?wuid=1796656112. Two tasks timed out while computing, one didn't start before the deadline, and only one task completed.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Long crunch time on new N-Body simulations? (Message 69139)
Posted 29 Sep 2019 by Bill
Post:
I'm back. Same problem, different computer (located here). All my MW N-body 1.76 task that haven't started have an ETA of about 50 minutes (minimum) or 3 hours (maximum). Today, I have two that are running, both about 10 hours completed, but now they show completion times between 15 and 19 hours. When I checked on this computer last night I had NNT set for MW, and none of the Nbody tasks had an ETA of that long. I also had a task that had an ETA of about 2 hours when I started it earlier today, and now the ETA is about 20 hours remaining after running 6.5 hours. It appears that the initial ETA for these tasks are under-estimated by a factor of eight!

I'm concerned that two things are happening here. First, that the amount of N-body tasks I downloaded are too many for my CPU to crunch in the two week timeframe (even ignoring other projects). Secondly, I'm afraid the other deadlines will pass for the other projects (i.e., MW) because my computer would have spent too much time on the N-body tasks. Basically, my suspicion is that with under-estimated ETAs, Boinc will download more tasks than my computer is capable of crunching in the alloted time.

I currently have my computer set to suspended any Seti & Einstein tasks, and I have suspended all non N-body tasks for MW. I also have Einstein & MW set to NNT (Seti is just plain old suspended...their deadlines are very generous). So, all four cores are crunching MW all the time, and no GPUs are running to complicate/burden the CPU tasks. I'm hoping by exposing under estimated MW tasks early I can get them done in time for ALL tasks to be completed before their deadline.

Is there a way to get the initial ETA estimation set higher for these tasks? Without knowing the code, I'm guessing this is something that should be sorted out on the server end, not the user end.
12) Questions and Answers : Getting started : Can i use this site for donation time? (Message 69129)
Posted 27 Sep 2019 by Bill
Post:
I would guess that since your computer would be doing the work and not you, the answer is likely no. Still, feel free to participate here!
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Long crunch time on new N-Body simulations? (Message 68979)
Posted 19 Aug 2019 by Bill
Post:
Sorry for the late response, but I think I know the culprit. I was crunching Intel GPU tasks for Seti@home and that slowed everything down. I don't know why I didn't figure that in the first place. Times have sped up significantly since I stopped with the iGPU tasks.
14) Questions and Answers : Web site : Problem with computing time (Message 68885)
Posted 8 Jul 2019 by Bill
Post:
Must I disable other GPU options like NVDIA and ATI one ?
No, BOINC will recognize that you do not have either brand GPUs on your computer. Boinc will not download tasks that you cannot run. It looks like all your iGPU tasks have been aborted and no new iGPU tasks were downloaded, so you should be in good shape to see if your processing time improves. Keep in mind, the ETA listed may be artificially high.

With regards to the same tasks being worked on, someone with more knowledge than me could probably help you more. However, I think that if you are not crunching the Intel GPU tasks anymore, the remaining tasks should (hopefully) finish faster. If you don't want to be patient with those task then you can abort them and see how a new task handles.
15) Questions and Answers : Web site : Problem with computing time (Message 68879)
Posted 8 Jul 2019 by Bill
Post:
I'm not sure, but is your problem solved? It looks like your crunching times have reduced a good amount, but you don't have many tasks completed for me to feel confident about this.

I noticed on your SETI account that you are processing Intel GPU tasks with your UHD Graphics 620. "Conventional wisdom" has found that these tasks tend to slow down a computer's overall performance than if you didn't utilize this GPU. I would suggest disabling these tasks under your Seti@home preferences and see if your performance improves over the next few days.
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Resent Invalid and Validate errors de_modfit_85_bundle4_4s_south4s_1_ (Message 68876)
Posted 6 Jul 2019 by Bill
Post:
Right now I have 13 invalid task on this computer, with 98 validated and 22 inconclusive. All the invalid tasks are Separation v1.46 tasks. This appears to be happening with de_modfit_84 and de_modfit_85 files.

Here is the Stderr for one of the files:
<core_client_version>7.14.2</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
<search_application> milkyway_separation 1.46 Windows x86_64 double </search_application>
Reading preferences ended prematurely
Error loading Lua script 'astronomy_parameters.txt': [string "number_parameters: 4..."]:1: '<name>' expected near '4' 
Switching to Parameter File 'astronomy_parameters.txt'
<number_WUs> 4 </number_WUs>
<number_params_per_WU> 26 </number_params_per_WU>
Using SSE4.1 path
Integral 0 time = 1012.482696 s
Integral 1 time = 72.815637 s
Running likelihood with 31964 stars
Likelihood time = 0.742747 s
Non-finite result:  setting likelihood to -999
<background_integral> 0.000037570759755 </background_integral>
<stream_integral>  99.770597784118664  -0.000000000000002  2.975633165946907  31.903999743820332 </stream_integral>
<background_likelihood> -3.304855300694308 </background_likelihood>
<stream_only_likelihood>  -3.850858455061610  -1.#IND00000000000  -33.432437063013211  -3.345848296216324 </stream_only_likelihood>
<search_likelihood> -999.000000000000000 </search_likelihood>
Using SSE4.1 path
Integral 0 time = 962.681409 s
Integral 1 time = 66.608038 s
Running likelihood with 31964 stars
Likelihood time = 0.714490 s
Non-finite result:  setting likelihood to -999
<background_integral1> 0.000056193474869 </background_integral1>
<stream_integral1>  112.923813599446660  -0.000000000000000  6.056076443722354  34.858924693631693 </stream_integral1>
<background_likelihood1> -3.277210709097926 </background_likelihood1>
<stream_only_likelihood1>  -3.458606239195324  -1.#IND00000000000  -90.323903172119387  -3.362009522740810 </stream_only_likelihood1>
<search_likelihood1> -999.000000000000000 </search_likelihood1>
Using SSE4.1 path
Integral 0 time = 988.222037 s
Integral 1 time = 72.907524 s
Running likelihood with 31964 stars
Likelihood time = 0.777539 s
<background_integral2> 0.000055474761194 </background_integral2>
<stream_integral2>  138.240648517785560  0.000000000000000  3.273614114441112  32.353426341780249 </stream_integral2>
<background_likelihood2> -3.220026502247338 </background_likelihood2>
<stream_only_likelihood2>  -3.603610892548526  -225.946861528629880  -69.172319179365019  -3.469036352446314 </stream_only_likelihood2>
<search_likelihood2> -2.680819329206185 </search_likelihood2>
Using SSE4.1 path
Integral 0 time = 929.860979 s
Integral 1 time = 72.370386 s
Running likelihood with 31964 stars
Likelihood time = 0.809307 s
<background_integral3> 0.000040761402645 </background_integral3>
<stream_integral3>  131.392854802297900  0.000000000000000  5.855449497825772  36.142942293270110 </stream_integral3>
<background_likelihood3> -3.259187575862191 </background_likelihood3>
<stream_only_likelihood3>  -3.716972425906632  -227.654181625117020  -114.306934247414770  -3.267494168057085 </stream_only_likelihood3>
<search_likelihood3> -2.688803829698713 </search_likelihood3>
04:42:33 (13296): called boinc_finish(0)

</stderr_txt>
]]>

I was going to say two things appeared suspicious to me, but after I compared it to some of my valid results, the same parts of the output are in the valid tasks. Still:
Error loading Lua script 'astronomy_parameters.txt': [string "number_parameters: 4..."]:1: '<name>' expected near '4' 
I'm curious why this error is in stderr. Additionally, I thought perhaps the non-finite result could be a problem, but that doesn't appear in every output, valid or invalid.
17) Message boards : Number crunching : Long crunch time on new N-Body simulations? (Message 68862)
Posted 17 Jun 2019 by Bill
Post:
So, I think something is going on here. I currently have four N-Body 1.76 tasks running that so far have elapsed 2 or 3 DAYS, with most of those having 10+ hours to remain. These tasks were downloaded over a week ago (6 June 2019, 9 June 2019), and I am pretty sure I would have noticed estimated times of that long. Marmot, I did try adjusting the half life as you suggested and it had not picked up this discrepancy in ETA. This morning I have adjusted my half life setting down to 1.

I feel that this is a problem that shouldn't be happening. The CPU, despite being a laptop, is from 2017 so it isn't a slow processor. It has a higher GFLOPS/core than an i7-8700. Is there any kind of debugging I can do to evaluate this?
18) Questions and Answers : Windows : Milkyway@Home | Not requesting tasks: don't need (CPU: ; AMD/ATI GPU: GPUs not usable) (Message 68849)
Posted 9 Jun 2019 by Bill
Post:
I agree with BeemerBiker that the remote desktop may be an issue, but I think we need a little more information to sort this out. I am assuming you are getting no CPU nor any GPU tasks for MW? I see you're running Seti as well, are you getting any tasks there as well? Do MW & Seti have the same resource share, or are they different?

There is a way to find out from BOINC why it is not requesting tasks. In the cc_config file, you can add to the <sched_op_debug> and <work_fetch_debug> lines. Basically, it would look like this in the file:
<cc_config>
      <log_flags>
          <schedu_op_debug>1</schedu_op_debug>
          <work_fetch_debug>1</work_fetch_debug>
     </log_flags>
</cc_config>

If you post the output of those lines that should help figure out why you're not getting CPU/GPU tasks.
19) Message boards : News : New Separation Runs (Message 68813)
Posted 31 May 2019 by Bill
Post:
It would be nice if the Event Log could say something other than the queue is full (when it is not full). I find it frustrating to tweak for this project and be denied work units because I am successful running sixteen WUs simultaneously on two AMD HD 7990s.
It can, you just need to add debug lines to your cc_config file. Try adding <sched_op_debug> and <work_fetch_debug>. Post results here and someone that is more knowledgeable than me will be able to help solve it.

(edited for typos)
20) Message boards : Number crunching : Collected list of badges available? (Message 68799)
Posted 29 May 2019 by Bill
Post:
i look so little compared with those big badges..

i dont even know what im doing, if its worth or not...

i just have 2 vps working on it, a 6 core windows and 4 core linux, working constantly at 80% just cpu.
from 13 May till now, 50k credits... as can see from my profile
is that good?
Every task completed helps in my opinion, whether you crunch a lot or a little.


Next 20

©2020 Astroinformatics Group