Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Posts by magyarficko

1) Message boards : Cafe MilkyWay : Youngest Black Hole Discovered ??? (Message 43935)
Posted 17 Nov 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/210786/youngest_black_hole_discovered.html

2) Message boards : News : back up (Message 43645)
Posted 9 Nov 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:
Everything should be up and running again. I think I've fixed the last of the bugs that was causing holdup in workunits being validated.


Really?

What about this one ... http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/workunit.php?wuid=90929085 ???

According to what it says, that one has been held up for validation for an awfully looooonnng time :)

3) Message boards : Number crunching : HD6870.... (Message 43195)
Posted 27 Oct 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:
Do the new ATI HD6850 and HD6870 support double precision? Can I use those on this project?

4) Message boards : Number crunching : computation error after finishing (Message 42476)
Posted 30 Sep 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:

Your invalid WUs are ending with "exit code -177" ....

http://boincfaq.mundayweb.com/index.php?language=1&view=78&sessionID=4fcf04415d9d46fe87bb255fd6d271ec

5) Message boards : Number crunching : Pending Results (Message 42464)
Posted 30 Sep 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:

Am I the only one in this boat?


No you are not ....

http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/workunit.php?wuid=90929085

I have asked about this SEVERAL times but NEVER received an answer.

6) Message boards : Number crunching : Is there any hope ... (Message 41937)
Posted 5 Sep 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:

BUMP

7) Message boards : Number crunching : Is there any hope ... (Message 41831)
Posted 30 Aug 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:
... of EVER getting this WU either validated or deleted so that I can delete the host it is associated with?
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Aaargh! Server out of new work! (Message 39973)
Posted 27 May 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:

Pbbfflliitt!

9) Message boards : Number crunching : I have no idea what caused this (Message 39965)
Posted 26 May 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:
I would say the card is no good ...


Apparently it was still producing valid results just a day or two ago when temps were already this high. You don't think maybe just the fan could be replaced? How hard is it to find replacement fans in general?

Then again, card may still be under warranty ... so ....


10) Message boards : Number crunching : I have no idea what caused this (Message 39963)
Posted 26 May 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:
No sensors to show the rpm ?


Or maybe ZERO rpm ????

Maybe somebody else who knows more could comment?

11) Message boards : Number crunching : I have no idea what caused this (Message 39961)
Posted 26 May 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:
I agree with the others, most likely you have a bad/faulty fan. Confirm actual RPM (not percentage) using GPU-Z or HWMonitor or any number of free monitoring tools and see what they say.

If fans show at 100% but RPM less than 3-5K or less than normal then you have a faulty fan.

As to whether MilyWay damaged your GPU, I would have to say no. There are any number of reasons a piece of computer hardware can fail.
12) Message boards : Number crunching : WU Waiting for validation for 1 month ??? (Message 39563)
Posted 9 May 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:

http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/workunit.php?wuid=90929085

13) Message boards : Cafe MilkyWay : Team Recruitment III (Message 39487)
Posted 7 May 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:
14) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Detection ? (Message 39390)
Posted 3 May 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:
bump
15) Message boards : Number crunching : Use CPU option (Message 39293)
Posted 29 Apr 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:
Why every few days this option changes to "YES" - it's frustrating when my CPU starts to crunch Milky. It has other issues.
If it was already on forum - sorry: coudn't find.


This is a known issue if you are using an Account Manager to update your preferences at the project. For instance ....

http://boincstats.com/forum/forum_thread.php?id=5367

I don't think you can do anything about it other than to update your preferences directly here at the project.

16) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU Detection ? (Message 39275)
Posted 28 Apr 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:
Below is the output file from a sample WU from one of my hosts ....

stderr out

<core_client_version>6.10.43</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
Running Milkyway@home ATI GPU application version 0.23 (Win64, CAL 1.4) by Gipsel
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: -np
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 20
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: -p
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 0.8141631010093290000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 5.1474444927700760000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: -1.2815947200320840000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 171.7776143626600700000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 22.2262864212139700000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 3.3868236645853070000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 0.0000562598815600000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 4.0206936216241020000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: -4.7971545700480620000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 168.8427062952647800000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 0.7077170036007965000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 5.0683153488622010000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 1.7988182168921810000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 1.0000000000000000000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: -1.7505235684361340000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 151.7041348085007300000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 11.7211628475786970000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 3.6732927762312090000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 5.3702346912884495000000000
ignoring unknown input argument in app_info.xml: 19.6417083200254550000000000
instructed by BOINC client to use device 0
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9550 @ 2.83GHz (4 cores/threads) 3.4 GHz (292ms)

CAL Runtime: 1.4.515
Found 2 CAL devices

Device 0: ATI Radeon HD4700/4800 (RV740/RV770) 1024 MB local RAM (remote 64 MB cached + 2048 MB uncached)
GPU core clock: 900 MHz, memory clock: 490 MHz
800 shader units organized in 10 SIMDs with 16 VLIW units (5-issue), wavefront size 64 threads
supporting double precision

Device 1: ATI Radeon HD4700/4800 (RV740/RV770) 1024 MB local RAM (remote 64 MB cached + 2048 MB uncached)
GPU core clock: 900 MHz, memory clock: 490 MHz
800 shader units organized in 10 SIMDs with 16 VLIW units (5-issue), wavefront size 64 threads
supporting double precision


Starting WU on GPU 0

main integral, 640 iterations (1600x1400), 3 streams
predicted runtime per iteration is 233 ms (33.3333 ms are allowed), dividing each iteration in 7 parts
borders of the domains at 0 232 464 688 920 1144 1376 1600
Calculated about 3.28897e+013 floatingpoint ops on GPU, 2.47165e+008 on FPU. Approximate GPU time 149.5 seconds.

probability calculation (100788 stars)
Calculated about 3.34818e+009 floatingpoint ops on FPU.

WU completed.
CPU time: 1.46875 seconds, GPU time: 149.5 seconds, wall clock time: 150.944 seconds, CPU frequency: 3.4 GHz

</stderr_txt>
]]>


Question 1) Are the descriptions of my two GPUs (in bold) provided by the MilkyWay app, or does this information come from the BOINC client.?

Reason for asking is that the information is wrong. Both GPUs are described identically including core clock timings, yet one GPU runs at the stated 900MHz, but the other one runs at 950MHz (confirmed by both GPU-Z and Catalyst Control Center).

Question 2) Because they are described identically (even when they are not), can I tell which is which? Is device0=GPU1 in CCC and device1=GPU2 in CCC ??? Or might they be reported differently at different times?
17) Message boards : Number crunching : Still getting 10% invalid results (Message 38826)
Posted 18 Apr 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:
All good advice .... and it HASN'T fallen upon deaf ears :)

Thanks again.

18) Message boards : Number crunching : Still getting 10% invalid results (Message 38823)
Posted 18 Apr 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:
OK ... well thanks for the detailed explanation. I've turned the cards back down to default clocks and the invalids have gone away, so I guess it must be as you said. The app changed and pushed me over the edge ... because I never had this before.

I've also downloaded and run FurMark, but to be honest, I have no idea what I'm doing or what I'm looking for -- I wouldn't know an "artifact" if it bit me in the ass. Besides, that screen is so busy it's really hard to see anything.

Plus, what options do I use? I downloaded version 1.8 (the latest version ??) and I can start it in multi-GPU mode or not -- I have two HD4890's in the one box. Then there are options for "displacement mapping", "post fx", etc. I have no idea what that is?

As for dropping memory frequency, I've already been doing that, but I'm using Catalyst Control Center, and that doesn't let me take it lower than 490. Some team-mates suggested MSI Afterburner for over-volting so I may have a look at that, but again, I really don't know how far I can push things so I may not do anything other than looking at the software for now.

I'm glad the invalids are gone, but I'm REALLY bummed about running at default clocks. Wall clock run times have increased roughly 30 seconds for me which is approximately 15%.

Hmmmmmm .... all valid but 15% slower, or run them faster for a 10% error rate -- tough choice!

P.S. The Furmark "Extreme Burning Mode" didn't take my GPU temps anywhere near as high as the MilyWay WUs do ????
19) Message boards : Number crunching : Still getting 10% invalid results (Message 38819)
Posted 18 Apr 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:
So here's my situation ....

I left the project for a few days immediately after the new validator was released and the problem with the ATI HD58xx GPUs was discovered.

I've been back for a week or more and suffered with the rest of the folks thru the database crash and repair. So now that things finally seem to be settling down I've been reviewing recent results.

I have two hosts, one with two HD4850's using the provided stock application (no app_info.xml used). And the second host with two HD4890's also using stock application.

All four GPUs are mildly overclocked. The host with the HD4850's does not have a single invalid result listed amongst my results, but meanwhile the host with the HD4890's is suffering from an approximate 10% invalid results rate.

I was used to seeing these invalids before - when the invalid HD58xx results were clobbering mine. But now the invalid results I am seeing have many other HD48xx GPUs as wingmen so I'm not sure what's going on.

The only thing I can think of is it MIGHT be an overclock issue but I am using the EXACT SAME clocking I was on these GPUs before the new validator and I never had these kind of problems.

I have no idea where or what to look at, but if someone else more knowledgable could have a look or offer suggestions I would be very appreciative.

My good host with NO invalids ...
http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/results.php?hostid=159400&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4

and the other host suffering with an approximate 10% invalid result rate ...
http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/results.php?hostid=140918&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4

20) Message boards : News : testing new validator (Message 38098)
Posted 5 Apr 2010 by Profilemagyarficko
Post:
82% valid tasks, is not going to work in the long run, obviously. But I'll hang around for the shakedown.


Well I'm out of here for the time being as 82% is not satisfactory for me! I realize that MilkyWay is still classed (as far as I know) as an Alpha project, but IMHO it is mature enough that they shouldn't be running tests in a production environment - at least some of these bugs (if not the majority of them) SHOULD have been caught in testing before releasing this new version validator into the wild. See y'all later.


Right now it looks like the problem isn't the validator but the (optimized?) GPU applications.


I'm not using an optimized app, I'm using what is given to me by the project. I have NEVER before had invalid results, after the "upgrade" I was getting many.


Next 20

©2020 Astroinformatics Group