1) Message boards : News : testing new validator (Message 38169) Posted 6 Apr 2010 by Furlozza Post: Am running down MW wus until problem solved. *putting on devil's advocate hat* Could the problem not be that in the 58x0 series, an instruction has been included in cards that actually makes them more accurate? *removing hat* EDIT: make the DELETING wus

2) Message boards : News : testing new validator (Message 38096) Posted 5 Apr 2010 by Furlozza Post: Well, here's the first "magic number" failure I have in my records: Job No 90254161 - completed - can't Validate 3,6,6 47xx/47xx 1.4.415 -3.169546804554361 standard app 58xx 1.4.533 -3.169546898027065 standard app 58xx 1.4.553 -3.169546898027031 standard app 47xx/48xx 1.4.515 -3.169546804554371 Anon app 58xx 1.4.515 -3.169546898027031 Standard app 47xx/48xx 1.4.553 -3.169546804554361 standard app (hoping it makes sense after posting) BAsically of the six issues, there were two agreements in both 47xx/48xx and also 58xx. In both cases, the drivers made no difference as both "valid" and 'invalid' results within same series missed out for some other reason whilst using the same CAL runtime as one of the 'valid' wus. Or to put it another way..... it may not be directly related to drivers, but the architecture within the actual cards.

3) Message boards : News : testing new validator (Message 38090) Posted 5 Apr 2010 by Furlozza Post: Dumb Question time: 1) as multiple validations are now required, are duplicate/triplicate wus being issued, or is just one being issued, returned and then re-issued until the result quorum is met? 2) As some of the errors/failure to validate appear to be 'clashes' between 47xx/48xx and 58xx series cards, is there anyway to send wus to the same version of cards? 3) What is the precise reason for the failure of the above cards to actually agree. Could it be something as simple as using older drivers/CAL runtime 1.4.3/4xx 4)I have noticed in the 20-odd validations I have based these questions on that nVidia 260s and 285s are erroring out or completing the wu but not being granted credit. In the <stderr_txt>, the wu knows where the GPU is located but can't use it, and yet in some cases there are times given in the job summary (where all returned results are recorded) Dumb statement: 58xx cards validated regardless of GPU or Memory frequencies or App used or CAL Runtime: 1.4.5xx have been predominant. The above may not be useful, but am looking at it from the what has been validated, not the what hasn't or is in pending; the majority of pending giving rise to Q 1). As for pending, it appears to be mainly the clash between cards (nVidia/ATI and ATI series) and CPU produced results and the Validator trying to get two or three matching results. And yet, I've had results Validated on just my own wu, without any correlation from another source. So maybe there is a "magic number". As I said above, dumb questions......

4) Message boards : News : testing new validator (Message 38059) Posted 5 Apr 2010 by Furlozza Post: Is the "Canonical" result used in anyway in determining the validity of results? I haven't checked too many, but have noted that the first result in sometimes determines validity or invalidity. Strangely enough, the main variance that I can see is if the first in is either 48xx or 57xx/58xx and made the Canonical result, then all wus returned with that series card is validated whereas higher (or lower) cards are invalidated. All other data showing in the text file we get to see is usually the same. It is expecially annoying when the seen calcs return 10e-13 on the GPU FPU, the required figure on the GPU, as with the canonical whereas we are ruled invalid. Stars are usually at 10-e9 Possibly invalid opinion, but sometimes a coincidence ......

5) Message boards : News : testing new validator (Message 38040) Posted 5 Apr 2010 by Furlozza Post: HD5870 running ati13ati app. factory oc (875, 1250). Getting a 1 invalid/1 pending/1 valid split at the moment (roughly). Also noticing the 48xx/cpu relationship as well. IS validator looking at time taken?

6) Message boards : Number crunching : Modified app for Milkyway_17 (Message 10215) Posted 9 Feb 2009 by Furlozza Post: Thanks Gavin. Now all I have to sort out is why a program that was performing correctly without a cc_config.xml file four days ago, now needs one and with it actually processes THREE Milkyway units at once. Not bad for an E6850 that should be doing two milkyway and one CUDA

7) Message boards : Number crunching : Modified app for Milkyway_17 (Message 10213) Posted 9 Feb 2009 by Furlozza Post: IS there a Modified app for Milkyway 17 series? Or are there still 16 series WUs available?

8) Message boards : Number crunching : Is anyone glad with the project? (Message 9932) Posted 7 Feb 2009 by Furlozza Post: HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm let me see........ I join...... get 700+ credits and then the server crashes and I no longer exist according to the server (when I finally get on) and Boinc Manager where I am asked for my email and password to get into my page and then informed that neither exist. No longer a person/worker (rings a few bells, but that's another story) I hear that folks are getting WUs when I rejoin and yet have nowt to date. So my gripes?? simple..... it appears that all info is held on just one puter...... are/were any backups done? Why just one computer for a server... why not split it into two? and folks argue about credits?? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh

9) Message boards : Number crunching : credit for delayed results due to server-downtime? (Message 9892) Posted 7 Feb 2009 by Furlozza Post: And not only credit, but even folks were deemed to not exist. AH well, just had (according to BM) 708 credits from a a few hrs work, plus the 24 units that died in the crash, but having to re-sign was/is a RPPITA. ummm that is, a Right Proper Pain In The @ss. so, back to S1

©2024 Astroinformatics Group