Recent Posts

Been reading a bit lately about Kaspersky..... maybe these guys work for the FSB looking to use network computing to do their dirty work? 

{Did I just say that!!} 

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/nthamerica/2017/10/12/israel-warned-us-of-russia-s-kaspersky-hack.html

peckers ~     

Yes, I looked at the stderr.txt file in the slots folder, the Gromacs application itself seemed to set a backup checkpoint*, but as far as I could tell the GPU wrapper didn't use it and the task started again from the beginning.

* Stderr.txt said something like: "Back Off! I just backed up md.log to ./#md.log.2#"

My last 2 tasks that were heading for 9 hours just completed at about 5 hours, so the Remaining (estimated) in BOINC Manager is of little use. Similar low credit to my first 2 completed.

Server out of tasks again, I'll leave it requesting work and have one more try to snag a credit whopper but looks like they're finished now.

[A resend with a shorter deadline caused 1 task that was almost finished to stop processing at 85% complete, grrr]

I'm doing 2 concurrent on my GTX 970, GPU load......

A resend with a shorter deadline caused 1 task that was almost finished to stop processing at 85% complete, grrr.

Yep same happened to me but I was even luckier and was at 99.325%.  When I noticed what had happened I tried suspending the interloper & allowing the the old WU at 99.3% to run again, but then I seen the same thing as you did.  The old WU that was at 99% had restarted from scratch, so then aborted both them.  It was only then did I read that they are supposed to checkpoint in some "other" non-boinc way. But of course by then it was way to late to test out that theory.  But I did check the stderr file before I aborted it & it said there were zero checkpoints.  So in the end i'm buggered if I know? 

It seems strange things be afoot tonight hey Watson?  Sheesh! Where's Holmes when you really need him? 

I'm doing 2 concurrent on my GTX 970, GPU load is fluctuating between 60% to 72%. The 2 I completed so far paid quite poorly for GPU tasks, one ran 4.7 hours for 16,448 credits, the other 5 hours for 17,400 credits. No 500,000 and higher credit tasks for me, like some others are getting.
 
Can't think of a reason credit is so erratic unless CreditNew is being used. Unless perhaps the admin is mucking around changing the credit rate with little idea of what he's doing.

A resend with a shorter deadline caused 1 task that was almost finished to stop processing at 85% complete, grrr. When I paused that resend the original task started again from the start. Checkpoints aren't working on my computer even if the admin says they are.

So yes, quite flaky at present, some of the old resends that I let run for a while were showing that they would take over 30 hours to complete. So I aborted those ones. Think I'll give it a miss too after these 2 current tasks complete. They're going to run about 9 hours. If I'm going to risk doing GPU tasks that long I'd prefer more reliable GPUGrid tasks, plus I'd get a more generous and consistent credit rate there as well.

These WU's don't require AVX2 but as I found out they do need AVX in order to run.  The WU's themselves are extremely poor on GPU utilisation, on my bigger cards 1 WU's uses just 7% - 8% of the GPU load.  In fact even when running multiple(up to five) using an app_config I couldn't get past 75% load. But unlike all other GPU apps i've ever used running multiple instances at once doesn't increase the runtime of any single one of them.  Stranger still even at only 75% load most of my cards heat up just like they were under full load,  the same as running 2 of einsteins GPU WU's in parallel would do.

While the credits are OK i'm still not a fan of these as yet as there just seems to be to many unknown questions about how and why they run the way they do.
Also i'm pretty sure the GPU WU's are not using credit new but still credits are all over the place.  When I first looked at what others were getting I thought wow that's alright 250k-450k per 6 - 8hr work unit but the longest WU i've run so far gave 72,208 credit. But even then I have  quite a few other WU's that ran very similar times but only gave 25,000 credit. It seems to be a lucky dip,  if you're lucky you could clean big time.  If not then you "should" still do OK.  Although it seems at least possible to do poorly. In other words things have a looong way before they settle down.  I may finish up the WU's I have then come back an try again at a latter date.

But I suppose thats the price you pay for alpha testing a new GPU app.

For any one interested this is my working app_config that I am now using on a box with 2 x GTX 970,s.  As I need as many free CPU cores as possible for WCG i'm only running 3 WU's in parallel in the app_config listed below(0.33). Just change the numbers as per your needs.
You can remove the vina part of the app_config if you don't need control over the vina CPU app.

<app_config>

<app>
<name>gmx</name>
<gpu_versions>
<gpu_usage>0.33</gpu_usage>
<cpu_usage>0.5</cpu_usage>
<max_concurrent>6</max_concurrent>
</gpu_versions>
</app>

<app>
<name>vina</name>
<max_concurrent>10</max_concurrent>
</app>

</app_config>

~ up  (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/knees-up)   

Seems like it's missing a very basic "special requirement" to work on my Skylake computer also. "No tasks are available for gromacs."

Forget if this project uses CreditNew or not, for CPU it is known to be an unreliable and inconsistent system, but using it for GPU tasks can result in very extreme swings in credit rate.

I'll give it a go if there are any more tasks issued.
Thanks for the alert Chooka.

Greetings All

It does have some special requirements, which is explained via the link that chooka03 has posted.

Out of my 4 crunchers, only 1 can do it and thats the AMD Ryzen 1400 due to it having the required AVX2 cpu component.

The others are Core2Quad crunchers.

Blade Runner inspired synthwave:

Synth Runner 2017 - Synthetics Records
https://synthetics.bandcamp.com/album/synth-runner-2017