Yesterday was triple the output of the Formula BOINC Sprint's best day.

Unfortunately, I don't think those numbers are accurate, just based on the numbers of results coming back. It's correlated to the obscenely high GPU credits being awarded. Maybe it's time I change to "Credit New", from the current "Credit based on runtime"?

I do believe you need to change the credit system. On my GPUs it takes running about 3 WUs to fully load the GPU. If I run 6 WUs per GPU I get twice the credit, but the amount of work done is probably about the same. I only ran 6 WUs per GPU on 1 GPU for a couple of hours. I started to run other ones for a few minutes, but then backed off to 3 since it doesn't really seem fair.

Thanks for the great job. Things do run really well.

OK. Some will not be happy about this, but after enough people suggested it, I restarted the validator using the default credit system. So I believe this will be the infamous "CreditNew".

LOL
I think none. I'm windows user and there wasn't need to install additional CUDA.
Unfortunately I have limited internet access on linux box so will wait for Windows version. Then try 1080Ti.
Wating...

Only errors here.
GTX645; newest drivers 418
Anyone can help?

PG PPS sieve works fine.

2nd person for a 6xx card to not work with 418. The card might just be too old.

lol, at least you guys are getting tasks. I just keep getting "got 0 new tasks".

I disabled cpu tasks, just to test the GPU versions. I am running driver 418.56 AND I have a compute 3.0 card. Are there any tasks or am I configured incorrectly?

lol, at least you guys are getting tasks. I just keep getting "got 0 new tasks".

I disabled cpu tasks, just to test the GPU versions. I am running driver 418.56 AND I have a compute 3.0 card. Are there any tasks or am I configured incorrectly?

It seems like the 760 should be able to receive tasks. The app is Linux only so the 210 won't work. And it's to old.

lol, at least you guys are getting tasks. I just keep getting "got 0 new tasks".

I disabled cpu tasks, just to test the GPU versions. I am running driver 418.56 AND I have a compute 3.0 card. Are there any tasks or am I configured incorrectly?

It seems like the 760 should be able to receive tasks. The app is Linux only so the 210 won't work. And it's to old.

Yeah, the 760 is the only one I'm using for it. The 210 does nothing. And in fact has never worked for BOINC ever lol

lol, at least you guys are getting tasks. I just keep getting "got 0 new tasks".

I disabled cpu tasks, just to test the GPU versions. I am running driver 418.56 AND I have a compute 3.0 card. Are there any tasks or am I configured incorrectly?

There should be plenty of tasks available. And I see no reason why the scheduler would not give you work.

Is the 3.01 executable in your project directory? I had the same problem last night, where I had the old 3.00 executable and it wouldn't download the new exe or send new tasks...but it eventually started working.

lol, at least you guys are getting tasks. I just keep getting "got 0 new tasks".

I disabled cpu tasks, just to test the GPU versions. I am running driver 418.56 AND I have a compute 3.0 card. Are there any tasks or am I configured incorrectly?

There should be plenty of tasks available. And I see no reason why the scheduler would not give you work.

Is the 3.01 executable in your project directory? I had the same problem last night, where I had the old 3.00 executable and it wouldn't download the new exe or send new tasks...but it eventually started working.

It isnt downloading any master file at all. I reset the project and even tried removing and then adding it back. Folder remains empty and tells me the same issue as above. 0 tasks sent.

edit: Let me clarify... initially there was a 2.12 file in there, and I removed it and then reset the project. Since then, no new file has appeared.

edit2: waited the 3 minute requirement, clicked update and got 100 tasks. Thanks!

100 tasks all computation error, besides the ones I was able to abort before they did. All compute error immediately.. output is below.

<core_client_version>7.6.31</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
process exited with code 1 (0x1, -255)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
Setting GPU device number 0.
CHECKPOINT_FILE = wu_sf5_DS-15x11_Grp91994of800000_checkpoint.
Checkpoint Flag = 0.
Reading file ../../projects/numberfields.asu.edu_NumberFields/sf5_DS-15x11_Grp91994of800000.dat
K = x^2 + 5
S = [2, 5]
Disc Bound = 320000000000000
Skip = (P^4)*(Q^5)
Num Congruences = 5
SCALE = 1.000000
|dK| = 20
Signature = [0,1]
Opening output file ../../projects/numberfields.asu.edu_NumberFields/wu_sf5_DS-15x11_Grp91994of800000_0_r891750085_0
Now starting the targeted Martinet search:
Error code 700: an illegal memory access was encountered file polDiscTest_gpuCuda.cu line 415.
polDisc Test had an error. Aborting.

</stderr_txt>
]]>

So it would appear 6xx cards have a problem with the gpu app. Most everyone with issues has that in common.

I added the min_cuda_version to the plan_class, to see if that's the root cause of the problem with the 6xx cards (if it is, I would expect them to stop receiving tasks)

On the flip side, let me know if properly functioning hosts stop receiving tasks, and I can lower the min version.

If enough people have older drivers I might just have to build from an older SDK. I'll wait to see what the concensus is.

Please build for older drivers also. I'm sure there are many, like myself, with older cards that would love to help but the 418.xx drivers aren't supported for our cards.

And there are others like myself who don't want to unnecessarily fiddle with their systems as they're running just fine.
I downgraded the Nvidia drivers on my Win box after the initial performance breakdown of the 4xx.xx drivers, and the older drivers are working nicely with my 970 and 1050Ti cards. Meanwhile both 1050Ti are sitting in my Debian system, running on pre 4xx.xx drivers as well.

Btw.: Which hardware requirements does the GPU app have?

---

- - - - - - - - - -
Greetings, Jens

Soooo is there a time frame before I can throw my Radeon cards at this?
It's a bit of a shame to see my hours and hours of CPU crunching now being smashed by NVIDIA GPU work :(

Oh...and you're going to need to rework your badge system with all these credits. 100Mil is nothing now.

---

So it would appear 6xx cards have a problem with the gpu app. Most everyone with issues has that in common.

I am running a 7xx card.

Unfortunately, I don't think those numbers are accurate, just based on the numbers of results coming back. It's correlated to the obscenely high GPU credits being awarded. Maybe it's time I change to "Credit New", from the current "Credit based on runtime"?

OK. Some will not be happy about this, but after enough people suggested it, I restarted the validator using the default credit system. So I believe this will be the infamous "CreditNew".

And now the credit awarded is so low it's not worth putting my GPU's on the project.

It was paying around 20 per run sec on my GTX 1080 which is better than many GPU apps but not crazy. Now it's only paying 0.08 per run sec, 1/250 of what it was which is crazy low. It's worse paying than Asteroids on a GPU. Einstein pays 5-7 per run sec.

It was paying around 20 per run sec on my GTX 1080 which is better than many GPU apps but not crazy. Now it's only paying 0.08 per run sec, 1/250 of what it was which is crazy low. It's worse paying than Asteroids on a GPU. Einstein pays 5-7 per run sec.

Maybe I'll try CPU and see if the points are better than GPU payout. :(

edit: If there is no significant point (not number of WUs completion) gain over CPU app, it certainly defeats the purpose of creating GPU app in the first place. I know some of us crunchers are crazy about points rather than the number of WUs completion. Like Asteroid, maybe pay a fix credits for each WU completion which is what is important to NumberField project, rather than the point. In general, the points are to attract crunchers. My one cent.

It was paying around 20 per run sec on my GTX 1080 which is better than many GPU apps but not crazy. Now it's only paying 0.08 per run sec, 1/250 of what it was which is crazy low. It's worse paying than Asteroids on a GPU. Einstein pays 5-7 per run sec.

OK. I changed credit to a fixed credit based on average runtime. Hopefully this will be a good compromise. I tried to target what Einstein pays (actually a tad more). I can adjust later as necessary. Now we wait and see...

It was paying around 20 per run sec on my GTX 1080 which is better than many GPU apps but not crazy. Now it's only paying 0.08 per run sec, 1/250 of what it was which is crazy low. It's worse paying than Asteroids on a GPU. Einstein pays 5-7 per run sec.

Maybe I'll try CPU and see if the points are better than GPU payout. :(

edit: If there is no significant point (not number of WUs completion) gain over CPU app, it certainly defeats the purpose of creating GPU app in the first place. I know some of us crunchers are crazy about points rather than the number of WUs completion. Like Asteroid, maybe pay a fix credits for each WU completion which is what is important to NumberField project, rather than the point. In general, the points are to attract crunchers. My one cent.

Tasks vary in length so fixed credit is unfair as well. The only other way is if the FLOPs calculated during the task was known for each task. The prior method was open to abuse since it was a function of the GPUs FLOPs and time.

Tasks vary in length so fixed credit is unfair as well. The only other way is if the FLOPs calculated during the task was known for each task. The prior method was open to abuse since it was a function of the GPUs FLOPs and time.

It may be unfair, but I would argue it's more fair than the previous methods. Credit from runtime is open to abuse and CreditNew pays next to nothing. I have computed the average FLOPS over 200 WUs for the current dataset and based the credit on that. In the long run this should be fair and accurate based on the law of large numbers (isn't this the principle behind CredtNew anyways?). The only abuse could be cherry picking, but with GPU tasks only taking a few minutes, someone would have to be insane to sit there and try to distinguish the fast from the slow.