GPU app - beta version for linux nvidia

Message boards : News : GPU app - beta version for linux nvidia
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6

AuthorMessage
Profile Eric Driver
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 8 Jul 11
Posts: 1163
Credit: 191,678,267
RAC: 174,723
Message 2316 - Posted: 28 Mar 2019, 17:01:44 UTC - in response to Message 2314.  

Excellent stuff for the GPU app,

Is there a daily quota?
I ask as I can not get any tasks.

Thanks


The daily quota is high. I too have noticed the scheduler is a little fickle at times. I get the uninformative message "got 0 new tasks" after the client clearly requested new tasks. I turned on the most verbose debug setting in the scheduler and looked at the log after clicking update in the client. Still nothing to say why it wont give work. And then 30 minutes later, for some reason, it downloads a bunch of work. I've been over all the possible server config options and see nothing that could explain this. I've also looked at the feeder and it's definitely interleaving work for both batches, so I'm pretty sure the scheduler is the problem.

There is one other thing I am going to try...
ID: 2316 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Eric Driver
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 8 Jul 11
Posts: 1163
Credit: 191,678,267
RAC: 174,723
Message 2317 - Posted: 28 Mar 2019, 17:03:47 UTC - in response to Message 2315.  

Any estimate on when we'll have an app that will run under windows?


Hard to say. I need to get he OpenCL version working first before I can answer that (my hope is that porting openCL to windows will be easier than cuda).
ID: 2317 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Azmodes

Send message
Joined: 20 May 18
Posts: 6
Credit: 164,425,408
RAC: 8,781
Message 2318 - Posted: 28 Mar 2019, 17:20:34 UTC

If anyone cares, I have calculated average task times for some of my cards (sample size 50):

GTX 1660 Ti: 239 secs
GTX 1080 Ti: 306 secs
GTX 1070 Ti: 337 secs
GTX 980: 333 secs

These are with two tasks running in tandem on each card. Hooray for Turing!
ID: 2318 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Eric Driver
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 8 Jul 11
Posts: 1163
Credit: 191,678,267
RAC: 174,723
Message 2320 - Posted: 28 Mar 2019, 17:43:25 UTC - in response to Message 2318.  

If anyone cares, I have calculated average task times for some of my cards (sample size 50):

GTX 1660 Ti: 239 secs
GTX 1080 Ti: 306 secs
GTX 1070 Ti: 337 secs
GTX 980: 333 secs

These are with two tasks running in tandem on each card. Hooray for Turing!


Interesting! Thanks for sharing.
ID: 2320 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile HK-Steve

Send message
Joined: 23 Jun 17
Posts: 5
Credit: 32,624,326
RAC: 0
Message 2321 - Posted: 28 Mar 2019, 23:33:08 UTC - in response to Message 2316.  

Excellent stuff for the GPU app,

Is there a daily quota?
I ask as I can not get any tasks.

Thanks


The daily quota is high. I too have noticed the scheduler is a little fickle at times. I get the uninformative message "got 0 new tasks" after the client clearly requested new tasks. I turned on the most verbose debug setting in the scheduler and looked at the log after clicking update in the client. Still nothing to say why it wont give work. And then 30 minutes later, for some reason, it downloads a bunch of work. I've been over all the possible server config options and see nothing that could explain this. I've also looked at the feeder and it's definitely interleaving work for both batches, so I'm pretty sure the scheduler is the problem.

There is one other thing I am going to try...


Great to hear that you have one more thing to try. Much appreciated.

Tasks were comming, but would sit for hrs with no tasks..
I was set for 0.10 work, I have now adjusted to 0.50 and see if that makes a difference..

Will let you know if that changes anything
ID: 2321 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Eric Driver
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 8 Jul 11
Posts: 1163
Credit: 191,678,267
RAC: 174,723
Message 2322 - Posted: 29 Mar 2019, 0:14:03 UTC - in response to Message 2321.  


Great to hear that you have one more thing to try. Much appreciated.

Tasks were comming, but would sit for hrs with no tasks..
I was set for 0.10 work, I have now adjusted to 0.50 and see if that makes a difference..

Will let you know if that changes anything


I created a new thread for this issue.
In a nutshell, I think its fixed now.
ID: 2322 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
jozef J
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 14
Posts: 7
Credit: 5,738,391
RAC: 0
Message 2335 - Posted: 30 Mar 2019, 12:33:01 UTC

And windows app?? Lunex dont work if i have multiple hdds ssds ,sata carsd in pcislots, and other hardware connected to pc.. yes single ssd in one pc configuration work as i have before.. but windows 10 now handle perfect heavy loaded computers.. but as i try yesterday .. three diffrent linux distros but lunex was not able detect hardware on my pc ,no one " command" work ... feel waste of resources when you make app for linux first..there is hundreds people with 20×× nvidia cards... wait for normal app..
ID: 2335 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Azmodes

Send message
Joined: 20 May 18
Posts: 6
Credit: 164,425,408
RAC: 8,781
Message 2341 - Posted: 31 Mar 2019, 10:08:12 UTC - in response to Message 2335.  

I see credit was recently doubled to 8,000 (and the average runtime also seems to have increased with it, though not quite doubled) and now decreased to 800. I'm not complaining, just curious about the reasoning.


feel waste of resources when you make app for linux first..there is hundreds people with 20×× nvidia cards...

RTX cards work just fine, though?
ID: 2341 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Eric Driver
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 8 Jul 11
Posts: 1163
Credit: 191,678,267
RAC: 174,723
Message 2344 - Posted: 31 Mar 2019, 17:45:13 UTC - in response to Message 2341.  

I see credit was recently doubled to 8,000 (and the average runtime also seems to have increased with it, though not quite doubled) and now decreased to 800. I'm not complaining, just curious about the reasoning.


The difference in average times on the CPU went from 1.5 hours for the DS15x11 WUs to 3 hours for the DS14x12 WUs (these are averages over 100 WUs, all on the same machine). This is the reason for the initial doubling. So it is approximate, and of course there is no guarantee the GPU times will scale the same, but it should be close.

Then, as discussed in another thread, the credits were way too high for CPUs. To bring them back in line, I had to scale them back down by 10. The cpu WUs are still paying almost 2x the original (from several weeks ago).

Here's the problem: The original crediting system could be majorly abused by GPUs, so we had to change it. CreditNew paid next to nothing, so now we are paying a fixed amount per WU. This is not ideal either, as GPUs and CPUs should be treated differently. I think the best solution will be to use CreditNew, but hack the validator code to scale up the payout for GPUs. That will take work though, and I'd rather spend my energy finishing the GPU apps.

How does the current credit/hour for the GPU compare to other projects?
ID: 2344 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Richard Haselgrove

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 11
Posts: 174
Credit: 147,767,506
RAC: 42,575
Message 2346 - Posted: 31 Mar 2019, 21:30:58 UTC - in response to Message 2344.  

How does the current credit/hour for the GPU compare to other projects?
If they are the same WUs, they should get the same credit - whatever hardware they are run on.

The concept of "credit/hour for the GPU" is a movable feast. I run the same GPUs for both SETI and GPUGrid: the credit awarded is roughly in the ratio 1::20. SETI pays too low, GPUGrid pays much too high. I usually reckon that the staff at Einstein make the most reasonable attempt to follow the definition of the cobblestone (section Claimed and granted credit). The 'cobblestone' is the sunday best formal name for the credit, named after Jeff Cobb of SETI. A 1 GFlop device will earn 200 cobblestones per day.

More coming in the other thread.
ID: 2346 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
mmonnin

Send message
Joined: 1 Feb 17
Posts: 23
Credit: 39,568,985
RAC: 828
Message 2348 - Posted: 1 Apr 2019, 1:24:27 UTC - in response to Message 2344.  
Last modified: 1 Apr 2019, 1:28:58 UTC

I see credit was recently doubled to 8,000 (and the average runtime also seems to have increased with it, though not quite doubled) and now decreased to 800. I'm not complaining, just curious about the reasoning.


The difference in average times on the CPU went from 1.5 hours for the DS15x11 WUs to 3 hours for the DS14x12 WUs (these are averages over 100 WUs, all on the same machine). This is the reason for the initial doubling. So it is approximate, and of course there is no guarantee the GPU times will scale the same, but it should be close.

Then, as discussed in another thread, the credits were way too high for CPUs. To bring them back in line, I had to scale them back down by 10. The cpu WUs are still paying almost 2x the original (from several weeks ago).

Here's the problem: The original crediting system could be majorly abused by GPUs, so we had to change it. CreditNew paid next to nothing, so now we are paying a fixed amount per WU. This is not ideal either, as GPUs and CPUs should be treated differently. I think the best solution will be to use CreditNew, but hack the validator code to scale up the payout for GPUs. That will take work though, and I'd rather spend my energy finishing the GPU apps.

How does the current credit/hour for the GPU compare to other projects?


One of the lowest credit projects now for GPUs. 261k for a 1080Ti yesterday but not sure if that was all at 800 or some older 4k/8k tasks. SETI uses CreditNew and will be better than 1 credit/sec so like 100k or something. Asteroids is probably lower but A@H is more of a CPU project IMO. Collatz, MW, E@H, GPUGrid, Enigma, Amicable, PrimeGrid, and Moo produce more.

If the GPU app can do 20x more work then per second it should receive 20x the credit compared to your own CPU app.
ID: 2348 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Alez

Send message
Joined: 31 Oct 12
Posts: 14
Credit: 30,251,746
RAC: 7,808
Message 2351 - Posted: 2 Apr 2019, 10:25:22 UTC

In my opinion, the change to 800 credits per task on a GPU is far too low.
Here's a simple number Eric. In all the years of running numberfields on a CPU, I found 7 decic's. Since the GPU app became available, I am now up to 18 in about a week of running on only 2 cards. I'm sure this will be replicated by everyone else running GPU's here. I believe you are quoting that a GPU does 20 x the work of a CPU. You need to encourage GPU's not make the project not worthwhile crunching compared to other GPU projects.
Apparently you had to drop the GPU credit because it was making the CPU credit too high. Why can't the award of points be based on whether the task was run on a CPU or a GPU ? Other project's manages that task.
The increased numbers of decic's found by just myself should indicate how much more work is being achieved by people running GPU's and should encourage you to award and attract more crunchers to use that platform. On most projects, the introduction of GPU apps makes the CPU app almost obsolete.
ID: 2351 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Richard Haselgrove

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 11
Posts: 174
Credit: 147,767,506
RAC: 42,575
Message 2354 - Posted: 2 Apr 2019, 22:11:17 UTC - in response to Message 2351.  

I disagree. Payment should be for the work done in searching - the same number of credits for the search task, whatever the device used.

GPUs will win out vastly in the number of credits awarded per unit of time - per second, per hour, per day, however you choose to measure it. Your own statement that you've found more candidate values since the GPU app was released confirms that you're conducting more searches. Good on you - that's your reward. You don't need to be compensated twice - once for doing more searches, and again for doing searches on a different device.
ID: 2354 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Alez

Send message
Joined: 31 Oct 12
Posts: 14
Credit: 30,251,746
RAC: 7,808
Message 2356 - Posted: 3 Apr 2019, 0:08:41 UTC - in response to Message 2354.  

I disagree. Payment should be for the work done in searching - the same number of credits for the search task, whatever the device used.

GPUs will win out vastly in the number of credits awarded per unit of time - per second, per hour, per day, however you choose to measure it. Your own statement that you've found more candidate values since the GPU app was released confirms that you're conducting more searches. Good on you - that's your reward. You don't need to be compensated twice - once for doing more searches, and again for doing searches on a different device.


It's not compensation for finding candidates. Points are an incentive to conduct the searches in the first place, at least for me. Incentivise GPU crunching and you get more people finding more candidates far quicker than using CPU's. Set the points too low and I use my GPU's elsewhere. Mercenary as that may be, points awarded are my incentive to provide my equipment and burn my electricity for projects.
Others may have different motives which I can respect. This is simply my outlook.
ID: 2356 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Cruncher Pete

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 11
Posts: 1
Credit: 49,196,864
RAC: 45
Message 2357 - Posted: 4 Apr 2019, 3:02:01 UTC - in response to Message 2354.  

I disagree. Payment should be for the work done in searching - the same number of credits for the search task, whatever the device used.

GPUs will win out vastly in the number of credits awarded per unit of time - per second, per hour, per day, however you choose to measure it. Your own statement that you've found more candidate values since the GPU app was released confirms that you're conducting more searches. Good on you - that's your reward. You don't need to be compensated twice - once for doing more searches, and again for doing searches on a different device.


I disagree with you Richard. In deed I am not sure what you are saying in your first sentence. Are you saying that we should get the same credit weather we use a CPU or a GPU? Your statement "whatever device used" seems to indicate that.

For a bit of background, I joined SETI before any other project was running. Currently, I have dedicated 16 High Powered computers purely for Scientific Research each with one or two GPU's. I stopped running SETI when research into the subject of "credit new" indicated that it is an unfair basic system to follow as is pro Personally by the number of projects that refused to use credit new.

Personally, I paid for my equipment and have dedicated them for Scientific Research, I became a credit whore since the creation of credit new and will crunch any legitimate project that is Scientifically orientated that gives the best credit. Are you serious and wish to move a goal post again during the game by changing the number of credits for each task weather you are using a CPU or a GPU? I don't understand.
ID: 2357 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Richard Haselgrove

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 11
Posts: 174
Credit: 147,767,506
RAC: 42,575
Message 2358 - Posted: 4 Apr 2019, 7:21:00 UTC - in response to Message 2357.  

Yes, I mean the same credit whether done on CPU or GPU. But let's be clear: I mean the same credit PER TASK. If you use a GPU, you will complete many more tasks, so your overall figures - RAC, total credit - will be much larger: there's your reward. But you'll be doing the same work, and that's what the credit system is designed to reflect.

I say 'designed', and I agree the design is flawed: I am particularly concerned that no attempt has been made internally to assess and correct its behaviour since it was launched in 2010. But I would like to go back to a situation where it was expected that all projects paid as near as dammit the same level of credit, so that decisions on what to crunch were made on other factors - scientific interest, publication rate, or whatever else tickles your fancy.
ID: 2358 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6

Message boards : News : GPU app - beta version for linux nvidia


Main page · Your account · Message boards


Copyright © 2021 Arizona State University