Variable Sized Wokunits & New CPU Applications
log in

Advanced search

Message boards : News : Variable Sized Wokunits & New CPU Applications

Author Message
Profile Slicker
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 09
Posts: 2525
Credit: 740,580,099
RAC: 1
Message 18681 - Posted: 20 Feb 2014, 20:32:03 UTC

I have implemented BOINC's multi-size workunits which adjusts the size of the workunit to the speed of the processor. The workunits are all named solo_collatz but there will be 4 different sizes. The smallest will be the size of that the mini_collatz workunits used to be. The largest will remain the size of the original collatz and solo_collatz workunits or 8 times the size of the smallest. There are also intermediate sizes which are 25% and 50% of the size of the largest. You can think of it as mini, small, medium, and large or 100 billion, 200 bilion, 400 billion and 800 billion numbers per workunit. That also means that even though the workinit name is solo_collatz, the credit awarded is directly proportional to the work done. The mini workunit does 1/8th the work and is awarded 1/8th the credit.

The smaller size workunits allows me to release non-OpenCL versions of the CPU applications which use a single core/processor per workunit just like the old mini_collatz CPU applications.

Lastly, there still seems to be an issue with multiple venues and plan class choices. A fix will be put in place as soon as I figure out why it isn't working properly.

Profile Overtonesinger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Jul 10
Posts: 21
Credit: 142,646,892
RAC: 1,941
Message 18814 - Posted: 9 Mar 2014, 8:57:10 UTC - in response to Message 18681.

Seems working now! My phones have got small WUs according to their slowliness. Those units seem approx. 16 times smaller than the original WU it has got on friday! :

My calculated estimates from fraction done and time elapsed:

11.36 hours for the small one.
189.4 hours for the BIG one.
____________
Melwen - child of the Fangorn Forest

Mike
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 13
Posts: 17
Credit: 33,587,437
RAC: 0
Message 18847 - Posted: 14 Mar 2014, 15:51:45 UTC
Last modified: 14 Mar 2014, 15:55:06 UTC

Something funny going on. My INTEL2500 is now crunching WU which take 6 minutes (estimated and actual). Assuming these are the new shortest WU, that implies a full length WU should take 24 minutes when they were actually taking 6 hours!

EDIT they are worth around 60 credits each which is about 1/60 of a full length WU and they take about 1/60 of the time so that at least is consistent.
____________

Profile Slicker
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 09
Posts: 2525
Credit: 740,580,099
RAC: 1
Message 18852 - Posted: 14 Mar 2014, 20:36:29 UTC - in response to Message 18847.

Something funny going on. My INTEL2500 is now crunching WU which take 6 minutes (estimated and actual). Assuming these are the new shortest WU, that implies a full length WU should take 24 minutes when they were actually taking 6 hours!

EDIT they are worth around 60 credits each which is about 1/60 of a full length WU and they take about 1/60 of the time so that at least is consistent.


There are 8 sizes of WUs. Each is twice as large as the previous. I'm not convinced that it is using the GPU flops instead of the CPU flops as it was sending really large WUs to CPUs at times and also really small WUs to GPUs at times. Recently, I added logic so that it would only send the 3 smallest sizes to CPUs and only send the 5 larges sizes to GPUs. I did that knowing from tests that an 8400 GS (about the slowest nVidia GPU that can crunch) runs at about the same speed as a Core 2 Duo E2160 @ 1.8 Mhz (a rather slow CPU by today's standards).

Werinbert
Send message
Joined: 7 May 13
Posts: 24
Credit: 100,197,949
RAC: 0
Message 18908 - Posted: 23 Mar 2014, 21:48:31 UTC - in response to Message 18852.

Is there a way to set it so I don't get the multi core variant of the cpu app? Rather I would prefer to run the single core app if possible.
____________
"For those who have so little patience that they equate a single day to eternity: yes, the project is dead. For all the others, the project is back online. :-)" -- Slicker

Werinbert
Send message
Joined: 7 May 13
Posts: 24
Credit: 100,197,949
RAC: 0
Message 18909 - Posted: 23 Mar 2014, 23:30:37 UTC - in response to Message 18908.

never mind...
this thread covered it: http://boinc.thesonntags.com/collatz/forum_thread.php?id=4&postid=18881#18881
____________
"For those who have so little patience that they equate a single day to eternity: yes, the project is dead. For all the others, the project is back online. :-)" -- Slicker

Claggy
Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 09
Posts: 288
Credit: 14,320,498
RAC: 0
Message 18929 - Posted: 29 Mar 2014, 12:54:03 UTC - in response to Message 18681.

Lastly, there still seems to be an issue with multiple venues and plan class choices. A fix will be put in place as soon as I figure out why it isn't working properly.

Yep, my Windows x64 i7-2600K/HD7770 host has been crunching OpenCL ATI/AMD GPU tasks exclusively,

But the Application details page has stats for these ones too:

solo_collatz 6.06 i686-pc-linux-gnu (opencl_intel_cpu),

solo_collatz 6.02 x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (cuda40)

solo_collatz 6.00 armv6l-unknown-linux-gnueabi

http://boinc.thesonntags.com/collatz/host_app_versions.php?hostid=20542

Claggy

Profile Pooh Bear 27
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 1 Aug 10
Posts: 54
Credit: 108,227,920
RAC: 0
Message 18930 - Posted: 29 Mar 2014, 18:20:38 UTC

It would be nice if we could pick a size. My Android has been running the 3 smallest units randomly. It would be nice if I could set it to run one size consistently so I could better monitor the unit.

Profile Crunch3r
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Jun 09
Posts: 219
Credit: 7,515,663,568
RAC: 12,058
Message 18931 - Posted: 29 Mar 2014, 20:24:08 UTC - in response to Message 18930.

It would be nice if we could pick a size. My Android has been running the 3 smallest units randomly. It would be nice if I could set it to run one size consistently so I could better monitor the unit.


I'm in favour of that too. It's kind of annoying to run WUs that only take a few sec. on a GPU... despite getting lager ones on a phone, which makes no sense at all.
____________

Team BOINC United.Join Science that matters.

Profile Slicker
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 09
Posts: 2525
Credit: 740,580,099
RAC: 1
Message 18937 - Posted: 31 Mar 2014, 13:17:06 UTC - in response to Message 18931.

It would be nice if we could pick a size. My Android has been running the 3 smallest units randomly. It would be nice if I could set it to run one size consistently so I could better monitor the unit.


I'm in favour of that too. It's kind of annoying to run WUs that only take a few sec. on a GPU... despite getting lager ones on a phone, which makes no sense at all.


I'm thinking 4 choices:
1. tiny = 6,442,450,944 numbers
2. mini = 16 times larger than tiny or 103,079,215,104
3. standard = 128 times larger than tiny or 824,633,720,832 numbers
4. automatic = same as today where CPUs get tiny to below mini and GPUs get mini to standard. This would be the default so people are not forced to create settings

That would be the same as pre-crash with the addition of the tiny for phones, tablets, and Raspberry Pi devices.

That being said, expect less credit on the smaller WUs. The standard WUs used to get a 20% increase since they reduced the load on the server. The multi-size was supposed to fix that so that each device got a WU that was the appropriate size for it. If people get to choose, then people WILL abuse it and run the tiny and mini WUs on fast GPUs. So, the tiny and mini would go back to the previous credit level (20% less) so that there is still an incentive to run the large WUs if the GPU can handle it. I will also reduce the number of WU size from 8 to 3 as well. That should help the server feeder since right now it has to handle 41 app versions in 8 sizes or 321 combinations which is why it doesn't always have the correct size for every device.

Profile Pooh Bear 27
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 1 Aug 10
Posts: 54
Credit: 108,227,920
RAC: 0
Message 18938 - Posted: 31 Mar 2014, 13:40:31 UTC

I'm thinking 4 choices:

Sounds reasonable. I like the idea of leaving an automatic.

My Tablet currently runs the 3 smallest sizes (it seems), I like the larger sized ones more than the small sized ones, less communications needed, and more just crunch time.

I see there is a "Mobile" location choice for individual systems, but no settings pages for that choice. It also would be nice to be able to use that location resource.

Claggy
Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 09
Posts: 288
Credit: 14,320,498
RAC: 0
Message 18939 - Posted: 31 Mar 2014, 16:40:23 UTC - in response to Message 18938.
Last modified: 31 Mar 2014, 16:41:14 UTC

I see there is a "Mobile" location choice for individual systems, but no settings pages for that choice. It also would be nice to be able to use that location resource.

Later Boinc server software has had that preference removed, as it was a lot of work to implement, so wasn't done.
the Official Android Boinc only looks at the default location/venue anyway, you may move it to a different location/venue and that server side project preferences will be used,
But if you have 'Use CPU' on the default venue set to NO, the Official Android Boinc won't ask for work, there is a changeset in place to fix that, but Rom hasn't built a new Android client with that fix in place yet.

Claggy

Profile Al Dente
Send message
Joined: 20 Jul 09
Posts: 1
Credit: 86,829,311
RAC: 0
Message 18974 - Posted: 2 Apr 2014, 5:16:00 UTC

Will I have to be in my kitchen to download wokunits?
Will credit be based on the diameter or volume of my wok?
Will I be able to download mobile wokunits when I'm camping?

Profile Slicker
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 09
Posts: 2525
Credit: 740,580,099
RAC: 1
Message 18975 - Posted: 2 Apr 2014, 5:44:39 UTC - in response to Message 18974.

Will I have to be in my kitchen to download wokunits?
Will credit be based on the diameter or volume of my wok?
Will I be able to download mobile wokunits when I'm camping?


Yes, but only if you have the 64-bit Microwave app installed.
Volume of course.
Sure, but you will need a really long extension cord as the mobile device will only work when plugged in.

Profile Crunch3r
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Jun 09
Posts: 219
Credit: 7,515,663,568
RAC: 12,058
Message 18985 - Posted: 2 Apr 2014, 17:07:00 UTC - in response to Message 18937.



I'm thinking 4 choices:
1. tiny = 6,442,450,944 numbers
2. mini = 16 times larger than tiny or 103,079,215,104
3. standard = 128 times larger than tiny or 824,633,720,832 numbers
4. automatic = same as today where CPUs get tiny to below mini and GPUs get mini to standard. This would be the default so people are not forced to create settings



I'd go a bit further ...

1. tiny = 6,442,450,944 numbers
2. mini = 16 times larger than tiny or 103,079,215,104
3. standard = 128 times larger than tiny or 824,633,720,832 numbers
4. large = 256 times larger
5 xl = 512 times larger
6. automatic
____________

Team BOINC United.Join Science that matters.

Profile Slicker
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 09
Posts: 2525
Credit: 740,580,099
RAC: 1
Message 18989 - Posted: 3 Apr 2014, 4:00:44 UTC - in response to Message 18985.



I'm thinking 4 choices:
1. tiny = 6,442,450,944 numbers
2. mini = 16 times larger than tiny or 103,079,215,104
3. standard = 128 times larger than tiny or 824,633,720,832 numbers
4. automatic = same as today where CPUs get tiny to below mini and GPUs get mini to standard. This would be the default so people are not forced to create settings



I'd go a bit further ...

1. tiny = 6,442,450,944 numbers
2. mini = 16 times larger than tiny or 103,079,215,104
3. standard = 128 times larger than tiny or 824,633,720,832 numbers
4. large = 256 times larger
5 xl = 512 times larger
6. automatic


The biggest issue with choosing a size is that the size for CPU WUs won't usually be the same size as the GPU WUs and a machine can't be in one venue for CPU tasks and another for GPU tasks. So.... that means having two sets of WU size choices, one for CPUs (e.g. tiny or mini and default to mini for ARM and tiny for non-ARM CPUs) and a second set for GPUs (tiny to xml as choices) where tiny or standard are sent if no size is selected.


Post to thread

Message boards : News : Variable Sized Wokunits & New CPU Applications


Main page · Your account · Message boards


Copyright © 2018 Jon Sonntag; All rights reserved.