Posts by Anthony Ayiomamitis

1) Message boards : News : Use at your own risk (Message 441)
Posted 25 May 2018 by Anthony Ayiomamitis
Post:
Do I have to exclude one core in boinc preferences so it will run more efficiently ?

I would not rely too much on what BOINC shows in this regard. For example, with my 1080 running Collatz, the CPU contribution is less than one second total time for each unit. Also, I have left one logical core (ie one thread) available for Collatz and which is at best 12.5% of what is available (ie one thread out of eight threads on my quad core i7 6700k). Of course, precisely the opposite with my 1080 and which constantly shows 99-100% utilization.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Optimizing the apps (Message 408)
Posted 20 May 2018 by Anthony Ayiomamitis
Post:
There might be a simple explanation for this 'highly optimized' GPU: the runtimes reported to the Collatz server could be plain wrong...

I myself stumbled across a task delivered by computer 817800. It's running a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB (same as mine). According to its task list it's processing tasks in 113 to 346 seconds... way faster than my rig (7xx seconds with an optimized config).

A closer look at the stderr output files of 817800 shows elapse times of 28 to 32 minutes (about 1700 seconds). This matches with the report times of this computer: about one WU every 30 minutes.

My best guess is that the BOINC client on this computer reports wrong runtimes. Not the first time I noticed this happening.

This is precisely the user and computer which I was referring to in my original message. I also looked at the stderr output files but I was not sure if perhaps they were modified with BOINC reporting the actual/real time. Your times are very similar to mine (7xx seconds).
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Optimizing the apps (Message 399)
Posted 18 May 2018 by Anthony Ayiomamitis
Post:
Mike,

Have you looked at the performance when running two uw's at the same time on one GPU? With my current config, my GPU is running at 99-100% efficiency but I wonder if there is better throughput with two units running simultaneously.

Not that I am complaining with the 345 seconds per unit right now (GTX 1080).


Try it but I don't think there's enough overhead left since you said you are already using 99 to 100% of the gpu on one workunit now.

The reason I ask is that I had a work unit cancelled by the server before I even started on it and it had to do with the fact that someone else completed it a few minutes earlier. What caught my attention was the fact it was processed in something like 202 seconds (!) with a GTX 1060. I have the same card and I need about 780 seconds for a unit to process. To make matters worse, this fellow had many units complete with very similar run times (even as low as 120 seconds). This led me to wonder if there are gross efficiencies remaining to be gained.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Optimizing the apps (Message 388)
Posted 17 May 2018 by Anthony Ayiomamitis
Post:
Mike,

Have you looked at the performance when running two uw's at the same time on one GPU? With my current config, my GPU is running at 99-100% efficiency but I wonder if there is better throughput with two units running simultaneously.

Not that I am complaining with the 345 seconds per unit right now (GTX 1080).
5) Message boards : News : Use at your own risk (Message 348)
Posted 13 May 2018 by Anthony Ayiomamitis
Post:
Fine at this end as well with new work.

Slicker, we are all curious as to what happened.
6) Message boards : News : Use at your own risk (Message 342)
Posted 13 May 2018 by Anthony Ayiomamitis
Post:
I was fine with 388.31 and until I upgraded to 397.64 and this was with both a GTX 1060 and GTX 1080.

I just loaded 388.31 and the problem still persists. Back to reloading 397.64.
7) Message boards : News : Use at your own risk (Message 339)
Posted 13 May 2018 by Anthony Ayiomamitis
Post:
To add more fuel to the fire -- I have five machines running either W10 pro or 7 pro, with a mix of GTX1080s or 1070s. All GPUs are using Nvidia driver 388.31.

Four machines have stopped getting WUs a few days ago, But one still is! That one is a Win10pro/GTX1080mini box. I need to determine the difference.

I was fine with 388.31 and until I upgraded to 397.64 and this was with both a GTX 1060 and GTX 1080.
8) Message boards : News : Use at your own risk (Message 324)
Posted 12 May 2018 by Anthony Ayiomamitis
Post:
A number of hours ago I updated my driver to the latest version (397.64) and suddenly I also have the same problem and where I cannot download any tasks.

I will sit down tomorrow and reload my previous driver (388.13).
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Optimizing the apps (Message 120)
Posted 23 Apr 2018 by Anthony Ayiomamitis
Post:
My GTX 1060 has gone from 13 minutes per task (pre down-time) to about 16 minutes (post down-time) and this is using the original parms I had in place prior to the temporary down-time. I know that others are still producing results at around 13 minutes per unit. I have tried various changes but no luck. Can someone assist me in this regard?

What is puzzling is that I applied my original GTX 1060 parms to my GTX 1080 since I did not have a copy of the parms for the latter saved and my times are as expected and at just under 6 minutes per task (ie 345-350 seconds).

Thanks!

------------- cut here --------------
verbose=0
kernels_per_reduction=48
threads=10
lut_size=17
sieve_size=30
sleep=1
cache_sieve=1
reduce_CPU=0
---------------------------------------




©2018 Jon Sonntag; All rights reserved