Posts by Gary Craig
log in
1) Message boards : Unix/Linux : Command line parameter descriptions? (Message 12554)
Posted 2389 days ago by Gary Craig
Can someone explain what the command line parameters (e.g. L13 I8 S0) that are found in app_info.xml control, what the range of permissible values are, and so on? I have mine set to the above values, which I believe are for max GPU load/performance, but it is too laggy. I'd like to find a combination with tolerable lag and that doesn't use up a whole CPU core.

This is with Collatz 2.04, Ubuntu 10.10, i7 2600K, GTX570. Thanks.

--Gary
2) Message boards : Unix/Linux : Linux x86_64 CUDA app (Message 12404)
Posted 2428 days ago by Gary Craig
I made a symlink from the project directory to where I copied libcudart.so.3 in /usr/lib64. That cleared things up. This is with Ubuntu 10.10.

--Gary
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Optimized Applications (Message 12401)
Posted 2428 days ago by Gary Craig
Got 2.04 installed and running under Ubuntu 10.10. I ran a few WUs (full size, not mini) and am waiting for them to validate before running any more, just to be sure. On a Nvidia 570 (stock clocks), they are completing in a bit over 25 minutes with the app_info's <cmdline> values set to L13 I8 S0; at the default values it looked like the WUs would take about 65-70 minutes to finish.

Question: at my current "run as fast as possible" settings, the app takes over one core 100%. I'd rather not devote an entire CPU core to managing the GPU; does anyone know what <cmdline> values will make best use of the GPU (I can tolerate moderate lag) while keeping CPU usage less than about 5-10% of one core? (i7 2600K, HT is on, mild o/c).

I only had a couple minor issues installing and setting up following the README. Since I was doing the install as root, I felt it would be best to do a "chown boinc:boinc" on the executables and libraries in addition to ensuring execute permissions after copying them into place. Also, even though I moved the libraries to /usr/lib64 and set up the links as described, on my initial attempt the app kept trying to download libcudart.so.3 from the server. I set up a symlink in the projects/boinc.thesontaggs.com_collatz/ directory pointing at /usr/lib64/libcudart.so.3 , and one from libcudart.so to libcudart.so.3 (not sure if the second one is necessary). That resolved that issue and all seems to be running fine now.

--Gary
4) Message boards : News : New Application Coming Soon (Message 11245)
Posted 2545 days ago by Gary Craig
Well, I'll probably keep running the larger units even though they take 13+ hours on my Mac (which really isn't that old, maybe 16 months or so). I guess I don't care if I get X credits in N hours or X/d credits in N/d hours.

My other box could chew up the larger units really fast (GTX 570) but it is running Ubuntu 10.10 and I didn't see an obvious way to get Collatz to run on that via the normal BOINC mechanisms. I think I saw a post somewhere (can't find it now) about a manual install which I would be willing to do.

Sad to read in prior posts that the credit system is so chaotic from one project to the next. I read on wikipedia that the cobblestone measure was set up relative to a couple well-known benchmarks; would have thought that would have encouraged some consistency, but I guess not. Sorry, wandering off-topic into a quagmire, I'm sure :-)

--Gary
5) Message boards : News : It's Alive! (Message 10893)
Posted 2566 days ago by Gary Craig
<snip>
Quick question, where do you folks get the numbers that indicate actual processing time? I see a lot where people might say "my last WU took x amount of seconds". Where does number that come from?

Either click the "Your Results" button on the left side of the BOINC client (with Collatz selected in either the Projects or Tasks tab). Or from the "My Account" web page, select the "View" link next to "Tasks". Look under the "Run Time" column... that is elapsed, wall-clock time while actually computing (i.e. not suspended, waiting to run, etc.)

My 1st WU completed slightly more efficiently than with the smaller size. Based on the 4x of WU size, I would have expected 13:20:00, and it came in at 13:07:00 or so. No doubt less overhead due to fewer transfers, less context switching, startup overhead, et cetera.
--Gary
6) Message boards : News : It's Alive! (Message 10832)
Posted 2567 days ago by Gary Craig
It looks like the WU size has been quadrupled, since my old slow GT120 (iMac, 18 months old) used to take 3:20:00 and now I'm on my first new WU and I estimate it will take 13:20:00. Ouch. Well, I've got a new machine on order (w/ GTX 570); hopefully I'll have that powered up in a couple weeks.
Cheers,
--Gary




Main page · Your account · Message boards


Copyright © 2018 Jon Sonntag; All rights reserved.