Yep, that's the recommended way. Although the app version is identical to the official one, the signature is not (there is no signature in the app_info.xml). If you just remove tha app_info.xml and restart the client, it will find the app binary doesn't match the signature, mark all results in progress as client error and start downloading the app again, this time with the correct signature.
Yep, that's the recommended way. Although the app version is identical to the official one, the signature is not (there is no signature in the app_info.xml). If you just remove tha app_info.xml and restart the client, it will find the app binary doesn't match the signature, mark all results in progress as client error and start downloading the app again, this time with the correct signature.
BM
I've found that if I go and delete the beta app along with the app_info.xml, then shutdown and restart the client (having drained the cache first of course), that it doesn't automatically reload the right client. Instead, it fails to start since it can't find the executable!? (v 6.6.28). It seems I have to issue a reset to get it to refetch the executables (it will fetch all of them of course, not just the missing one). Is there some other way short of a reset to get it to download the missing executable?
"Better is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire (should be memorized by every requirements lead)
I've found that we didn't compare this app with 3.10 CUDA app. It is important this time to understand - should we stick with 3.10 CUDA any longer or we should go further with the new app wich in fact may be faster and doesn't need any powerful graphic cards anymore. Are there any tests about this?
I've found that we didn't compare this app with 3.10 CUDA app. It is important this time to understand - should we stick with 3.10 CUDA any longer or we should go further with the new app wich in fact may be faster and doesn't need any powerful graphic cards anymore. Are there any tests about this?
Could someone answer this question? I'm wondering if its worth it to me use the extra electricy and gpu time when I could use it for something else if its not speeding this up...
I think there is no universal answer to this. If you have a very fast CPU and a rather low-end GPU card, you might be better of with the CPU version. If you have a high end GPU but a not so fast COU, you might want to give GPU a try.
Since the GPU app is in an earlier development stage than the CPU version, certainly it is encouraged to use the GPU app to help find problems and to help improve it in the future.
I've found that we didn't compare this app with 3.10 CUDA app. It is important this time to understand - should we stick with 3.10 CUDA any longer or we should go further with the new app wich in fact may be faster and doesn't need any powerful graphic cards anymore. Are there any tests about this?
Could someone answer this question? I'm wondering if its worth it to me use the extra electricy and gpu time when I could use it for something else if its not speeding this up...
Not sure Bikeman's answer is as clear as it could be ... :)
The CUDA version is in test... and because the EaH project is cautious and careful in the fielding of its applications the process of getting a new version out the door can be slow and tedious. That said, people have to volunteer and run the test application on tasks so the project can find the problems that exist. In this case it is not a question of electricity or effectiveness ... it is a question of are you willing to take the risk to run an unstable application where all tasks may fail and not produce any credit at all ... oh, and require you to keep an eye on the computer ... if you don't mind THOSE costs, then running the CUDA application here is for you ...
If you want stable applications and few failures, then you would want to steer clear ...
As with running new alpha projects, being a beta tester can be rewarding in the sense that you know that you helped get the new stuff out the door ... but, it can take some additional time to read the forums and to check to see if any tasks failed last night ...
What if the goal is to get the most boinc points and you don't mind some extra work? I have been running the CUDA for ever since it came out a long time ago and have had 0 problems. So no use running it unless its faster in my book. I have a Q6600 @ 3ghz and a nvidia 275 GTX. Does anyone have any data on a machine like that which is faster?
What if the goal is to get the most boinc points and you don't mind some extra work? I have been running the CUDA for ever since it came out a long time ago and have had 0 problems. So no use running it unless its faster in my book. I have a Q6600 @ 3ghz and a nvidia 275 GTX. Does anyone have any data on a machine like that which is faster?
If you're credit whoring get an ATI card and run milkyway with collatz as a backup project.
IIRC the current E@H CUDA beta has a lower credit rate than GPUgrid; primarily because only one part of the calculation is done on the GPU most is still being crunched on your CPU.
Thanks. RE: RE: Dr
)
Thanks.
RE: RE: Drain your cache
)
I've found that if I go and delete the beta app along with the app_info.xml, then shutdown and restart the client (having drained the cache first of course), that it doesn't automatically reload the right client. Instead, it fails to start since it can't find the executable!? (v 6.6.28). It seems I have to issue a reset to get it to refetch the executables (it will fetch all of them of course, not just the missing one). Is there some other way short of a reset to get it to download the missing executable?
"Better is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire (should be memorized by every requirements lead)
I've found that we didn't
)
I've found that we didn't compare this app with 3.10 CUDA app. It is important this time to understand - should we stick with 3.10 CUDA any longer or we should go further with the new app wich in fact may be faster and doesn't need any powerful graphic cards anymore. Are there any tests about this?
RE: I've found that we
)
Could someone answer this question? I'm wondering if its worth it to me use the extra electricy and gpu time when I could use it for something else if its not speeding this up...
Hi! I think there is no
)
Hi!
I think there is no universal answer to this. If you have a very fast CPU and a rather low-end GPU card, you might be better of with the CPU version. If you have a high end GPU but a not so fast COU, you might want to give GPU a try.
Since the GPU app is in an earlier development stage than the CPU version, certainly it is encouraged to use the GPU app to help find problems and to help improve it in the future.
CU
Bikeman
RE: RE: I've found that
)
Not sure Bikeman's answer is as clear as it could be ... :)
The CUDA version is in test... and because the EaH project is cautious and careful in the fielding of its applications the process of getting a new version out the door can be slow and tedious. That said, people have to volunteer and run the test application on tasks so the project can find the problems that exist. In this case it is not a question of electricity or effectiveness ... it is a question of are you willing to take the risk to run an unstable application where all tasks may fail and not produce any credit at all ... oh, and require you to keep an eye on the computer ... if you don't mind THOSE costs, then running the CUDA application here is for you ...
If you want stable applications and few failures, then you would want to steer clear ...
As with running new alpha projects, being a beta tester can be rewarding in the sense that you know that you helped get the new stuff out the door ... but, it can take some additional time to read the forums and to check to see if any tasks failed last night ...
What if the goal is to get
)
What if the goal is to get the most boinc points and you don't mind some extra work? I have been running the CUDA for ever since it came out a long time ago and have had 0 problems. So no use running it unless its faster in my book. I have a Q6600 @ 3ghz and a nvidia 275 GTX. Does anyone have any data on a machine like that which is faster?
RE: What if the goal is to
)
If you're credit whoring get an ATI card and run milkyway with collatz as a backup project.
IIRC the current E@H CUDA beta has a lower credit rate than GPUgrid; primarily because only one part of the calculation is done on the GPU most is still being crunched on your CPU.
I had one unit 0% after 20
)
I had one unit 0% after 20 hours of processing. I aborted it:Error
others units seems ok.
HOW TO - Full installation Ubuntu 11.10
RE: I had one unit 0% after
)
Again same problem. I have two GPUs one seems to be working fine, the other keeps processing with 0% all the time.
HOW TO - Full installation Ubuntu 11.10