Sorry, v1.49 crashes on my test machine without the --device safety net, runs OK with it.
Task 487600769 has the same basic error as Gavin, with debug output - that's a failure from initial start. I have two others which crashed on resumption from checkpoint when I restarted without --device.
Going off to see what happens on machines which ran v1.47 without error - I suspect the difference is that they only have a single GPU.
Looks like 1.49 might have already been withdrawn. I've noticed a couple of hosts that were getting 1.49 a while ago have just now started getting 1.39 again :-(.
BTW, information for other testers: if you have been adding a --device safety net via app_config.xml, it will get added to new app versions as released. You have to remove it from client_state manually for a true test: simply removing it from app_config isn't enough. (Though possibly adding a null command line to app_config might do it - I'll test that next time)
The nice thing is that these old clunkers are now able to get performance on the HD7850 that is much closer to what a Haswell refresh based system can do. I just grabbed a recently completed result from such a machine and put it in the above table for comparison.
There has now been sufficient time for the machine doing the above 4 1.47 tasks to have done a total of 31 such tasks. I found an online statistics calculator and fed the 31 elapsed times into it and got the following information back.
Mean = 21317 secs
Std Dev = 5135 secs
Variance = 26377229
For the statistically challenged (like me :-).) it might be easier to report that the bulk of the results were clustered around 19,000 to 20,000 secs with only 7 of the 31 that exceeded 25,000 secs. There were also 8 results below 19,000 secs. The actual lowest value was 18,680 and the highest was 32,242.
Considering that this host used to average around 28,500 for BRP5, I'm mightily pleased with how it's going on BRP6-Beta. My heartfelt thanks to all those involved in the development and deployment of this brilliant new app.
Running one 1.50 at a GTX 680 and one at a GTX 980 Linux 64 bit (Ubuntu). Both seems fine so far. They are running faster than the 1.39. Good work Bernd. :-)
Sorry, v1.49 crashes on my
)
Sorry, v1.49 crashes on my test machine without the --device safety net, runs OK with it.
Task 487600769 has the same basic error as Gavin, with debug output - that's a failure from initial start. I have two others which crashed on resumption from checkpoint when I restarted without --device.
Going off to see what happens on machines which ran v1.47 without error - I suspect the difference is that they only have a single GPU.
Looks like 1.49 might have
)
Looks like 1.49 might have already been withdrawn. I've noticed a couple of hosts that were getting 1.49 a while ago have just now started getting 1.39 again :-(.
Cheers,
Gary.
Yep, still a bug in there.
)
Yep, still a bug in there. Building new one.
BM
BM
Seeing v1.39 again here
)
Seeing v1.39 again here too.
v1.49 runs OK under WinXP/32 and older BOINC v6.12.34 (hardly surprising)
v1.49 fails under Win7/32 and BOINC v7.4.36, single GPU - same error, task 487602339. That host ran v1.47 as originally deployed.
BTW, information for other
)
BTW, information for other testers: if you have been adding a --device safety net via app_config.xml, it will get added to new app versions as released. You have to remove it from client_state manually for a true test: simply removing it from app_config isn't enough. (Though possibly adding a null command line to app_config might do it - I'll test that next time)
I reported this information
)
I reported this information earlier in this thread.
There has now been sufficient time for the machine doing the above 4 1.47 tasks to have done a total of 31 such tasks. I found an online statistics calculator and fed the 31 elapsed times into it and got the following information back.
Mean = 21317 secs
Std Dev = 5135 secs
Variance = 26377229
For the statistically challenged (like me :-).) it might be easier to report that the bulk of the results were clustered around 19,000 to 20,000 secs with only 7 of the 31 that exceeded 25,000 secs. There were also 8 results below 19,000 secs. The actual lowest value was 18,680 and the highest was 32,242.
Considering that this host used to average around 28,500 for BRP5, I'm mightily pleased with how it's going on BRP6-Beta. My heartfelt thanks to all those involved in the development and deployment of this brilliant new app.
Cheers,
Gary.
RE: New (BRP6 Beta) CUDA
)
Another go: 1.50 is out (CUDA only, computation code is still identical to 1.47).
BM
BM
Thanks Bernd, I have one
)
Thanks Bernd,
I have one running on my previously mentioned host with a GTX660Ti, 10 minutes in and looking very good against the two v1.39's that are also running.
Gavin.
Also running fine here on my
)
Also running fine here on my GTX 670 testbed - task 487745609 - with no command line.
Well done to Bernd and the team.
Running one 1.50 at a GTX 680
)
Running one 1.50 at a GTX 680 and one at a GTX 980 Linux 64 bit (Ubuntu). Both seems fine so far. They are running faster than the 1.39. Good work Bernd. :-)
Bent