One of my computers is old and slow enough to've gotten an I task instead of the F's that all the others have gotten. It was awarded 2000 credits vs the 1000 from the F's. Given the opportunity I could see credit whores abusing the system to give their fast boxes I units to get more points.
That implies credit is awarded based on some form of political correctness to reward less-efficient machines. That in itself is merely annoying, but I wonder if they treat the data the same way?
Nope. Total non-sequitur there.
It is no more, nor less, than already explained. There isn't any other layer of lucid understanding other than the pragmatic viewpoint/decisions made ie. the project is aiming to maximise science output in the setting of limited human resources ( our developers ).
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Is there a GPU version in the works to speed up things?
The Binary Radio Pulsar search code is by far the most optimized for GPU, we get a speed-up (with GPUs compared to CPU only) well greater than 10 (depending on the individual GPU and CPU of course). For the GW search, the FFT part of the computation takes only roughly half the computing time for CPUs, so offloading this to the GPU can at most speed up the computation by a factor of 2. We are quite sure that the other parts of the computation (besides FFT) can also be ported to GPUs, but we have no plans to do that in the near future. We may change this decision later depending on science priorities, tho.
I am wondering whether that decision is being revisited. With the new data from LIGO, it would seem analyzing that is perhaps a higher-priority than the GPU work currently being done, as I understand it. Even though the BRP4G and BRP6 work can be done very fast on a GPU, I would think you would want to weigh the importance of the work also when deciding the hardware on which to run it.
Is there any more information you can give out at this point on new GPU projects?
RE: RE: One of my
)
Nope. Total non-sequitur there.
It is no more, nor less, than already explained. There isn't any other layer of lucid understanding other than the pragmatic viewpoint/decisions made ie. the project is aiming to maximise science output in the setting of limited human resources ( our developers ).
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Edit 2016/06/13: We removed
)
Edit 2016/06/13: We removed the CPU model criteria today, see: O1AS20-100 search now open for all CPU models.
Christian Beer wrote:Is there
)
I am wondering whether that decision is being revisited. With the new data from LIGO, it would seem analyzing that is perhaps a higher-priority than the GPU work currently being done, as I understand it. Even though the BRP4G and BRP6 work can be done very fast on a GPU, I would think you would want to weigh the importance of the work also when deciding the hardware on which to run it.
Is there any more information you can give out at this point on new GPU projects?