Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Credit Drop ???
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
STE\/E Send message Joined: 18 Sep 08 Posts: 368 Credit: 3,236,844,866 RAC: 50,595,530 Level  Scientific publications      | |
|
Has something changed that I missed, my Credit has dropped by about 40,000 - 50,000 Per Day & I don't know why. I haven't pulled any Box's or GPU Cards from the Project so I don't see why there's a drop unless the Credit's been reduced or the WU Length's have Increased without an Increase in Credit for the Extra Length of them ??? | |
ID: 10376 | Rating: 0 | rate:
 /   Reply
Quote
| |
 Beyond Send message Joined: 23 Nov 08 Posts: 1112 Credit: 6,162,416,256 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications | |
|
Yes to both. It's been happening for a while. Most of the 4933 credit WUs are now taking about 15% longer and the new style WUs are longer for the credit they offer. Maybe the admins are trying to slowly migrate the credit level downward. | |
| ID: 10379 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
[boinc.at] Nowi Send message Joined: 4 Sep 08 Posts: 44 Credit: 3,685,033 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications  | |
|
I also noticed it. I think my observation of this behavior started after the workaround to fix the crashing WU on G92. Maybe this workaround slows down the speed of crunching. | |
| ID: 10397 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
STE\/E Send message Joined: 18 Sep 08 Posts: 368 Credit: 3,236,844,866 RAC: 50,595,530 Level Scientific publications | |
|
Well that really Blows, the Project raises the Credits & then they take it all away with longer WU's without an appropriate increase in the Credits for the longer run times so you end up with negative credits than what you started with before they raised the Credit ... | |
| ID: 10399 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 9 Jun 08 Posts: 1050 Credit: 37,321,185 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications  | |
|
I am not sure that this is happening ... when I look at my daily numbers they go up and down by large values on a day to day basis. As much as 50K a day. | |
| ID: 10406 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
On the work side, we have changed nothing. WU lengths are the same. | |
| ID: 10408 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Beyond Send message Joined: 23 Nov 08 Posts: 1112 Credit: 6,162,416,256 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
I am not sure that this is happening ... when I look at my daily numbers they go up and down by large values on a day to day basis. As much as 50K a day. Looking at your stats really won't tell you much. You need to look at the times for individual WUs of the same type. The one's I looked at first were the 4933 credit WUs since they've been around for a while. Could you point to those WUs longer than usual? Here's a 3 WU progression from the same card (GTX 280), newest WU first: http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=758769 # Time per step: 41.076 ms # Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 25672.281 s http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=749319 # Time per step: 36.258 ms # Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 22661.031 s http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=697460 # Time per step: 31.691 ms # Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 19806.688 s Two from a different model card (GTX 260), newer WU first: http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=760959 # Time per step: 39.979 ms # Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 24987.075 s http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=702017 # Time per step: 34.888 ms # Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 21804.719 s And here's my GTX 260, 2 newer WUs first, then 3 older ones: http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=763638 # Time per step: 39.926 ms # Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 24953.672 s http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=752559 # Time per step: 40.061 ms # Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 25038.250 s http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=737000 # Time per step: 34.814 ms # Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 21759.031 s http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=708495 # Time per step: 34.804 ms # Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 21752.812 s http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=691991 # Time per step: 34.744 ms # Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 21715.016 s Finally, here's my oldest card (9600GSO, and a smaller percentage difference), again newer WU first: http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=755949 # Time per step: 95.027 ms # Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 59392.160 s http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=693698 # Time per step: 89.431 ms # Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 55894.359 s Just a few examples (all examples above are the 4933 credit WUs), you can see this trend on pretty much any client. The newer type WUs also show the lower credit in line with the above time increase/credit as far as I can see. Perhaps it was the change to fix the failures on the older cards (as mentioned above by Nowi)? | |
| ID: 10415 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
GDF Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 14 Mar 07 Posts: 1957 Credit: 629,356 RAC: 0 Level  Scientific publications | |
|
The slight credit drops is probably caused by the fact that we had to use larger grid dimension in the PME method to avoid the cudafft bug when dimensions are not multiple of 32. | |
| ID: 10429 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
|
Beyond Send message Joined: 23 Nov 08 Posts: 1112 Credit: 6,162,416,256 RAC: 0 Level Scientific publications | |
|
Thanks gdf, the info is appreciated. WUs have been running much more smoothly on older cards since the change :-) | |
| ID: 10430 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |
Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : Credit Drop ???
