Hi all,

New WUs in the long queue, big-box size, 120000 credits each. The batch has been previously tested and should not report any issues, but please comment any problems you might have.

Noelia

These slow a GTX 460/768mb GPU to a crawl. Santis and Nathans run fine.

I run these on both the machine with the Titans and the one with the 2GB GTX 650Ti.

The Titan box runs these (as well as Nathans and Santis) roughly three times as fast as the 650Ti does.

I'm thinking about firing up my old box with the 590s in it to see what that will do in comparison.

Operator.
____________

running at 95% gpu load on gtx 660 ti in windows 7! really nice!
____________
XtremeSystems.org - #1 Team in GPUGrid

running at 95% gpu load on gtx 660 ti in windows 7! really nice!

It is running at 96% on my GTX 650 Ti (63 C with a side fan). At 60 percent complete, it looks like it will take 18 hours 15 minutes to complete. And no problems with the memory (774 MB used).

Just got 80-NOELIA_INS1P-5-15-RND4120_0. It really is putting my 650Ti through its paces!

memory (774 MB used)

Finally I had another Noelia WU. It ran steady on my 660 with a GPU load off 97-98%, Nathan's do only 88-89%. And it ran in one go, that means no termination and restart because off the simulation becoming unstable.
I wish I could opt for Noelia WU's only.
____________
Greetings from TJ

memory (774 MB used)

Undoubtedly why they won't run on the GTX 460/768 cards. They work fine on my 1GB GPUs, but I have to abort them on the 460 in favor of Santi and Nathan WUs.

Just got 80-NOELIA_INS1P-5-15-RND4120_0. It really is putting my 650Ti through its paces!

vagelis@vgserver:~$ gpuinfo
Fan Speed : 54 %
Gpu : 67 C
Memory Usage
Total : 1023 MB
Used : 938 MB
Free : 85 MB

The WU is only at the start (1.76%) and estimates to take 22:44. I expect this to drop significantly.

These slow a GTX 460/768mb GPU to a crawl. Santis and Nathans run fine.

Sounds like the minimum GPU memory requirement is set too low for these, otherwise BOINC would refuse to run them on such cards.

These slow a GTX 460/768mb GPU to a crawl. Santis and Nathans run fine.

Sounds like the minimum GPU memory requirement is set too low for these, otherwise BOINC would refuse to run them on such cards.

MrS, can the minimum memory requirement be set for specific WUs or just for the app in general?

I just had a work unit fail (on an otherwise completely-stable system):
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=7285706

The error seems to indicate, to me, that it's likely a problem with the work unit. Can you (NOELIA) confirm that? Also, if there's anything else I can provide, let me know. Thanks, Jacob

It's failed on every other host too, so it's a bad workunit.

Just spotted a NOELIA_INS1P at 123h into a run, and only at 43% complete!

I suspended it and tried to get it to run on the other card. It started but the system became unresponsive (mouse stopped moving then started, but couldn't click on anything). Then CPU WU's started to fail and the system became totally unresponsive (to keyboard and mouse).

Just spotted a NOELIA_INS1P at 123h into a run, and only at 43% complete!

I suspended it and tried to get it to run on the other card. It started but the system became unresponsive (mouse stopped moving then started, but couldn't click on anything). Then CPU WU's started to fail and the system became totally unresponsive (to keyboard and mouse).

The WU has already timed out on the server,

pnitrox120-NOELIA_INS1P-3-12-RND7171_0

Would have been good to have spotted this earlier, yesterday, the day before, the day before that...

Oh.

I looked onto the machine but it seems the WU run normal. I think it will need slight bit more than your 5h :( But i will survive one WU with reduced credits.
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

Oh.

I looked onto the machine but it seems the WU run normal. I think it will need slight bit more than your 5h :( But i will survive one WU with reduced credits.

Just wanted to say noelia recent wu are beating nathan by a long shot on the 780s. Avg gpu usage and mem usage is 80%/20% nathan v 90%/30% noelia. Her tasks also get a lot less access violations.

Nicely done.

Just wanted to say noelia recent wu are beating nathan by a long shot on the 780s. Avg gpu usage and mem usage is 80%/20% nathan v 90%/30% noelia. Her tasks also get a lot less access violations.

Nicely done.

Just wanted to say noelia recent wu are beating nathan by a long shot on the 780s. Avg gpu usage and mem usage is 80%/20% nathan v 90%/30% noelia.

Personally, I have no issues with gpus stealing cpu resources if needed. Id rather feed the roaring lion than the grasshopper.

Arrgh... potx21-NOELIA_INS1P-1-14-RND1061_1. Another one with this in the stderr output:

The simulation has become unstable. Terminating to avoid lock-up

No other failures for this WU. Let's see how the next guy does on it.
____________

Let's see how the next guy does on it.

Arrgh... potx21-NOELIA_INS1P-1-14-RND1061_1. Another one with this in the stderr output:

The simulation has become unstable. Terminating to avoid lock-up

No other failures for this WU. Let's see how the next guy does on it.

My failure rate on these units is getting quite bad, three of them in the last couple of days and wingmen are doing them right. No problem with any other type of WUs. Any advise?

2x660GTi in linux, driver is 304.88 but it has been rock solid so far.

No much info in stderr at least to my knowledge.

<core_client_version>6.10.58</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
process exited with code 255 (0xff, -1)
</message>
<stderr_txt>

</stderr_txt>
]]>

I have had a long run of success (61 straight valid GPUGrid tasks over the past 2 weeks!), including 4 successful NOELIA_INS1P tasks, on my multi-GPU Windows 8.1 x64 machine.

4 errors from 67 WU's isn't very bad, but they are all NOELIA WU's, so there is a trend. You are completing some though.

I had one fail on a Linux system with 304.88 drivers, but my system is prone to failures due to the GTX650TiBoost which has been somewhat troublesome in every system and setup I've used (the card operates too close to the edge).

I also have two GPU's in my system and I got the same output,

Compute error, process exited with code 255 (0xff, -1).

A large part could be due to the fact that these WU's consume a GIG of vRam and OC

Betting Slip wrote:

A large part could be due to the fact that these WU's consume a GIG of vRam and OC

Yep, good call. I've got another one of these running. Afterburner shows memory usage at slightly more than 1.1GB...I suppose that's stressing my GTX 570 (1280MB), isn't it?

On my GTX 660's (Win7 64-bit with 331.58 drivers):

Concerning slow running: that happened once in a while to me, though only on the 660s and never on my GTX 650 Ti. But someone mentioned the old trick of setting the Power Management Mode to "Prefer Maximum Performance" in the Nvidia control panel, and I have not had a problem since. It is a little inconvenient to get to that setting now, since I normally connect my display to the internal Intel graphics adapter, but I used to always set it that way when I was running the monitor directly from the Nvidia card.

Concerning failures: I was getting occasional failures on various Noelias (not necessarily just INS1P), but only on one of my two cards, which was curious since they are supposedly identical. It turns out that the GPU core voltage setting on the one that failed was a little lower than the other, apparently because it was running into a power limit. So using MSI Afterburner, I raised the power limit (to 105%) and raised the voltage a little. That fixed it, and I have had no failures since. It is a truism that the Noelias work your card hard, and if there are any weaknesses, they will find them.

If you want to avoid the reduced power efficiency which comes along with the increased voltage you could also scale GPU clock back by 13 or 26 MHz - should have the same stabilizing effect (but be a little slower and a little more power efficient).

MrS

And you're right, +/-10 MHz has a negligible effect on power consumption. What I was referring to was the increased power consumption from the voltage increase. It's not dramatic either (larger than what the frequency change causes), but it's something you might not want.

And don't try to shoot for 0% error rate at GPU-Grid - I'm not sure this is actually possible and what it would depend on (OS, drivers etc.). If you do get occasional errors it's always a good idea to check whether the WU is also failing for your wingmen (which should have crunched it a few days after your attempt).

MrS

If you have exhaust cooling GPU's then the side fans would be better blowing into the case. If not then these fans might be better blowing out (but it depends on the case and other fans).

The claim is that errors can be caused by "not having enough voltage" or by "having too high of a temperature".

Do we have conclusive proof of this claim? Or is it more of a generalization based on experience? I'm struggling to understand how voltage or temperature can have any effect on error % rates, and would appreciate some guidance.

For me, I have:
- 3 GPUs (eVGA GTX 660 Ti FTW 3GB, eVGA GTX 460 SC, NVIDIA/DELL GTS 240); the 660 Ti and the 460 are both factory overclocked, which I haven't touched
- Intel i7 965XE quad-core hyperthreaded CPU, factory overclocked to 3742 Mhz
- 1000-watt power supply (Dell XPS 730X case/system)
- The GPUs run tasks 24/7 (GPUGrid only runs on the 660 Ti and the GTX 460)... alongside CPU fully loaded with CPU tasks
- Precision-X setting the GTX 660 Ti to 140% Power Target (so it can upclock to max boost 1241 MHz without ever being limited by the 100% power limitation)
- Precision-X fan curves set up so that max GTX 660 Ti fan speed (80%) occurs before the 70*C mark (so I can keep max boost), and then max non-660-Ti speed (100%) occurs at 85*C (I've had no problems with GPUs running that hot)
- System fans set up to assist in keeping the 660 Ti nearly always below 70*C (whereas, the defaul system fan settings would have the 660 Ti climb to 82*C even if the GPU was at max-80% fan, as the system runs quite hot)
- Normal temps for my "fully-loaded 24/7" system:
CPU cores: 77-85*C
GTX 660 Ti: 67-71*C
GTX 460: 66-75*C
GTS 240: 75-80*C
- BOINC/GPUGrid errors that appear to be caused by any sort of hardware problem: NONE

The claim is that errors can be caused by "not having enough voltage" or by "having too high of a temperature".

Do we have conclusive proof of this claim? Or is it more of a generalization based on experience? I'm struggling to understand how voltage or temperature can have any effect on error % rates, and would appreciate some guidance.

'New' (old?) 94x4-NOELIA_1MG_RUN4 very log running (over 24hrs).

Hope gpugrid is not returning to these ridiculously large WUs again?

If so I suspect volunteer base is going to head downwards - can't they be split up?

'New' (old?) 94x4-NOELIA_1MG_RUN4 very log running (over 24hrs).

Hope gpugrid is not returning to these ridiculously large WUs again?

If so I suspect volunteer base is going to head downwards - can't they be split up?

'New' (old?) 94x4-NOELIA_1MG_RUN4 very log running (over 24hrs).

Hope gpugrid is not returning to these ridiculously large WUs again?

If so I suspect volunteer base is going to head downwards - can't they be split up?

Oh its not me only again.. 32hours...560ti 448core 1,28GB -_-
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

These NOELIA_1MG are about

8-9 hours on GTX680 with 2Gb Memory
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=7444885
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=7443692

and around 34 hours on GTX460 with 1Gb Memory
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=7440928

Same thing happened between the 768Mb and 1024Mb division in the past. Now we move past the 1024 minimum for some WU's.

My 35x5-NOELIA_1MG_RUN4-2-4-RND8673_0 running on a GTX660Ti is at 34% and took 4h22min. So it should complete in about 13h (Win7x64).

If you get a task that has been running too long. Check the temps, GPU usage... and do a system shut down and restart if something looks wrong (temps too low).

Note that NOELIA_1MG tasks may not be similar to NOELIA_INS1p tasks.
PS. Noticed that some of NOELIA's tasks now use a full CPU core/thread (but others still don't).

Would be interesting to know how much GDDR was being used on the different operating sytsems (XP, Linux, Vista, W7, W8).

It does help, thank you very much for the detailed explanations. I've read through it once, and I'll have to read through it again a few more times for it to sink in. I actually studied Computer Engineering for a few years before switching over to a Bachelor's degree in Computer Information Systems.

But, I still don't quite understand one other thing.

When you overclock a CPU too far, you usually get a BSOD (presumably because the execution pointer is off in no-man's land, or because the data got jacked up in the pipeline, or both), right? But what about going "too far" on a GPU?

The scenario I'm looking to better define is: overclocking or overheating a GPU too far to cause GPUGrid problems, but not far enough to cause Windows problems or driver resets. In order to get these BOINC Computation Errors, then that scenario must exist, right? Why doesn't Windows catch this and explain the error to the user?

The claim is that errors can be caused by "not having enough voltage" or by "having too high of a temperature".

Do we have conclusive proof of this claim? Or is it more of a generalization based on experience? I'm struggling to understand how voltage or temperature can have any effect on error % rates, and would appreciate some guidance.

All semiconductor manufacturers create yield curves for their production lots. They show how much voltage/current it takes to achieve a given speed. In general, the more power you supply to the chip, the faster it can be clocked. Of course, it also gets hotter, which can eventually destroy the chip. That is why a power limit is also specified (e.g., 95 watts for some Intel CPUs, etc.). But the chips vary, with some being able to run fast at lower power, and some requiring higher power to achieve the same speeds. You can get errors due to a variety of reasons, with temperature being just one. But I have seen errors even below 70 C, so some other limitation may get you first.

[snip]

MrS

Just crunched my fist one on a GTX 770 at 76° in 31,145.32. Nice 153,150.00 Points ;-)
____________
Regards, Josef

Just crunched my fist one on a GTX 770 at 76° in 31,145.32. Nice 153,150.00 Points ;-)

[quote]your 770 can do better, mine finishes these new Noelia's in about 27000 seconds, but temperature is only 66-67°C.

But more important, your 770 can do better, mine finishes these new Noelia's in about 27000 seconds, but temperature is only 66-67°C. And the colder a GPU runs, the faster (and more error free) it does. So perhaps you can experiment with some settings to get the temperature a few degrees lower.

You are absolutely correct Beyond, my mistake.
Sorry for that MrJo.

Still a difference of 2000 seconds. I have never seen nVidia inspector before, I use PrecisionX from EVGA or MSI's Afterburner. I have set a fan curve that goes to 100% at 70°C but the card is allowed to go to 75% before the program must throttle the GPU clock. Power target is set to 100%. Currently with ambient temperature of 32.6°C the 770 runs at 68°C and 1149MHz. Sits in the second slot, the first is occupied by the 780Ti.
Hope this helps a bit.
____________
Greetings from TJ

Now I have tested the MSI Afterburner. There you can set a custom fan curve. However, I have a problem with that: In order to lower the temperature by 3-4 ° C, the fan speed increases to 3300 1/min. This is unpleasant. With my GTX 680 I was able to reduce the temperature by 8 degrees, as I dismounted the cooler and renewed the thermal paste;-) Unfortunately, the same procedure for the GTX 770 delivered nothing, since their thermal paste was not dried out. Too new;-) So I will reduce gpu-clock a little bit to remain below 70 degrees. Reducing from 1150 MHz to 1080-1100 reduces the temperature by 5 degrees.
____________
Regards, Josef

Hi,

potx1x225-NOELIA_INSP-5-13-RND8250_1:

Have a odd error - task failed within 3secs. Hopefully it is a one off and not a bad batch; however in case it is not:

ERROR: file mdioload.cpp line 81: Unable to read bincoordfile

23:01:01 (3684): called boinc_finish


http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=12864293

Hi,

potx1x225-NOELIA_INSP-5-13-RND8250_1:

Have a odd error - task failed within 3secs. Hopefully it is a one off and not a bad batch; however in case it is not:

ERROR: file mdioload.cpp line 81: Unable to read bincoordfile

23:01:01 (3684): called boinc_finish


http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=12864293

Same error here:

This error does not affect NOELIAs only, I had a SANTI_p53final fail on me the other day with the exact same error:

ERROR: file mdioload.cpp line 81: Unable to read bincoordfile