For (quick/rough) reference...

It would be nice if you at least gave a longer Deadline.
I only got a GTX1070 and many other got ever weaker GPUs.

TIA

Yup, my old GT730 is out, take too much time. Unless the deadline have more days I stop accepting WU.

Good luck for the rest and happy crunching :)

Hi All!

This WU took already 7 hours and total time is estimated for 38 hours on Mobile 2070 RTX. Newest drivers, i7 9th. Is it proper estimate? If so, I won't make it into the deadline :(.

Regards!

This WU took already 7 hours and total time is estimated for 38 hours on Mobile 2070 RTX. Newest drivers, i7 9th.
Is it proper estimate?

If so, I won't make it into the deadline

My GTX 780 did it in ~ 50h.

No chance for my GT 710 which runs 24/7 for boinc in my server.

I received a new workunit on Feb 10. Deadline is today. Stats show 32% readiness after 22.5 hours of GPU use. 48 more hours of GPU time is required to finish. Not practical and not doable for me. With such unit size and deadline combination I can certainly find better use for my GPU resources somewhere else.

I completed two running concurrently same machine on two GTX1060's in about 36.4 - 36.5 hours. Running two more about 30% completed in about 10 hours so far. Not too bad for lower end cards.

Sadly the deadline on the tasks is less than the amount of time it will take to complete it.

It should take about 50 hours on my GTX 1650.
Tullio
____________

Hello,

I have the same problem.
How could we be on time ?

https://ibb.co/82f8Sn0

Please don't get into the game of planned obsolete by forcing users to change their hardware.
You will inevitably gain so many time if we are more to calculate your work units.

Please JUST give us more time to complet WUs.

Wilgard

Funnily, it seems to be much faster on this PC with the GTX 1060 than on the other PC with the GTX 1650. They have different CPUs, this one an AMD Ryzen 5 1400 and the other an Intel i5 9400F. Does this make the difference?
Tullio
____________

Sorry, after a fast start to 10% the task went back to 0.66%. It seemed too good to be true.
Tullio
____________

after a fast start to 10% the task went back to 0.66%.

I completed two running concurrently same machine on two GTX1060's in about 36.4 - 36.5 hours. Running two more about 30% completed in about 10 hours so far. Not too bad for lower end cards.

The progress on GTX 1650 is 2,160%/hour ; for GTX 1060 is 2,160%/hour. This seems to agree with my observations.The 1060 has only 3 GB of video memory, which was not sufficient for same Einstein@home gravitational waves task. The 1650 has 4 GB.These tasks use only 667 MB memory.
Tullio
____________

For now there is work for older cards and AMD GPUs at FAH/COVID moonshot.
https://foldingathome.org/

What is a "18h on a 1080 Ti".

Typical D3RBanditTest workunits will take 18 hours or 65,000 seconds to calculate and return a result on a Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti video card.

Is there a minimum driver version or CUDA version required?

Is there a minimum driver version or CUDA version required?

My GTX 750ti appears to have been disqualified by the server. Despite over 1K WUs waiting to be sent my log says "Scheduler request completed: Got 0 new tasks" and "No tasks sent".

The previous WU was completed in 408,214 seconds, with just 23,786 seconds to spare. Is that why?

Edit;
I see the server gave it a grace period of ~35 min to finish. That might explain it.

My GTX 750ti appears to have been disqualified by the server. Despite over 1K WUs waiting to be sent my log says "Scheduler request completed: Got 0 new tasks" and "No tasks sent".

The previous WU was completed in 408,214 seconds, with just 23,786 seconds to spare. Is that why?

I've managed my other host to get a new task by updating manually a couple of times, but the others still didn't get one.
It looks like the scheduler thinks that the majority of the unsent tasks aren't for the "new version of ACEMD" app despite they are shown next to that label.

Thanks Zoltan, I gave up for now and switched that GPU to FAH for now.
It seems to be doing more FLOPS/hr when running FAHcore CUDA vs ACEMD, but that may be just the difference in scoring procedures.

I have a 1660 super that takes about 34-38 hours on these new units, still seeing temps in the 60s, only uses 15% of gpu in task manager tho

I've managed my other host to get a new task by updating manually a couple of times, but the others still didn't get one.
It looks like the scheduler thinks that the majority of the unsent tasks aren't for the "new version of ACEMD" app despite they are shown next to that label.

我发现我只接收到一个任务，完成后不再有任务，我是GTX1650,这正常吗

I have a dual GPU system, GTX 980 and GTX 1080 TI, and all of these work units have failed. Drivers are current as of Decemeber. I had to roll back January update as it didn't play nice with Milkyway@Home while you folks were on Holiday. Suddenly I can't complete a work unit without error.

I'm not seeing many resends, mostly _0 and _1 original tasks.

No issues getting work or returning valid results.

Does the scheduler know the correct size estimate for these WUs?

A WU on my GTX 1060-6GB should take ~34 hours (~ 4 calendar days) yet it keeps sending me 2. My queue's set to 0.4 days of work, and I believe it should know that my computer is only 30% active, so I would expect it to only send 1 WU.

but I do wonder what's going on with the massive shift of tasks from out in the field to waiting to be sent. are they erroring en masse somehow? today is about 5 days since these new tasks started showing up, so perhaps that's why. thousands of tasks hitting their deadlines from systems not fast enough to process, or systems that are fast enough if they run 24/7, but aren't processing 24/7, or systems that downloaded but were shut off for the past 5 days. or some combination of all 3.

Do these work with Ampere?

Do these work with Ampere?

Ah damn ill keep waiting then :)

Re: New WU's and tuning GPU's
Interested in OverClocking to reduce WU duration to hit target 'due date/times'?
Even if your GPU is locked down you can improve by using a curve with Frequency and Voltage of your GPU auto managed.
Message me if you have questions or need help.

I'm crunching the new WU's with RTX2080 mobile with MSI Afterburner and MSI Kombustor linked (that auto overclocks the GPU with a good curve).
I am getting 2 days and 2 hours for e20s2_e11s14p0f75-ADRIA_D3RBandit_batch1-0-1-RND2090. 1.08% per hour = 92.59 hours or 3.58 days.


0.998 CPUs + 1 NVIDIA GPU
Estimated computation size
5,000,000 GFLOPs
CPU time
00:49:23
CPU time since checkpoint
00:08:14
Elapsed time
00:49:40
Estimated time remaining
2d 01:07:38
Fraction done
1.333%
Virtual memory size
668.21 MB
Working set size
343.72 MB
Progress rate
1.080% per hour
Executable
wrapper_6.1_windows_x86_64.exe

Re: New WU's and tuning GPU's
Interested in OverClocking to reduce WU duration to hit target 'due date/times'?
Even if your GPU is locked down you can improve by using a curve with Frequency and Voltage of your GPU auto managed.
Message me if you have questions or need help.

I'm crunching the new WU's with RTX2080 mobile with MSI Afterburner and MSI Kombustor linked (that auto overclocks the GPU with a good curve).
I am getting 2 days and 2 hours for e20s2_e11s14p0f75-ADRIA_D3RBandit_batch1-0-1-RND2090. 1.08% per hour = 92.59 hours or 3.58 days.


0.998 CPUs + 1 NVIDIA GPU
Estimated computation size
5,000,000 GFLOPs
CPU time
00:49:23
CPU time since checkpoint
00:08:14
Elapsed time
00:49:40
Estimated time remaining
2d 01:07:38
Fraction done
1.333%
Virtual memory size
668.21 MB
Working set size
343.72 MB
Progress rate
1.080% per hour
Executable
wrapper_6.1_windows_x86_64.exe

____________

Dears,

as you may have noticed, we sent a new batch of WUs for a new experiment. This time the WUs are rather large and require relatively new cards. For reference, should be ~18h on a 1080 Ti.

Thanks!

T

Re: New WU's and tuning GPU's
Interested in OverClocking to reduce WU duration to hit target 'due date/times'?
Even if your GPU is locked down you can improve by using a curve with Frequency and Voltage of your GPU auto managed.

I'm not seeing many resends, mostly _0 and _1 original tasks.

No issues getting work or returning valid results.

WU:
New version of ACEMD 2.11 (cuda101)
Name
e16s23_e1s182p0f136-ADRIA_D3RBandit_batch0-0-1-RND8763

Currently 4days;6hours. Approx. 6hours left (just in time for the deadline, I hope). GPU 750Ti, running continuously, although I have been using the computer for other things too, at times.

So, yes, current work units are long. Much longer than "normal".
This post is just for reference.
✌

I agree. Overclocking GPU is much more likely to cause WU failure.
✌

Task 27021821 was canceled by server. Why? It was waiting to run.
Tullio
____________

Task 27021821 was canceled by server. Why? It was waiting to run.
Tullio

I have a 1660 super that takes about 34-38 hours on these new units, still seeing temps in the 60s, only uses 15% of gpu in task manager tho

the 1660ti is still faster than a 1660S. you're both on Windows so your times should be a little more comparable to my 1660S Linux times (27hrs).

his first task actually completed in about 29hrs. which seems right. the second task took 40hrs, but I can only speculate the reason. maybe he was doing other things on the system to slow down processing.
____________

Is it overclocking if you're underpowering???
This script runs 2080 Ti WUs in about 15 hours at 36% less power. First run this command:

160W seems too low for a 2080ti IMO. you're really restricting performance at that point.

for reference,

my RTX 2070's run in about 17hr @ 150W (not far away from the performance of your 2080ti, but 2070 is much less expensive)

my RTX 2080ti's run in about 10hr @ 225W, 50% faster for 40% more power.


____________

One example: WU #27023500 has been reported by a GTX 750 Ti at one of my hosts in 446,845.54 seconds, more than 4 hours after deadline.
This task has been rewarded with 348,750.00 credits, and hasn't been resent to any other host, with "Didn't need" legend.
May be the project managers are hiddenly attending this way the request of many Gpugrid users in this regard (?)

160W seems too low for a 2080ti

One example: WU #27023500 has been reported by a GTX 750 Ti at one of my hosts in 446,845.54 seconds, more than 4 hours after deadline.
This task has been rewarded with 348,750.00 credits, and hasn't been resent to any other host, with "Didn't need" legend.
May be the project managers are hiddenly attending this way the request of many Gpugrid users in this regard (?)

This is an interesting opportunity to study how the server handles tardy but completed WUs. My GTX 750ti was also allowed to run past the deadline and received equal credit to yours. https://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=27023657

Could it be that the server can detect a WU being actively crunched and stop cancellation? Or is this a normal delay function we see?

It had already created another task but had not sent it yet, and marked it as "didn't need" when my host reported.
Run time was 408,214.47 sec. CPU time was 406,250.30 sec
GPU clock was 1366MHz
Mem clock was 2833MHz
With my homespun fan intake mod it ran at 55C with 22C ambient room temp.

Just can't kill it.

160W seems too low for a 2080ti

My circuit breakers are perfectly optimized. Not to mention heat management. I'm going to have to sit this race out.

Thanks Zoltan, I gave up for now and switched that GPU to FAH for now.
It seems to be doing more FLOPS/hr when running FAHcore CUDA vs ACEMD, but that may be just the difference in scoring procedures.

I'm not seeing many resends, mostly _0 and _1 original tasks.

No issues getting work or returning valid results.

There’s no quorum required here. So _1 is a resend.

another user reported that his task was cancelled off of his host (but he hadn't started crunching yet). Unsure what would happen to a task that was axed while crunching had already started.

better off with a cheaper card to begin with and save some money.

better off with a cheaper card to begin with and save some money.

I guess you haven't been shopping for a GPU lately. Prices are really high. Perfect time to sell cards not buy them.

Best thing I did was switch computers over to 240 V 20 A circuits. The most frequent problem I used to have was the A-phase getting out of balance with the B-phase and tripping one leg of the main breaker. With 240 V both phases are exactly balanced and PSUs run 6-8% more efficiently.

Now if I could just find a diagnostic tool to tell me when a PSU is on its last leg. E.g, this Inline PSU Tester for $590 is pricey but looks like it's the most comprehensive I've found: https://www.passmark.com/products/inline-psu-tester/index.php
If anyone knows of other brands please share.

Are there prolonged CPU-heavy periods where GPU util drops nearly to zero? Otherwise, I'll probably have an issue with my card. Just ~2 hrs into a new WU and it stalled. BOINC manager reports steadily increasing processor time since last checkpoints but, GPU util has been at 0% for nearly 30 min. Is that normal?

Weird, I just suspended/unsuspended, it jumped back to the latest checkpoint and immeadiately the GPU util spiked back to normal levels. I'll see if the same issue comes up again between now and the next checkpoint.

Are there prolonged CPU-heavy periods where GPU util drops nearly to zero? Otherwise, I'll probably have an issue with my card. Just ~2 hrs into a new WU and it stalled. BOINC manager reports steadily increasing processor time since last checkpoints but, GPU util has been at 0% for nearly 30 min. Is that normal?

Weird, I just suspended/unsuspended, it jumped back to the latest checkpoint and immeadiately the GPU util spiked back to normal levels. I'll see if the same issue comes up again between now and the next checkpoint.

Are there prolonged CPU-heavy periods where GPU util drops nearly to zero? Otherwise, I'll probably have an issue with my card. Just ~2 hrs into a new WU and it stalled. BOINC manager reports steadily increasing processor time since last checkpoints but, GPU util has been at 0% for nearly 30 min. Is that normal?

Weird, I just suspended/unsuspended, it jumped back to the latest checkpoint and immediately the GPU util spiked back to normal levels. I'll see if the same issue comes up again between now and the next checkpoint.

I'm aware of the situation. but if you sell a 2080ti, and re-buy a 2070. you're still left with more money, no? even at higher prices, everything just shifts up because of the market. You're restricting the 2080ti so much that it performs similarly to a 2070S, so why have the 2080ti? that was my only point.

I agree about 240V, and I normally run my systems in a remote location on 240V, but due to renovations, I have one system temporarily at my house. but if you're on 240V, why restrict it so much?

I use the voltage telemetry (via IPMI) to identify when a PSU might be failing.

IPMI stands for Intelligent Platform Management Interface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Platform_Management_Interface
Always found on server motherboards with a BMC. Baseboard Management Controller.
https://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/baseboard-management-controller

You can look at the voltages coming out of the power supply on the system under load and spot issues with a power supply flaking out or on the edge of stability.

Set warnings about voltage levels and such. Very handy. All done remotely.

As Keith said, IPMI is the remote management interface built into the ASRock Rack and Supermicro motherboards that I use. They have voltage monitoring built in for the most part. It just measures the voltages that it sees at the 24-pin and reports it out over the IPMI interface. I access the telemetry via the dedicated webGUI that is provided at the configurable IP address on the LAN.

Tell tale signs of failure are usually sagging voltages. And not always where you expect. I have a PSU that I think is on the way out. It’s a 1200W PSU, only loaded maybe 600W now, but it’s10 years old, and was previously run pretty hard at the limit, in hot temps, for a long time. I’ve noticed random system restarts, and lots of warnings in the IPMI about low 3.3V below the 3.04v threshold. I’ll need to replace this soon.
____________

“RTC 3080s with new design rules” ? Huh?

It’s unfortunate that even existing 30-series cards still don’t work for GPUGRID. The app is holding them back. Right now the only options for 30-series are unoptimized OpenCL projects, FAH, or PrimeGrid (if you think finding big prime numbers is useful?)
____________

Seems I did not get one yet, and I have a Geforce RTX 2060

Seems I did not get one yet, and I have a Geforce RTX 2060

Ok, maybe I was looking for a different name than what is there, so what are the names of the two new ones then?

GTX 1060 completed in 157,027.38 s
GTX 1650 completed in 175,814.54 s
Both on a Windows 10 computer, the first with a Ryzen 5 1400 CPU.the second with an Intel i5 9400F.
Tullio
Sorry, I had exchanged the computers The GTX 1060 has 3 GB of Video RAM and was excluded from running Einstein@home Gravitational wave tasks which needed more than 3 GB. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of Video RAM.
____________

Seems I did not get one yet, and I have a Geforce RTX 2060

According to the status page of your host, you have two, and you had 7 before.

Ok, maybe I was looking for a different name than what is there, so what are the names of the two new ones then?

“RTC 3080s with new design rules” ? Huh?

“RTC 3080s with new design rules” ? Huh?

They're switching some or all from Samsung 8 nm design rules to TSMC 7 nm design rules. Also an RTX 3080 Ti with more memory is expected.
https://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/146170-nvidia-shift-rtx-30-gpus-tsmc-7nm-2021-says-report/

its all moot for GPUGRID anyway until they get around to making the app compatible with Ampere.

The thing is. They don’t even need to. They can just download the new CUDA toolkit, edit a few arguments in the config file or make file and re-compile the app as-is. It’s not a whole lot of work. And it’ll work. They basically just need to unlock the new architecture. The app now doesn’t even try to run, it fails at the architecture check.
____________

I have a dual GPU system, GTX 980 and GTX 1080 TI, and all of these work units have failed. Drivers are current as of Decemeber. I had to roll back January update as it didn't play nice with Milkyway@Home while you folks were on Holiday. Suddenly I can't complete a work unit without error.

I'm talking about the new test units that were being talked about by ADMIN, not WUs from ACEMD, and if they have similar names than I wouldn't know. But they are most certainly not taking 18 hours to crunch, they are taking the same amount of time to crunch so I think they are the same WUs that I have been getting for six months, not the new ones listed at the top of this thread.

I'm talking about the new test units that were being talked about by ADMIN,

not WUs from ACEMD,

and if they have similar names than I wouldn't know.

But they are most certainly not taking 18 hours to crunch,

they are taking the same amount of time to crunch so I think they are the same WUs that I have been getting for six months, not the new ones listed at the top of this thread.

I have a dual GPU system, GTX 980 and GTX 1080 TI, and all of these work units have failed. Drivers are current as of Decemeber. I had to roll back January update as it didn't play nice with Milkyway@Home while you folks were on Holiday. Suddenly I can't complete a work unit without error.

00:31:16 (11412): wrapper: running acemd3.exe (--boinc input --device 0)
ERROR: src\mdsim\context.cpp line 318: Cannot use a restart file on a different device!

00:28:21 (11224): wrapper: running acemd3.exe (--boinc input --device 0)
ERROR: src\mdsim\context.cpp line 318: Cannot use a restart file on a different device!

00:28:21 (3488): wrapper: running acemd3.exe (--boinc input --device 1)
ERROR: src\mdsim\context.cpp line 318: Cannot use a restart file on a different device!

23:35:51 (3068): wrapper: running acemd3.exe (--boinc input --device 0)
ERROR: src\mdsim\context.cpp line 318: Cannot use a restart file on a different device!

23:39:12 (1400): wrapper: running acemd3.exe (--boinc input --device 1)
ERROR: src\mdsim\context.cpp line 318: Cannot use a restart file on a different device!

23:39:12 (4088): wrapper: running acemd3.exe (--boinc input --device 0)
ERROR: src\mdsim\context.cpp line 318: Cannot use a restart file on a different device!

you should increase the time threshold for task switching to longer than the run of these tasks (24 hrs?), and avoid interrupting the computation.

true, I do this.

but some people like to concurrently crunch multiple projects giving some love to them all, not just prime/backup.
____________

I have a 1660 super that takes about 34-38 hours on these new units, still seeing temps in the 60s, only uses 15% of gpu in task manager tho

It just dawned on me that these WUs might be an experiment in having the same host perform all the generations of the model simulation consecutively instead of on different hosts. Or am I way off?

Sorry, I took the last cookie... ;-)

Sorry, I took the last cookie... ;-)

These tasks are too big for my 1050ti
:(
30 times bigger than previous MDAD tasks!
I think I have to go to Folding@home until GG have smaller WU.
F@h have small WU relate to covid-19.About 40min in my 1050 ti

in 4-5 days there will be plenty more resends available from all the hit-n-runs and systems that are too slow.

looks like some new tasks are being loaded up. I've received several _0s

they're labelled batch0, so maybe some tasks that had too many errors that needed to be resent manually as new tasks?
____________

I've got some of these new batch0 tasks too.

I have CUDA: NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 1650 (driver version 461.40, CUDA version 11.2, compute capability 7.5, 4096MB, 3327MB available, 2849 GFLOPS peak)


and https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=32538103 estimates two days to finish

Hours?

Hours?

RTX3090 just repeats Computation error.

RTX3090 just repeats Computation error.

I have CUDA: NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GTX 1650 (driver version 461.40, CUDA version 11.2, compute capability 7.5, 4096MB, 3327MB available, 2849 GFLOPS peak)


and https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=32538103 estimates two days to finish

Seeking some help if possible. I have had only one of the new work units download to my computer on 15 Feb. Unfortunately, it was interrupted by a power loss in my area, and when power came back on I discovered the Nvidia driver had somehow been corrupted. After the fix, the WU ended up with a compute error. The problem is that since then I have not received any more WUs, either automatically or during mulitple Updates in BOINC. Can someone look at my computer and see what I may have set wrong (driver etc) that may be preventing me getting work units? I have checked what my limited knowledge allows. Thank you for any help.

EDIT: Computer with the Nvidia 1080.

It appears that the drivers are not installed correctly. No driver is reported by BOINC.

Driver version being available via BOINC is important here at GPUGRID because the project needs to know that you are using a compatible driver to send you work units.

So I would totally remove your drivers and completely reinstall them fresh
____________

Thank you! It worked. Odd, since it was working on Einstein. Just for my ongoing learning, where did you see that no driver was being reported to GPUGRID? Again, thank you for your help.

If you look at your host details here: http://www.gpugrid.net/hosts_user.php?userid=524258

You can see in the section showing your GPU, below it lists the driver in use. When I looked at it before, no driver was listed. It was just blank.

Einstein’s apps are openCL and really only need the openCL portion of the drivers, which you must have had installed, just some problem with the proprietary drivers I guess. You did say you had some driver corruption so it’s hard to say exactly what happened.
____________

My ole Nvidia 1080 is turning new WU's around in about 25 hours.

On another host my brand new Gigabyte RTX3070 is patiently waiting to do some real work on GPUGrid. I daresay that it would be crunching these WU's a lot quicker and more efficiently.

So I'm stuck with F@H for the new sports car. Hopefully a short term problem.

So I'm stuck with F@H for the new sports car.

The WorldCommunityGrid has started releasing some GPU tasks of OpenPandemicsbeta but I haven't been lucky to get them.
Tullio
____________

The WorldCommunityGrid has started releasing some GPU tasks of OpenPandemicsbeta but I haven't been lucky to get them.

Hey Toni!

Thanks for the new supply of work first of all. I was wondering if you'd possibly think about adjusting time limit for bonus points upon a timely return of a WU slightly upwards, to allow volunteers with less powerful cards (like 1660 series cards) to not be penalized for a mere 5% over the defined limit. I reckon that the limit was put in place to ensure a timely computation of the WU, but while 24hrs might be fine for just a 2-4 hrs WU, the situation drastically shifted with average runtimes of ~10h on the fastest cards.

I understand that increasing the deadline of WU is sth you don't want to do in order to ensure timeliness of WUs, but just extending the originally set 24hrs time limit to say 25/26 hrs surely wouldn't hurt this performance goal a lot.

I don't think you should think of it as a "penalty" you're not getting penalized, just not getting the quick return bonus since you didn't make the cutoff.

Personally I don't think this needs to be changed. it's a bonus for exceptional work, not an entitlement. if you return within 2 days you still get some bonus. I think if you still want the bonus, you should invest in your systems to make them faster.

and yes, I am myself subject to missing out on the bonus for one of my systems since the GTX 1660Super (device-1 in the RTX3070 host) is unable to meet the 24hr cutoff (routinely ~27hrs).
____________

I have quite a high ERROR rate on this host: http://www.gpugrid.net/results.php?hostid=523675
Quite a few WUs crash with:
"Error invoking kernel: CUDA_ERROR_ILLEGAL_INSTRUCTION (715)" (5 units)
"Error invoking kernel: CUDA_ERROR_LAUNCH_FAILED (719)" (1 unit)
"Particle coordinate is nan" (1 unit)
"process exited with code 195 (0xc3, -61)</message>" (1 unit)
Any idea what the cause might be? The other Linux computer does work flawlessly. And the other two Windows 10 computers do not produces ERRORs either.

I did not see a GTX960 mentioned here. BOINC thinks the new WU will take 3 hours to complete. Is that accurate?

I did not see a GTX960 mentioned here. BOINC thinks the new WU will take 3 hours to complete. Is that accurate?

I have quite a high ERROR rate on this host: http://www.gpugrid.net/results.php?hostid=523675
Quite a few WUs crash with:
"Error invoking kernel: CUDA_ERROR_ILLEGAL_INSTRUCTION (715)" (5 units)
"Error invoking kernel: CUDA_ERROR_LAUNCH_FAILED (719)" (1 unit)
"Particle coordinate is nan" (1 unit)
"process exited with code 195 (0xc3, -61)</message>" (1 unit)
Any idea what the cause might be? The other Linux computer does work flawlessly. And the other two Windows 10 computers do not produces ERRORs either.

... download the latest drivers for your system ...

... download the latest drivers for your system ...

I'm always a bit cautious about going for 'the latest' of anything. Driver release is usually driven by gaming first, and sometimes they break other things - like computing for science - along the way.

I usually go for the final, bugfix, sub-version of the previous major release.

The other errors might be driver related. Try to remove the old drivers with DDU from safe mode, be sure to select the option in the settings to prevent Windows from automatically installing drivers. Then go to nvidia’s website and download the latest drivers for your system, selecting custom install and clean install during the install process.

The other errors might be driver related. Try to remove the old drivers with DDU from safe mode, be sure to select the option in the settings to prevent Windows from automatically installing drivers. Then go to nvidia’s website and download the latest drivers for your system, selecting custom install and clean install during the install process.

It is a Linux Box...
I switched already back to Nouveau driver. Restarted - no image… luckily I was able to restart with GRUB (recovery mode). After that I was able to install latest Nvidia Driver again.
Hope this will solve the problem!

As of the date of the post, all work units had failed. I didn't complete one successfully until the 17th.

To date, I have:

3 In progress
9 Error while computing
3 Completed and validated
1 Cancelled by server

3 out of 14 is not a good ratio.

I do not crunch 24/7. I actually use my computer for real life stuff, and some of that includes me using my GPUs for something other than this project. Has not been a problem before these work units. Before Feb. 10, my last failed work units were in 2018.

Is there no way to make the work units smaller so those of us that have older systems can still participate in the project?

As of the date of the post, all work units had failed. I didn't complete one successfully until the 17th.

To date, I have:

3 In progress
9 Error while computing
3 Completed and validated
1 Cancelled by server

3 out of 14 is not a good ratio.

I do not crunch 24/7. I actually use my computer for real life stuff, and some of that includes me using my GPUs for something other than this project. Has not been a problem before these work units. Before Feb. 10, my last failed work units were in 2018.

ERROR: src\mdsim\context.cpp line 318: Cannot use a restart file on a different device!

Is there no way to make the work units smaller so those of us that have older systems can still participate in the project?

it seems like the relatively small MDADs that we had for several months was the exception.

short runs seem to be defined as 2-3 hrs on the fastest card. the MDADs were way shorter than that. running only about 15-20mins on a 2080ti. I'd say that's out of the norm for the project history.

even long runs are defined as 8-12hrs on fastest card. and I'd say these bandit tasks certainly fall into that category. with a 2080ti usually taking about 10hrs.
____________

short runs seem to be defined as 2-3 hrs on the fastest card. ...
long runs are defined as 8-12hrs on fastest card.

It's never been changed, as far as I can remember.

It's never been changed, as far as I can remember.

But "the fastest card", being a relative term, has certainly changed its meaning over the years.

Will there be any new work or is the batch over now?

Will there be any new work or is the batch over now?

"OpenPandemics for GPU

The process of porting the research application code to GPU is well underway as we work to ensure that work units function well and securely before they’re sent to volunteers. The security review of the code is completed."

https://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/about_us/viewNewsArticle.do?articleId=680&mynews=Y

There are beta tasks already released, but they are few and I haven't received any. They last only a few minutes.
Tullio
____________

Greetings everyone,

I'm sorry to say, but I am having a build issue at the moment and I have not been able to create a production ready version of the application. At the moment, the next round of beta is on hold while I'm still working out the issue.

Thanks,
-Uplinger
[Feb 26, 2021 11:10:50 PM]

They must be having a hard time getting them long enough.
They should come here for advice.

They must be having a hard time getting them long enough.
They should come here for advice.

I guess, it would be a perfect place then to shift the slower cards to if they don't finish tasks in time here. My 750 Ti and 970 will do work over there as soon as they ship the production ready version of the app.

I've read on the forums that a 1650 Super which definitely is not the most powerful card there, reached runtimes of only a few minutes. The powerful cards must kick ass over there, finishing WUs in seconds then - even it'd be it just for a few hours, they'd probably produce a week's worth of CPU crunching :)

I have an odd question regarding these work units. Was the credit awarded dependent upon how quickly they were completed? They all had the same application identifier as far as I could tell, and they all took about the same amount of processor time to complete. They seemed to award 3 different amounts of credit, either approximately 348,000 points, 435,000 or 520,000. I completed about a dozen and the longer I took the less credit given. The ones I returned in less than 2 days all awarded 435,000 points, those that took 3 days or longer all awarded 348,000. Was this an actual factor or just a wild coincidence?
____________

Yes. Tasks returned in under 24hrs get a 50% bonus. Under 48hrs get a 25% bonus. And tasks between 2-5 days get normal base credit.
____________

Can we know what exactly we are crunching?

Thanks!

Sylvain.

Normally we don't know any specifics until a paper is generated and cites the workunits that were used for the investigation.

The paper details what the investigation was all about.

If you have citation badges under your account you can click on the badge you were awarded and it will take you to the paper synopsis.

Ah, thank you. I wish I had known! It took my 1070 GPU's about 27 hours to complete them but I kept most of my resources on other projects and only made sure to return them before they timed out. I could have picked up a few hundred thousand more points and got my 100 million molecule. Oh well...
____________

as of this morning, on one of my machines I had still 2 tasks: one was running, the other one waiting. An hour later I noticed that the latter one was "aborted by server".
How nice :-(

as of this morning, on one of my machines I had still 2 tasks: one was running, the other one waiting. An hour later I noticed that the latter one was "aborted by server".
How nice :-(