Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : 3 GPU's, # of expected WU's?
Author | Message |
---|---|
I have had two 8800GT's crunching for about 3.5 months. That always downloads 4 WU's -- 2 that crunch immediately and 2 in waiting. Given our recent work issues, I figured I throw in a 9500GT (factory OC'd) that I had laying around, expecting to get 6 WU's. The 9500GT is slow, but can finish 1 WU with plenty of time before the deadline and the 2nd WU would get crunched by one of the 8800GT's. However, after getting the 9500GT in the system, it crunches 3 WU's but only has 1 in reserve (same # of WU's before the 9500GT). | |
ID: 5113 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Taking a closer look at the server message, I see it specifically says "per-CPU limit". I have a Q6600, so that must be where the 4 tasks for 4 CPU's comes from. However, given I can crunch 3 at a time now, can this limit be raised to 2? That will let a Q6600 download 8 WU's, which even with just 2 8800GT's I can crunch in a little under 3 days. | |
ID: 5114 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I think the idea was to go straight to a per-GPU limit. The main problem with increasing the per-CPU limit is that the BOINC work fetch (in the 6.4.x clients) and the estimated WU completion times are still screwed. BOINC downloads too much work on slower cards, which has to be aborted by the user.. this only gets worse if more work per CPU is allowed. | |
ID: 5143 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I think the idea was to go straight to a per-GPU limit. The main problem with increasing the per-CPU limit is that the BOINC work fetch (in the 6.4.x clients) and the estimated WU completion times are still screwed. BOINC downloads too much work on slower cards, which has to be aborted by the user.. this only gets worse if more work per CPU is allowed. Don't forget that there are also issues with the "work Fetch" policy and Resource Share model used by BOINC. Dr. Anderson put out a proposal to change this. There has been some comments on this proposal and I made a RTF with the changes (discussed in another thread on this board) which we pretty universally received with silence (to date). Anyway ... | |
ID: 5148 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
True. Ideally it will be tied to # of GPU's and be able to determine the estimated time for a particular GPU. That's a wish that isn't probably that close to being fulfilled. | |
ID: 5153 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
True. Ideally it will be tied to # of GPU's and be able to determine the estimated time for a particular GPU. That's a wish that isn't probably that close to being fulfilled. Well, it is more than just fetching the work ... though that seems to be the only problem that Dr. Anderson is willing to address ... if you look at the changes to the proposal he has actually backed down on the scope of the change and what will be addressed. If you look at the mailing list you can see that I am not the only one concerned that by such narrow focus we are not only losing an oppertunity to address several other significant issues but to also set the stage for project to come ... Just as an illustrative example, let us say that you were silly enough to want to do work for SaH ... and you want to allow them to use 40% of your CPU, but though you did not mind them using part of your GPUs, you only want them to use 20% ... there is no way currently to address this ... other than some real esoteric maneuvers on your part involving multiple computers ... And this is partly what I have been unsuccessfully trying to get Dr.Anderson to acknowledge ... and to work on ... | |
ID: 5159 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Message boards : Graphics cards (GPUs) : 3 GPU's, # of expected WU's?