Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community (https://www.overclock.net/forum/)
-   Overclock.net BOINC Team (https://www.overclock.net/forum/365-overclock-net-boinc-team/)
-   -   Projects of the Month for December 2017 (https://www.overclock.net/forum/365-overclock-net-boinc-team/1643184-projects-month-december-2017-a.html)

tictoc 12-14-2017 10:27 AM

I added a pair of 290s to Einstein last night. The 290s are about 100 seconds faster than my 480. Running two tasks concurrently the 290s average about 860 seconds per task. My 480 averages about 960 seconds per task. No OC on the 290s, and both systems are running the same OS and drivers. thinking.gif

mmonnin 12-14-2017 10:42 AM

My 580 is like 11-12min I think? But that's in Win7 where AMD cards go crazy slow with more than a task at a time. Looks idle quite a bit due to the task inefficiency. I need to find that thread that goes through the issue. GPU performance in [email protected] should really be measured up to 90%, after that CPU calculations are done which can skew run times.

EG's 7990s were pretty damn fast running [email protected] so I would expect 290s to be pretty quick as well.

tictoc 12-14-2017 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmonnin View Post

My 580 is like 11-12min I think? But that's in Win7 where AMD cards go crazy slow with more than a task at a time. Looks idle quite a bit due to the task inefficiency. I need to find that thread that goes through the issue. GPU performance in [email protected] should really be measured up to 90%, after that CPU calculations are done which can skew run times.

EG's 7990s were pretty damn fast running [email protected] so I would expect 290s to be pretty quick as well.

 

Is 11-12 minutes just running one task at a time?


mmonnin 12-14-2017 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by tictoc View Post

Is 11-12 minutes just running one task at a time?

Yes, a single task.

tictoc 12-15-2017 07:47 AM

The errors and lockups that I was having on Einstein on my 1070s and 290s were actually due to unstable memory. 

 

I was running my 1333 sticks at 1866, and apparently running that speed was not quite stable.  I caught the errors on SRBase, so I dropped the speed, and now my 290s have been crunching Einstein without issue for the last day and a half.:D


Egilman 12-15-2017 08:31 PM

Code:
<app_config> 
    <app> 
        <name>hsgamma_FGRPB1G</name> 
            <gpu_versions> 
                <gpu_usage>0.33</gpu_usage>
                <cpu_usage>0.2</cpu_usage> 
            </gpu_versions> 
    </app> 
</app_config> 

this is the app_config I was running mine on.

yes 3x, start out at stock clocks as long as they are stable.....
Then adjust upwards as long as they remain stable..........
And from what I remember, doesn't need a lot of memory....

This put my machines in the top ten on the project in the dailies.

tictoc 12-18-2017 06:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by tictoc View Post
 

The errors and lockups that I was having on Einstein on my 1070s and 290s were actually due to unstable memory. 

 

I was running my 1333 sticks at 1866, and apparently running that speed was not quite stable.  I caught the errors on SRBase, so I dropped the speed, and now my 290s have been crunching Einstein without issue for the last day and a half.:D

 

Quoting myself. :D

 

Evidently that was not the issue.  Not sure what it is, and I don't have time to mess with it right now, but still seeing odd lock-ups and driver crashes when I run Einstein.  I'm going to put a 480 back on Einstein, and the 290s are going back to MilkyWay for now.


tictoc 12-20-2017 08:15 PM

I'm currently clearing out my LHC queue.  The constant traffic back and forth to the LHC servers murders my lowly DSL connection.  I will probably keep one rig crunching one or two tasks, but running 10+ tasks at a time, is not something that I can keep doing without throtlling the heck out of the traffic to the LHC servers. 

 

If I am going to keep running LHC, I will probably need to set up a local cache server to minimize all of the http overhead that LHC has.


emoga 12-20-2017 09:53 PM

@tictoc I switched to sixtrack when atlas was having its uploading issues. It's much smoother on the network, as well as the hard drives.

That's the thing with LHC...it's one of the most important distributed computing projects out there (imo)...but it also demands the most ram, bandwidth and patience from its users. rolleyes.gif

tictoc 12-20-2017 10:03 PM

I' m running 15 sixtrack tasks now.  I agree completely on the merits of the project. :)

 

The ATLAS tasks were running without too many issues, but when the ATLAS server went offline I started running the Theory and LHCb tasks.  I might go back to running just ATLAS and sixtrack.



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.