Message boards : Number crunching : 8 hours, 42 minutes elapsed, 3 hours CPU time
Author | Message |
---|---|
I'm running two jobs on my main crunching PC, the new GAINNI work units and | |
ID: 44220 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The GIANNI tasks run significantly longer. It is not a problem on your PC, BOINC, or the project. It is just longer running tasks. If the time completed based on the percent completed will finish within the timeout period, let it run. They are easy to fail though, so make sure there is no excessive restarting, tinkering, or power inconsistencies. | |
ID: 44223 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Yeah, no problem if a tasks runs long. I'm concerned that it's spending most of its time idling, given that the task details report crunching time less than half of the real life elapsed time. | |
ID: 44224 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Are you certain that your WCG task(s) was not accessing the GPU at the same time? | |
ID: 44225 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I'm running two jobs on my main crunching PC, the new GAINNI work units and Do you mean that not even the WCG tasks? Both tasks have a major discrepancy between elapsed time and crunching time. What do you mean by "elapsed time" and "crunching time"? This is a new problem for me, I'm pretty sure it wasn't happening a week ago. If the above two is what you can see on the task list page of your hosts, then this discrepancy in "CPU time" and "Run Time" is normal for a host without the SWAN_SYNC environmental value. | |
ID: 44226 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Real time will also include the amount of time the WU has been on your host which is obviously your cache size. | |
ID: 44227 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
A few replies and an update: | |
ID: 44253 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Even if you could fully and accurately quantify the progress of a projects scientific research and your contribution towards it, comparing one project to another is qualitative and what the research might lead to in years to come is speculative. | |
ID: 44306 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The difference in overall CPU performance of a i7-4930K crunching 12 CPU tasks vs 11 CPU tasks is probably negligible compared to the GPU performance improvements that come from not having the CPU constantly over-saturated (in my qualified opinion). I have tested this, and can fully confirm what you are saying | |
ID: 44320 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The difference in overall CPU performance of a i7-4930K crunching 12 CPU tasks vs 11 CPU tasks is probably negligible compared to the GPU performance improvements that come from not having the CPU constantly over-saturated (in my qualified opinion). In my experience under Windows XP x64 on a system which has "only" dual channel memory subsystem (i3-4160, i7-4770k, i7-4790k) if there is more than 1 another CPU task running (usually rosetta@home, or Einstein@home), the GPUGrid task (SWAN_SYNC on) suffers demonstrable performance loss (especially those which use more CPU like the GIANNI_D3C36bCHL). It is better not to run CPU tasks at all, but the improvement in the performance of the GPUGrid task switching from 1 to 0 CPU tasks is much less than of switching from n CPU tasks to 1 CPU task (n>1). The lesser (socket 115x) i7 CPUs are not significantly better from this point of view than the i3 CPUs. The i7 has 8MB L3 cache, while the i3 has only 3MB (or 4MB), but it seems to me that only 1 CPU task could saturate both kinds of CPU concerning GPU tasks. | |
ID: 44325 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
As I long ago had noticed, the degree of GPU utilization depends on the degree of CPU load. | |
ID: 44328 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
HyperThreading cores are not full cores and if one thread of a cure is fully loaded with FPU code the other will see a performace degradation and lag. | |
ID: 44494 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I just raise priority of GPUGRID process in Process Explorer to High(13).Do you mean Process Explorer or Process Hacker? In PE you can set it per WU but need to keep going back and resetting it with new tasks. But with PH you can set it to "save" it and it will automatically set it each new download. Incidentally in anything Vista and beyond you can set the IO priority too in disk writes. (Note: I can't speak to the system stability as there is a warning even on install in going Kernel Mode or User Mode and some have said setting IO priority intrinsically makes things unstable. I use it on my systems and my laptop doesn't get errors or reboots. The other systems, I feel there is hardware or something wrong that is not the PH.) ____________ 1 Corinthians 9:16 "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!" Ephesians 6:18-20, please ;-) http://tbc-pa.org | |
ID: 44508 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I just raise priority of GPUGRID process in Process Explorer to High(13).Do you mean Process Explorer or Process Hacker? In PE you can set it per WU but need to keep going back and resetting it with new tasks. But with PH you can set it to "save" it and it will automatically set it each new download. Incidentally in anything Vista and beyond you can set the IO priority too in disk writes. I use Process Explorer and manually increase priority for each new task. As I wrote above, for me it's not too annoying (1 time in 24 hours). I thought about a tool with the same functionality as Process Hacker, but did not know specific tools. Thank you for example, I'll try it! | |
ID: 44553 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
But with PH you can set it to "save" it and it will automatically set it each new download. As I understand it, this setting is valid only while running Process Hacker. Is there any possibility to save this setting at OS level? | |
ID: 44554 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Once it is set in the PH, then PH can be closed and it will keep till the next task starts, just like PE. I know it is tapping into the OS or the Kernel to do this and I don't know if there is a manual setting or hack that can do it. I jsut run PH with Windows and set its own priorities within itself to Low and Idle and set the refresh to 10 seconds under "View". This minimalizes the impact of running it minimized and after 10 seconds or so will change the priorities of the new tasks. I still use PE as my Task Manager replacement in settings. In addition to increasing the prios of the tasks themselves, I also increase the BOINC Manager and BOINC.exe so there is a full optimization of all working parts of getting the work done. | |
ID: 44561 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I meant that PH must be run at the moment of starting new task, to apply high priority from previously saved settings. | |
ID: 44563 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Message boards : Number crunching : 8 hours, 42 minutes elapsed, 3 hours CPU time