We have uploaded the newest application to replace the old application. So now we have:
acemd 6.72 newest app WIN (cuda2.2 and cuda3)
acemd2 6.03 production application WIN/LINUX (cuda2.2)
acemdbeta newest app (cuda2.2 and cuda3) WIN (not used now)

Linux cuda3 coming soon (Monday).

gdf

Any changes important for us in 6.72?

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

acemd 6.7x ACEMD
acemd2 6.0x ACEMD ver 2.0
acemdbeta ACEMD beta

Any changes important for us in 6.72?

MrS

Can these app also been used for fermi-cards?

It's possible. We have so many on the production application, that for now we can't create more.

gdf

Finally got one of the 6.71 WUs http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=2180296, ran about 22% slower than 6.03 WUs on this machine as feedback, thanks,

no,
we are waiting for the Fermi card at this point.
gdf

Can you just clarify which cards should crunch these 6.72 application dependant tasks?

I am thinking,
CC1.1 cards that fail ACEMD Ver. 2 tasks,
possibly CC1.2 cards but I still think ACEMD Ver. 2 would be faster,
and possibly Fermi cards (better chance of working and perhaps aiding development)

Not CC1.3 cards or CC1.1 cards that always succeed with ACEMD Ver 2. tasks.

Thanks,

This application will become the new production application if it passes the test.
So everyone who is running now can run these ones.
For Fermi we are waiting for the delivery of the first cards.

gdf

OK everybody will be able to run 6.72 tasks, but should they?

Is the 6.72 application replacing the ACEMD (Ver 1 app)?
Is it replacing 6.03?

Will 6.72 be as fast as ACEMD Ver 2 for all cards?
Will a GTX275, for example, work as fast on 6.72 as on 6.03?

Thanks,

6.72 is the fastest application. It is faster than 6.03 on G200 cards.

gdf

Another 30% improvement!
Again, well done.

On a g200 card the new application is 100% faster than the original ACEMD application which lasted almost one year.
No further improvements are planned.

gdf

They are different workunits with different number of steps. Look at the result report for a confirmation.
gdf

While the speed increased for some GPUs, it looks like the credit awarded is going down by 2000 points:

p5-IBUCH_0510_pYEEI_long_100420-1-4-RND1103_0 1382090 21 Apr 2010 2:37:48 UTC 22 Apr 2010 6:13:51 UTC
Completed and validated 49,845.25 5,175.23 7,954.42 9,943.03 Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=1381327

p43-IBUCH_0511_pYEEI_long_100420-1-4-RND4049_0 1381327 20 Apr 2010 20:47:15 UTC 21 Apr 2010 16:22:57 UTC
Completed and validated 49,555.66 5,158.56 7,954.42 11,931.63 Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=1382090

Beyond, it looks the top task picked up a 25% bonus rather than a 50% bonus.
Reason, missed 24h deadline by about 3.5h

Sent 21 Apr 2010 2:37:48 UTC
Returned 22 Apr 2010 6:13:51 UTC

Turn your cache down to 0.05 or similar.

If you are running CPU tasks and want to keep a few days worth in cache,
stop receiving new GPU tasks, turn up your cache, collect whatever CPU tasks you need (say 5days) then turn your cach right down to 0.05days, and enable new GPU tasks.

We could probably do with a seperate GPU control Tab on Boinc!

Recently the bonus was increased to 50% for tasks completed in 1day. Prior to this there was a bonus of 25% for tasks completed within 2 days – This 2 day bonus still applies.
This is essentially to encourage faster turnaround of tasks, which in turn speeds up the project, as in compound interest (accelerates it)! Presently the CC1.3 cards can all do the longer WUs well within the 24h time frame, but it is important to have a low cache for CC1.1 andCC1.2 cards. It also helps the project to have a lower cache for CC1.3 cards.

I repeat. There is nothing strange about these two workunits, one is simply longer than the other one (time/step is the same but number of timesteps is different).

gdf

They are different workunits with different number of steps. Look at the result report for a confirmation.
gdf

While the speed increased for some GPUs, it looks like the credit awarded is going down by 2000 points:

p5-IBUCH_0510_pYEEI_long_100420-1-4-RND1103_0 1382090 21 Apr 2010 2:37:48 UTC 22 Apr 2010 6:13:51 UTC
Completed and validated 49,845.25 5,175.23 7,954.42 9,943.03 Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=1381327

p43-IBUCH_0511_pYEEI_long_100420-1-4-RND4049_0 1381327 20 Apr 2010 20:47:15 UTC 21 Apr 2010 16:22:57 UTC
Completed and validated 49,555.66 5,158.56 7,954.42 11,931.63 Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=1382090

I don't think so. Time/step was nearly identical as was the total time for the WU Same computer/GPU.

This long 6.72 task ran on one of my GT240s.
It completed and validated in about 18h; within 1 day, for the full 50% bonus.
6.72 tasks are about 21% faster than the 6.03 tasks on a GT240.
All my systems use a 0.05 day cache.


2200081 1379585 22 Apr 2010 10:36:29 UTC 23 Apr 2010 5:34:49 UTC Completed and validated 64,182.75 13,417.75 7,954.42 11,931.63 Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)

- I am expecting one of my more overclocked GT240 cards to finish a long 6.72 task in 16h 45min.
- GPU 600MHz, Shaders 1625MHz, GDDR5 1800MHz. The shaders are 21% overclocked, which is what counts the most.

22 Apr 2010 16:31:37 UTC 23 Apr 2010 10:12:32 UTC Completed and validated 60,358.42 12,729.48 7,853.81 11,780.71 Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=2201187

These are the User Account Preference Settings that matter most:

- Run test applications?

Run only the selected applications
- ACEMD:
- ACEMD ver 2.0:
- ACEMD beta:

- If no work for selected applications is available, accept work from other applications?


For Windows systems we presently have the following tasks:

. 6.03
. 6.72
. 6.73
. Betas

It is not clear which settings will select for the Fermi tasks (6.73), which select the 6.72 tasks and which select the 6.03 tasks.

This is what I am guessing:
. ACEMD = 6.73 (Fermi)
. ACEMD ver 2.0 = 6.03 & 6.72
. ACEMD Beta = any beta tasks (server can determine card type is Fermi or Not)

Can someone Confirm or Correct this?

Thanks,

Acemdbeta are the beta

Acemd is from now giving only Fermi applications, it is just for testing but on a larger number that the beta.

Acemd ver 2 is our production application (6.03/6.04).

Soon we will move the latest application into the acemd ver 2.

Application termed cuda3 are given only to Fermi as cuda3 is slower on older hardware.

gdf

I think 6.72 is still set to replace 6.03; as 6.72 is faster and works for non-Fermi's.

6.72 looked like the longer version of the 6.22 Betas, in the same way 6.73 is a large scale Fermi test and the 6.23 WU's are the smaller Betas.

Well, I hope so; the 6.72 tasks were faster for my CC1.3 and CC1.2 cards.

Getting runaway 6.72 TONI_HERGunb Failures:

2301778 1453161 10 May 2010 22:19:27 UTC 10 May 2010 22:21:08 UTC Error while computing 6.37 4.82 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301768 1453151 10 May 2010 22:17:49 UTC 10 May 2010 22:19:27 UTC Error while computing 7.38 4.62 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301761 1453144 10 May 2010 22:12:37 UTC 10 May 2010 22:14:16 UTC Error while computing 7.44 4.79 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301760 1453143 10 May 2010 22:16:11 UTC 10 May 2010 22:17:49 UTC Error while computing 7.38 4.99 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301755 1453138 10 May 2010 22:14:16 UTC 10 May 2010 22:16:11 UTC Error while computing 7.38 4.70 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301750 1453133 10 May 2010 22:10:50 UTC 10 May 2010 22:12:37 UTC Error while computing 6.36 4.70 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301744 1453128 10 May 2010 22:07:31 UTC 10 May 2010 22:09:09 UTC Error while computing 7.38 4.88 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301730 1453114 10 May 2010 22:05:48 UTC 10 May 2010 22:07:31 UTC Error while computing 6.41 4.77 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301712 1453098 10 May 2010 21:55:29 UTC 10 May 2010 22:05:48 UTC Error while computing 7.24 4.90 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301711 1453097 10 May 2010 22:09:09 UTC 10 May 2010 22:10:50 UTC Error while computing 7.41 4.70 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301659 1453046 10 May 2010 21:12:42 UTC 10 May 2010 21:14:38 UTC Error while computing 6.33 4.76 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301635 1453022 10 May 2010 21:02:38 UTC 10 May 2010 21:12:42 UTC Error while computing 6.19 4.79 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301623 1453010 10 May 2010 20:44:56 UTC 10 May 2010 20:46:57 UTC Error while computing 8.31 4.74 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301614 1453001 10 May 2010 20:43:06 UTC 10 May 2010 20:44:56 UTC Error while computing 6.33 4.74 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301607 1452994 10 May 2010 21:30:15 UTC 10 May 2010 21:41:00 UTC Error while computing 7.23 4.93 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda) 2301548 1452936 10 May 2010 19:46:31 UTC 10 May 2010 20:43:06 UTC Error while computing 6.18 4.68 0.03 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)

DESELECTED ACEMD and Betas for now.

I have seen runaway errors before, they are not always the result of bad WU's; more often a system issue. I just wanted to make sure my cards kept picking up work; too many failures = no tasks!
One 6.72 task did manage to complete.

Counted a total of 4 successful 6.72 tasks, and 67 failures on the one system with 4 GT240's.
Now just running 6.03 on that system.

I might have a problem, but the system is very stable (Corsair 550W PSU and native CPU & RAM). The CPU does clock up to 3.3GHz without manually upping the voltage. The cards are OC'd but use stock voltage.
Most of the 6.03 tasks run fine. Picked up a few v6.03 TONI_GAUS failures over the last week or so, and some 6.22 failures, but not too many.
The 6.72 mostly crash after 7seconds, suggesting an app/WU issue.
Using Vista x64, so the drivers are the same as yours, 197.45.
Boinc 6.10.45

For now all the 6.03 tasks are running well, and I am averaging over 50K per day on the system, so it's hardly a disaster;

Average, 50,077.21. Total 5,267,924

Boinc 6.10.45
AuthenticAMD AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor [Family 16 Model 4 Stepping 2](4 processors)
[4] NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 (474MB) driver: 19745
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate x64 Edition, Service Pack 1, (06.00.6001.00) 14 May 2010 10:44:37 UTC

I suppose the shader clocks might be the issue with these faster WU's (the 6.72 units use more GPU so probably draw slightly more power from the board). I might try to drop the clocks as you suggest.
I did notice a similar situation with my GTX260sp216; (6.72 fail after a few seconds but 6.03 run fine). It has raised shaders too.

I might try that over the weekend.
I did set my GTX260 clocks back to stock and tried a 6.72 task on that card but it failed immediately. I have another couple of GT240s that I can set to stock and try first - I dont want to mess too much with the quad system as there are always tasks running at different stages.

- Just checked and the +12V rating is 41A (492W) for the Corsair 550.
There is no way I am pushing that with 4 GT240s and a stock CPU.
The CPU has a 125W TDP and the GT240s are 69W TDP.
The one HDD, one DVDRW, and 2 sticks RAM wont do much damage either.

- Just measured it on a Watt metre and the whole system is only drawing 235W when crunching (CPU 90%, 4 GPUs at about 75%).

Suspended all tasks, set clocks to default (system power usage fell to 140W), enabled the one 6.72 task to run (no other CPU or GPU tasks were running).

The 6.72 task crashed in 5sec!

I think the problem is not power related:
When these GPUs are not crunching they only use about 10W (actually about 6W, with the board drawing the other 4W).
So, with the other cards not crunching (and the CPU not crunching) the cards only used about 90W between them.
90W can’t be an issue, because if it were the cards could not crunch four 6.03 tasks at the same time; using about 240W between them!

It might be the fact that I am using more than one card, some Boinc setting, the WU’s, or Vista?

The cards I have are all 512MB GT240 DDR3, according to the manufacturer and GPUZ, so I am not sure what or why they are being reported as having 474.5625MB

With the recommended NVidia driver (197.45) and Boinc Version (6.10.18):
15/05/2010 13:09:08 NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GT 240 (driver version 19745, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.2, 475MB, 307 GFLOPS peak)
Boinc 6.10.45 & NVidia 197.45:
15/05/2010 13:11:26 NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GT 240 (driver version 19745, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.2, 475MB, 307 GFLOPS peak)
Boinc 6.10.56 & NVidia 197.45:
15/05/2010 13:11:26 NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GT 240 (driver version 19745, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.2, 475MB, 307 GFLOPS peak)
Boinc 6.10.56 & NVidia 197.57 (beta):
15/05/2010 13:47:28 NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GT 240 (driver version 19757, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.2, 475MB, 312 GFLOPS peak)

The card you found reports exactly 512MB. What Version of Boinc & NVidia driver was it using and what operating system (as there are different drivers for different operating systems)?

I also noticed that my GTX260sp216 (in a different system) has less than 1GB RAM; 881MB according to Boinc, and 896 according to GPUZ.
This card also fails 6.72 tasks when at stock, but crunches the 6.03 tasks (it’s a good card), using recent drivers too.

I will try the NVidia 196.21 drivers.

15/05/2010 16:05:31 NVIDIA GPU 0: GeForce GT 240 (driver version 19621, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.2, 512MB, 257 GFLOPS peak)
15/05/2010 16:05:31 NVIDIA GPU 1: GeForce GT 240 (driver version 19621, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.2, 512MB, 257 GFLOPS peak)
15/05/2010 16:05:31 NVIDIA GPU 2: GeForce GT 240 (driver version 19621, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.2, 512MB, 257 GFLOPS peak)
15/05/2010 16:05:31 NVIDIA GPU 3: GeForce GT 240 (driver version 19621, CUDA version 3000, compute capability 1.2, 512MB, 257 GFLOPS peak)

Just need to wait for a 6.72 task to come my way, there are none at the minute.
I also put 196.21 onto the system with the GTX260.

I guess Boinc ver 6.10.45 (and variants) might have worked well right up to the point where people started using the 197.xx drivers!

Will there be any 6.72 tasks available over the weekend?

Well, I picked up two 6.72 WUs on the GT240 system.
So far (1h 15 min), so good – Using Vista 64bit, 196.21 drivers and Boinc 6.10.56
- Note they use to fail after about 7sec (197.45 drivers)

It might be a Driver/System/Boinc combination problem. I suppose if it was easy to spot it would have been fixed by now.

6.72 tasks seem to work fine for the 19745 driver for XP x86 on Boinc 6.10.51:
2309288 1457946 10 May 2010 17:37:28 UTC 11 May 2010 11:40:02 UTC Completed and validated 60,352.50 5,833.84 7,954.42 11,931.63 Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)

But there are differences between XP and Vista drivers.

It looks like the problems (here) are just with Vista & W7 drivers when it comes to 6.72 WU’s.

Anyone else with 6.72 issues who uses Vista or Win7 – Use a 196.xx driver (196.21 seems to work).

Snow Crash, Beyond and Richard Haselgrove,
Thanks for your help with this.

So far, three 6.72 tasks completed on the Vista system with the GT240s.
There have been no failures (since changing the driver to 196.21), and 4 tasks are running well (2 should finish within an hour):
2337257 1477078 15 May 2010 21:08:32 UTC 16 May 2010 11:43:47 UTC Completed and validated 32,909.90 3,104.78 4,503.74 6,755.61 Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)
2336451 1476466 15 May 2010 18:01:24 UTC 16 May 2010 8:33:23 UTC Completed and validated 33,353.63 3,316.39 4,503.74 6,755.61 Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)
2336422 1476441 15 May 2010 17:56:50 UTC 16 May 2010 3:12:30 UTC Completed and validated 32,999.91 3,178.07 4,503.74 6,755.61 Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)

So, 196.21 seems to work well for Vista x64 when crunching 6.72 WU's (using Boinc 6.10.56)

Driver 197.45 still seems to be working well on Win XP x86 with Boinc 6.10.51 for 6.72 tasks.

Driver 196.21 might still have issues on Win7 x64:
With Boinc 6.10.50 (GT240):
This one failed with less than an hour to go, but looks like it is a different issue (its not like it failed after 7 seconds),
2335968 1476139 15 May 2010 15:50:19 UTC 16 May 2010 6:40:12 UTC Error while computing 33,138.30 5,189.69 4,503.74 --- Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)]
This one finished (same system),
2301423 1452813 10 May 2010 17:58:29 UTC 11 May 2010 4:08:09 UTC Completed and validated 35,936.96 5,254.89 4,503.74 6,755.61 Full-atom molecular dynamics v6.72 (cuda)
- changed to native GPU & RAM clocks, with only 1575 to 1600MHz shaders, & upped the fan speeds to see if that makes them more stable with these 6.72 WU’s

With Boinc 6.10.51 for a GTX260sp216 (native clocks):
All still failing after about 8sec, so same problem as before (well actually it was 5sec before):
2337284 , 2337028 , 2332609
- Have moved up to Boinc 6.10.56. If that does not work I will try a different driver.

Thanks,