Forum > GPU crunching
x38g reports
perryjay:
Mike beat me to it. You have the same wingman on all three of those work units. He is running a 560TI and is apparently throwing out bad -9 results. Hope the next in line does better. You should get credit no problem on those.
perryjay:
Got one invalid result http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=761506607 Not much to it, I found a pulse the other two wingmen didn't. It was when I was running the 0.38e flavor. Thought I would mention it just in case. It's the only invalid result I've got so far.
Mike:
Just keep an eye on it perryjay.
Jason G:
--- Quote from: perryjay on 21 Jun 2011, 12:21:20 pm ---Got one invalid result http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=761506607 Not much to it, I found a pulse the other two wingmen didn't. It was when I was running the 0.38e flavor. Thought I would mention it just in case. It's the only invalid result I've got so far.
--- End quote ---
Yep, as mentioned on main, looks like the single, likely low power, pulse that you found, where the others didn't, would be simply due to the innaccurate old nVidia app chirp. So it fits the expected pattern. In science terms yours is 'more correct' of course, and would likely have matched a CPU app wingman strongly, but being ganged up on by 2 older apps that way is going to happen during the transition period.
Jason
Josef W. Segur:
--- Quote from: perryjay on 21 Jun 2011, 12:21:20 pm ---Got one invalid result http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=761506607 Not much to it, I found a pulse the other two wingmen didn't. It was when I was running the 0.38e flavor. Thought I would mention it just in case. It's the only invalid result I've got so far.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Jason G on 21 Jun 2011, 09:53:13 pm ---Yep, as mentioned on main, looks like the single, likely low power, pulse that you found, where the others didn't, would be simply due to the innaccurate old nVidia app chirp. So it fits the expected pattern. In science terms yours is 'more correct' of course, and would likely have matched a CPU app wingman strongly, but being ganged up on by 2 older apps that way is going to happen during the transition period.
Jason
--- End quote ---
The one reported pulse doesn't fully explain the invalid judgement, since "weakly similar" merely needs half the signals to match. The task was VHAR, so there should have been a best_gaussian with all zero values, that's a gimme match. The reported pulse would be repeated as best_pulse, and if the difference were due to it being only a tiny bit above threshold that best_pulse should match the others close enough. And finally there would be a best_spike. IOW 1 dodgy pulse could have easily had 3 acceptable best_* signals to yield weakly similar. To get invalid 3 of the 4 must not have found a match in the other results.
OTOH, we have no way of knowing the result file didn't get corrupted server-side or something like that. However, I'd expect some indication from other users of similar problems in that case. It's a puzzle which cannot be solved now, just watch to see if it happens again with x38g.
The one on http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=762393888 is a loss as far as analysis goes, there's no stderr information from x38g.
Joe
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version