Author Topic: x38g reports (Read 126954 times)

perryjay · « **Reply #75 on:** 28 Jun 2011, 02:47:56 pm »

Okay, switched off and back to three for me too. Be interesting to see if I can hold up at this rate.

So much for that idea. Noticed my internet slowing then heard my fans slowing down. Checked SETI and saw the to completion time rising instead of falling. Checked EVGA Precision and saw my temp and fan speed was down but it did not downclock. I went ahead and shut down the SETI Client and BM, switched back to two at a time and things are running smoothly again. This poor little GTS 450 1GB just can't handle three at a time.

One more little note, I did not shut down Firefox. I just made my changes to SETI and started it back up. Firefox is running better now too.

Jason G · « **Reply #76 on:** 28 Jun 2011, 04:22:57 pm »

Quote from: perryjay on 28 Jun 2011, 02:47:56 pm

This poor little GTS 450 1GB just can't handle three at a time....

Oh! The penny has dropped. I've seen a VRAM utilisation blowout here & 3 tasks seems to be using way too much. Over 1.4GiG VRAM used

That was unintentional & likely you'll be able to go back to 3 once I figure out what has happened there (& fix it). No way should we be using that much per task, and indeed a 1 Gig card won't accomodate 3 strangely greedy instances.

perryjay · « **Reply #77 on:** 28 Jun 2011, 04:33:40 pm »

While it ran, it ran good. I was only losing about a minute and a half over two at a time by running three. That's running shorties, I'm in the middle of the shorty storm right now. It would really be great if you find the problem and get us going again.

Jason G · « **Reply #78 on:** 28 Jun 2011, 04:36:24 pm »

Quote from: perryjay on 28 Jun 2011, 04:33:40 pm

While it ran, it ran good. I was only losing about a minute and a half over two at a time by running three. That's running shorties, I'm in the middle of the shorty storm right now. It would really be great if you find the problem and get us going again.

Oh I'll find it alright

There's some V7 issues to resolve as well, but I am a stickler for trying to shrink memory footprints, simply because I prefer computation over RAM. RAM's Slow

The chances of this weird build running on 256MiB cards is currently zero

Ghost0210 · « **Reply #79 on:** 28 Jun 2011, 04:36:30 pm »

Here's what happened when I tried to run 3 at a time

Quote

setiathome_CUDA: Found 1 CUDA device(s):
  Device 1: GeForce GTX 465, 993 MiB, regsPerBlock 32768
   computeCap 2.0, multiProcs 11
   clockRate = 1500000
In cudaAcc_initializeDevice(): Boinc passed DevPref 1
setiathome_CUDA: CUDA Device 1 specified, checking...
   Device 1: GeForce GTX 465 is okay
SETI@home using CUDA accelerated device GeForce GTX 465
Priority of process raised successfully
Priority of worker thread raised successfully
Cuda Active: Plenty of total Global VRAM (>300MiB).
All early cuFft plans postponed, to parallel with first chirp.

) _ _ _)_ o _ _
(__ (_( ) ) (_( (_ ( (_ (
not bad for a human... _)

Multibeam x39d Preview, Cuda 3.20

Legacy setiathome_enhanced V6 mode.
Work Unit Info:
...............
WU true angle range is : 2.589599
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_cx_DataArray, 1048576x 8bytes = 8388608bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 8388608bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_cx_ChirpDataArray, 1179648x 8bytes = 9437184bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 17825792bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_flag, 1x 8bytes = 8bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 17825800bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_WorkData, 1179648x 8bytes = 9437184bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 27262984bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_PowerSpectrum, 1048576x 4bytes = 4194304bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 31457288bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_t_PowerSpectrum, 1048584x 4bytes = 1048608bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 32505896bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_GaussFitResults, 1048576x 16bytes = 16777216bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 49283112bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_PoT, 1572864x 4bytes = 6291456bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 55574568bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_PoTPrefixSum, 1572864x 4bytes = 6291456bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 61866024bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_NormMaxPower, 16384x 4bytes = 65536bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 61931560bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_flagged, 1048576x 4bytes = 4194304bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 66125864bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_outputposition, 1048576x 4bytes = 4194304bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 70320168bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_PowerSpectrumSumMax, 262144x 12bytes = 3145728bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 73465896bytes
VRAM: cudaMallocArray( &dev_gauss_dof_lcgf_cache, 1x 8192bytes = 8192bytes, offs256=176, rtotal= 73474088bytes
VRAM: cudaMallocArray( &dev_null_dof_lcgf_cache, 1x 8192bytes = 8192bytes, offs256=72, rtotal= 73482280bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_find_pulse_flag, 1x 8bytes = 8bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 73482288bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_t_funct_cache, 1966081x 4bytes = 7864324bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 81346612bytes
Thread call stack limit is: 1k
CudaThreadSetLimit() returned code

Unhandled Exception Detected...

- Unhandled Exception Record -
Reason: Access Violation (0xc0000005) at address 0x00529977 read attempt to address 0x00000002

Engaging BOINC Windows Runtime Debugger...

setiathome_CUDA: Found 1 CUDA device(s):
  Device 1: GeForce GTX 465, 993 MiB, regsPerBlock 32768
   computeCap 2.0, multiProcs 11
   clockRate = 1500000
In cudaAcc_initializeDevice(): Boinc passed DevPref 1
setiathome_CUDA: CUDA Device 1 specified, checking...
   Device 1: GeForce GTX 465 is okay
SETI@home using CUDA accelerated device GeForce GTX 465
Priority of process raised successfully
Priority of worker thread raised successfully
Cuda Active: Plenty of total Global VRAM (>300MiB).
All early cuFft plans postponed, to parallel with first chirp.

) _ _ _)_ o _ _
(__ (_( ) ) (_( (_ ( (_ (
not bad for a human... _)

Multibeam x39d Preview, Cuda 3.20

Legacy setiathome_enhanced V6 mode.
Work Unit Info:
...............
WU true angle range is : 2.589599
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_cx_DataArray, 1048576x 8bytes = 8388608bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 8388608bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_cx_ChirpDataArray, 1179648x 8bytes = 9437184bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 17825792bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_flag, 1x 8bytes = 8bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 17825800bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_WorkData, 1179648x 8bytes = 9437184bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 27262984bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_PowerSpectrum, 1048576x 4bytes = 4194304bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 31457288bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_t_PowerSpectrum, 1048584x 4bytes = 1048608bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 32505896bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_GaussFitResults, 1048576x 16bytes = 16777216bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 49283112bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_PoT, 1572864x 4bytes = 6291456bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 55574568bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_PoTPrefixSum, 1572864x 4bytes = 6291456bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 61866024bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_NormMaxPower, 16384x 4bytes = 65536bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 61931560bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_flagged, 1048576x 4bytes = 4194304bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 66125864bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_outputposition, 1048576x 4bytes = 4194304bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 70320168bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_PowerSpectrumSumMax, 262144x 12bytes = 3145728bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 73465896bytes
VRAM: cudaMallocArray( &dev_gauss_dof_lcgf_cache, 1x 8192bytes = 8192bytes, offs256=176, rtotal= 73474088bytes
VRAM: cudaMallocArray( &dev_null_dof_lcgf_cache, 1x 8192bytes = 8192bytes, offs256=72, rtotal= 73482280bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_find_pulse_flag, 1x 8bytes = 8bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 73482288bytes
VRAM: cudaMalloc((void**) &dev_t_funct_cache, 1966081x 4bytes = 7864324bytes, offs256=0, rtotal= 81346612bytes
Thread call stack limit is: 1k
Cuda Thread Limit was adjusted to 10k
boinc_exit(): requesting safe worker shutdown ->
  Worker Acknowledging exit request, spinning-> boinc_exit(): received safe worker shutdown acknowledge ->

changed it back to 2 at a time and the task picked up and looks like it will complete successfully
MSI was reading 925 MiB with the 3rd task running (or trying to) & Boinc reports my card as having 993MB

Jason G · « **Reply #80 on:** 28 Jun 2011, 04:44:24 pm »

A Hah! Thanks! Will do some tests here

Jason G · « **Reply #81 on:** 28 Jun 2011, 05:18:17 pm »

Try this one with 3 tasks, perryjay & ghost ( x39e attached, reduced footprint back to roughly normal, I hope)

[attachment deleted by admin]

Ghost0210 · « **Reply #82 on:** 28 Jun 2011, 05:37:56 pm »

Quote from: Jason G on 28 Jun 2011, 05:18:17 pm

Try this one with 3 tasks, perryjay & ghost ( x39e attached, reduced footprint back to roughly normal, I hope)

thats got it

now able to run 3 tasks at a time with memory usage now @ 801MB which is the same as x39d was running 2 tasks

Jason G · « **Reply #83 on:** 28 Jun 2011, 05:42:17 pm »

Sweet. Note to self: Lack of beer induces ID: 10t errors

arkayn · « **Reply #84 on:** 28 Jun 2011, 07:00:23 pm »

I just checked my 460 and it showed that I had used up to 740 MB and is at 710 MB right now with 2 at a time.

Changing over to x39e now.

[edit]Looks like it is down to 516 MB now[/edit]

perryjay · « **Reply #85 on:** 28 Jun 2011, 07:11:32 pm »

I'm here. Memory usuage-826MB, GPU Usage- 94-99%, temp ~ 69degrees. Fan sounds quieter but running at 70%. We'll see how it goes.

Okay, after just a few minutes little has changed. Temp has gone up to 72 degrees, and memory usage has gone down to 817MB. GPU usage has gone to 92 to 97%, staying right around 95% mostly. Here's hoping.

Slavac · « **Reply #86 on:** 29 Jun 2011, 01:36:57 am »

Checking in. Looks like I was a touch too late to snag the latest x39 build for testing.

Hoping this helps a bit, my 560ti's have been giving me fits.

Jason G · « **Reply #87 on:** 29 Jun 2011, 02:30:24 am »

Not too late. Have just been purposely burying test builds in this thread to limit distribution while still getting some wider testing. Will PM you link to newest (x39e) on Seti Main, to the post a few back. [Done, relayed that x39e should be more helpful in isolating any further problem at least, so fingers crossed it shows something obvious]

_heinz · « **Reply #88 on:** 29 Jun 2011, 03:27:58 am »

Hi Jason,
took x39e now for seti main on my GT540M (1GB), but get no work till now.
As soon as I have work, i will post again.
heinz

Jason G · « **Reply #89 on:** 29 Jun 2011, 03:31:18 am »

Cheers Heinz. If your error pops up as before then that'll be good for further diagnosis. If it doesn't well that'll be good too.

Author Topic: x38g reports (Read 126954 times)

perryjay

Re: x38g reports

Jason G

Re: x38g reports

perryjay

Re: x38g reports

Jason G

Re: x38g reports

Ghost0210

Re: x38g reports

Jason G

Re: x38g reports

Jason G

Re: x38g reports

Ghost0210

Re: x38g reports

Jason G

Re: x38g reports

arkayn

Re: x38g reports

perryjay

Re: x38g reports

Slavac

Re: x38g reports

Jason G

Re: x38g reports

_heinz

Re: x38g reports

Jason G

Re: x38g reports