Forum > Windows
just installed Unified Installers, v0.37 for Windows
JohnDK:
--- Quote from: Skywalker66_Bln on 01 Sep 2010, 12:13:54 pm ---Why can nobody download the "Lunatics_x32f_win32_cuda30_preview.exe" separatly ? I think it is bad for fast testing, to go with installer version
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Josef W. Segur on 01 Sep 2010, 12:15:04 pm ---IOW, if you had <flops> in the previous app_info.xml you'll need to manually copy them into the new one to get the same estimates. The old app_info.xml is of course in the setiathome.berkeley.edu\oldApp_backup\ folder.
Joe
--- End quote ---
Also think it should be possible to download the app separate for those that knows how to edit app_info, especially if you have flops since you need to edit the app_info anyway.
Jason G:
Contrary to the popular perception, the main purpose for the installer is to reduce maintenance load on the developers & people providing support.
If it is desired to access the executables & support files for customisation, you can tell the installer to install to an empty folder somewhere other than the project directory, and it will put whatever files you asked for there. Either using those files in roll your own fashion, or modifying the aistubs as needed and running the supplied aimerge batch file, would be sufficient.
Sorry, I'm not going to be the one making upteen different packages ... I did it before with AKv8, and it's too much work.
Jason
JohnDK:
Good tip, haven't thought of installing it in a diff folder, actually didn't think it would work.
Another option is to open the installer in a program like 7-zip and extract the needed files.
perryjay:
Found an interesting one this morning. It was an angle range of 0.34 which I've been completing in around 1hour 40 some minutes. This one showed me with CPU time of 00:06:31 and an elapsed time of 05:14:51. I think these are the ones that used to give me the -1 errors when they hung like that. I don't know if it's something you did in the new X32f but if so I'm grateful. So far I haven't had one -1 error this time.
I looked it up in my tasks list and my wingman had completed it on his CPU. From what I could tell it took him about 3000 seconds longer than others he had completed but I didn't check the angle ranges on the rest of his work.. Will be interesting to see for sure if I get credit for it when we come back from the outage. I blamed me playing my Solitaire game but now I'm wondering if it might be something in the WUs.
Jason G:
--- Quote from: perryjay on 01 Sep 2010, 04:43:24 pm ---...but now I'm wondering if it might be something in the WUs.
--- End quote ---
In actuality, the reason VLARs have been a problem has been certain long running Pulse finding lengths that likely require a more sophisticated understanding of the multibeam algorithms, and corresponding code design, than is evident in the original cuda multibeam codebase, especially when we consider now obvious issues like the 2 second driver timout & recovery mechanism in Vista & Win7. These problem sizes aren't entirely restricted to the lower angle ranges, but occur to a less frequent extent at most ARs, so it's still possible to 'choke' on many tasks.
As my personal understanding grows, we all aim to get things more robust as a foundation for 'optimisation proper', and familiarity with the language, tools & hardware capabilities grows, I hope the Cuda codebase can become at least as solid & dependable as the AKv8b & Astropulse CPU ones have become over time. We already proved Fermi, and earlier cards, can generate trash results really fast. It'll take quite a bit of refinement yet IMO, but things should end up 'pretty good' ;)
Jason
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version