App_info..xml

\n studio-striking\n

Message boards : Number crunching : App_info..xml
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

AuthorMessage
juice3

Send message
Joined: 6 Dec 11
Posts: 60
Credit: 306,719,331
RAC: 0
Message 2304 - Posted: 19 Jan 2012, 7:15:24 UTC

We need an updated app_info for the 1.3 application.

Mine's not working:

<app_info>
<app>
<name>dnetc</name>
<user_friendly_name>Distributed.net Client</user_friendly_name>
</app>
<file_info>
<name>dnetc_wrapper_1.3_windows_intelx86__ati14.exe</name>
<executable/>
</file_info>
<file_info>
<name>dnetc518-win32-x86-stream.exe</name>
<executable/>
</file_info>
<file_info>
<name>dnetc-gpu-1.3.ini</name>
</file_info>
<file_info>
<name>job-ati14-1.00.xml</name>
</file_info>
<app_version>
<app_name>dnetc</app_name>
<version_num>130</version_num>
<platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
<avg_ncpus>0.500000</avg_ncpus>
<max_ncpus>0.895864</max_ncpus>
<plan_class>ati14</plan_class>
<flops>1157115231469.729200</flops>
<api_version>7.0.0</api_version>
<file_ref>
<file_name>dnetc_wrapper_1.3_windows_intelx86__ati14.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>dnetc518-win32-x86-stream.exe</file_name>
<copy_file/>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>dnetc-gpu-1.3.ini</file_name>
<open_name>dnetc.ini</open_name>
<copy_file/>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>job-ati14-1.00.xml</file_name>
<open_name>job.xml</open_name>
<copy_file/>
</file_ref>
<coproc>
<type>ATI</type>
<count>0.5</count>
</coproc>
<gpu_ram>262144000.000000</gpu_ram>
</app_version>
</app_info>
ID: 2304 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Copycat-Digital for WCG*
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 May 11
Posts: 44
Credit: 291,412,341
RAC: 0
Message 2314 - Posted: 19 Jan 2012, 20:55:09 UTC - in response to Message 2304.  

We need an updated app_info for the 1.3 application.


Agree
Someone please

XML is above me
I was left behind when BASIC faded out with DOS
ID: 2314 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Profile Zydor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 May 11
Posts: 233
Credit: 351,414,150
RAC: 0
Message 2319 - Posted: 20 Jan 2012, 2:08:10 UTC - in response to Message 2314.  
Last modified: 20 Jan 2012, 2:09:49 UTC

The application number is shown inside the Stderr for completed WUs as:

Distributed.net Client v1.03 (ati14)

Try changing:

<version_num>130</version_num>

To:

<version_num>103</version_num>

(dnetc_wrapper_1.3_windows_intelx86__ati14.exe is correct, dont change that)

Regards
Zy
ID: 2319 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Copycat-Digital for WCG*
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 May 11
Posts: 44
Credit: 291,412,341
RAC: 0
Message 2329 - Posted: 20 Jan 2012, 16:48:57 UTC - in response to Message 2319.  

Thanx Zydor!

That did the thing
I testing it on a XP box with a single HD5950
With <count>0.5</count> it's running 2 WUs using 99% GPU power
but
HTTP error when Moo request new tasks
now the funny part:
When I stop boinc mgr & change it 1.0 count, restart boinc then it reports the completed tasks without an error & get new work.
I stopped/start changing the setting twice today to get new work
All the WUs passed without an error
Run times / WU is now between 58 and 65 minutes when it is running 2 together
giving me about the same time of 29 - 32 min / WU with a single WU running
I used to get that before the bad WUs started early in Dec.

One change I plan to do in the appinfo is to change the max cpu back to 1 cause
I'm running CAL 11.4 that does not hog the cpu
ID: 2329 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Profile Teemu Mannermaa
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester

Send message
Joined: 20 Apr 11
Posts: 388
Credit: 822,356,221
RAC: 0
Message 2335 - Posted: 20 Jan 2012, 19:25:53 UTC - in response to Message 2329.  

With 0.5 it's running 2 WUs using 99% GPU power
but
HTTP error when Moo request new tasks


Ah, right! Our scheduler probably doesn't like a count with fractions. I'll see if I can fix that so that you can use such interesting setup. This might be reason for some of the crashes I've seen on our schduler. :)

-w
ID: 2335 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Copycat-Digital for WCG*
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 May 11
Posts: 44
Credit: 291,412,341
RAC: 0
Message 2338 - Posted: 20 Jan 2012, 21:22:30 UTC - in response to Message 2335.  

I'll see if I can fix that so that you can use such interesting setup.


Tks Teemu
In the meantime I have "no new tasks " on while running 2 WUs together


ID: 2338 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
juice3

Send message
Joined: 6 Dec 11
Posts: 60
Credit: 306,719,331
RAC: 0
Message 2339 - Posted: 20 Jan 2012, 23:00:59 UTC - in response to Message 2329.  

Thanx Zydor!

That did the thing
I testing it on a XP box with a single HD5950
With <count>0.5</count> it's running 2 WUs using 99% GPU power
but
HTTP error when Moo request new tasks
now the funny part:
When I stop boinc mgr & change it 1.0 count, restart boinc then it reports the completed tasks without an error & get new work.
I stopped/start changing the setting twice today to get new work
All the WUs passed without an error
Run times / WU is now between 58 and 65 minutes when it is running 2 together
giving me about the same time of 29 - 32 min / WU with a single WU running
I used to get that before the bad WUs started early in Dec.

One change I plan to do in the appinfo is to change the max cpu back to 1 cause
I'm running CAL 11.4 that does not hog the cpu



That's the shit! I lost two days worth of work when I completely removed the app info file from the folder and did an update. Good to know.
ID: 2339 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Profile Teemu Mannermaa
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester

Send message
Joined: 20 Apr 11
Posts: 388
Credit: 822,356,221
RAC: 0
Message 2340 - Posted: 21 Jan 2012, 11:15:59 UTC - in response to Message 2338.  

I'll see if I can fix that so that you can use such interesting setup.

In the meantime I have "no new tasks " on while running 2 WUs together


Okay, scheduler crashes for non-integral card counts should be fixed now. Do let me know if you are still seeing strangeness.

-w
ID: 2340 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
mikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 11
Posts: 2080
Credit: 1,843,042,064
RAC: 13,597
Message 2341 - Posted: 21 Jan 2012, 11:23:57 UTC - in response to Message 2339.  

Thanx Zydor!

That did the thing
I testing it on a XP box with a single HD5950
With <count>0.5</count> it's running 2 WUs using 99% GPU power
but
HTTP error when Moo request new tasks
now the funny part:
When I stop boinc mgr & change it 1.0 count, restart boinc then it reports the completed tasks without an error & get new work.
I stopped/start changing the setting twice today to get new work
All the WUs passed without an error
Run times / WU is now between 58 and 65 minutes when it is running 2 together
giving me about the same time of 29 - 32 min / WU with a single WU running
I used to get that before the bad WUs started early in Dec.

One change I plan to do in the appinfo is to change the max cpu back to 1 cause
I'm running CAL 11.4 that does not hog the cpu



That's the shit! I lost two days worth of work when I completely removed the app info file from the folder and did an update. Good to know.


Sorry for your loss but it just means the rest of us have more units to crunch!
ID: 2341 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Profile Zydor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 May 11
Posts: 233
Credit: 351,414,150
RAC: 0
Message 2342 - Posted: 21 Jan 2012, 11:27:29 UTC - in response to Message 2341.  

Sorry for your loss but it just means the rest of us have more units to crunch!


rofl :)

The main event is assured, its only the manner of your death thats in doubt :)

Regards
Zy
ID: 2342 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Profile Zydor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 May 11
Posts: 233
Credit: 351,414,150
RAC: 0
Message 2353 - Posted: 21 Jan 2012, 18:01:10 UTC
Last modified: 21 Jan 2012, 18:03:33 UTC

Suspending the test of this until I see what 1.03 can do, no point going ahead if 1.03 solves the ills, albeit the change log doesnt seem to get to these issues (not surprisingly).


V1.3 is solid on the PC so I restarted the test with twin 5970s.

Its worth doing with 5970s. The mileage you'll get - as always with infinite variation on individual setups - will vary, probably considerably given two gpus on one card. Overall it looks like around 30 secs to a min per WU, hard to be specific, some were greater savings, the fragmented nature of the WUs means its hard to estimate without any kind of reliable pole to revolve around. Other cards will likely see a better increase as they will not have to fight the VRM heat problem. But, yup, its worth doing with 5970s. Use the app_info above in this thread (dont forget to change version statement from 130 to 103).

Card temperatures will definitely rise, so if the card(s) were tuned to produce the maximum, already with single WUs, expect to have to reduce GPU clocks by circa 30, this is to keep the VRMs under control as they are now doing - crudely - twice the work. As always you are limited by the 5970 VRM design fault, so watch the second (or fourth if a twin 5970) like a hawk with GPU-Z. You'll find the max temps will occur around 60-80% done, so keep an eye on the percent done and run GPU-Z around those times - probably best to keep it open until WU finishes until you are sure you have got the new VRM levels nailed.

So ..... good to go .... just watch the VRM temps like a hawk for the first half dozen runs until you are sure you have VRM temps under control. Suggest you set cache for 0.1 until you are sure all is well and you want to continue with it longer term to save trashed WUs.

Regards
Zy
ID: 2353 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Copycat-Digital for WCG*
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 May 11
Posts: 44
Credit: 291,412,341
RAC: 0
Message 2368 - Posted: 22 Jan 2012, 15:33:55 UTC - in response to Message 2353.  

The modifications Teemu made stopped the HTTP error with 0.5 for 2 tasks
OCd to 840 Mhz core the GPUs are running cool below 70deg @ 99% usage with memory clock dropped to 700 Mhz
The graphs showed a nice upswing in performance on a single 6950 in one box & a 5850 in another running 2 WUs together.

But now Moo sees it as slower cards due to the increased run-time & start sending me "tiny" 190s WUs.
Result - performance lower than before :(
Back to square one
ID: 2368 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Profile Zydor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 May 11
Posts: 233
Credit: 351,414,150
RAC: 0
Message 2370 - Posted: 22 Jan 2012, 16:17:16 UTC - in response to Message 2368.  
Last modified: 22 Jan 2012, 16:21:40 UTC

Keep it there for a while - the mechanism used for sizing WUs is adaptive. It will (or should ...) end up detecting the card capability, and be back to previous sizes, just takes time to adapt.

Additional Note to my Post on 5970s:
5970 Cards should stick to one per GPU - two per is usually too much for it. Might get away with two per on single 5970s, but those running twin 5970s will grind to a halt with 8 WUs running. One per GPU on single 5970 cards is fine and alleviates nearly all the problem.

Regards
Zy
ID: 2370 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Profile Teemu Mannermaa
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester

Send message
Joined: 20 Apr 11
Posts: 388
Credit: 822,356,221
RAC: 0
Message 2384 - Posted: 23 Jan 2012, 16:58:58 UTC - in response to Message 2368.  

But now Moo sees it as slower cards due to the increased run-time & start sending me "tiny" 190s WUs.


That's not "tiny", it's the normal WU. The tiny work is now reserved for CPUs and GPUs are using small, normal or huge tasks. :)

I'm thinking/planning to switch to using peak flops to determine what sized work to send to GPUs. That should be more stable, especially when deploying new app versions (that reset the stats and it'll take some time to measure things again) but I need to first gather some stats about work and GPU device spread to optimize this determination. I might also tweak the actual size of these work as I aim for one task to take around 1-2h to crunch.

A project pref to set the size preference is not out of the question either. Except that pref probably needs to be host specific, somehow..

-w
ID: 2384 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
juice3

Send message
Joined: 6 Dec 11
Posts: 60
Credit: 306,719,331
RAC: 0
Message 2404 - Posted: 25 Jan 2012, 17:36:07 UTC - in response to Message 2384.  
Last modified: 25 Jan 2012, 17:37:09 UTC

But now Moo sees it as slower cards due to the increased run-time & start sending me "tiny" 190s WUs.


That's not "tiny", it's the normal WU. The tiny work is now reserved for CPUs and GPUs are using small, normal or huge tasks. :)


Teemu, Can I volunteer to help get some standard run times for each size WU for various GPUs?

There is so much talk about what size WU is a person running, how do I know what size, my times got longer.

When someone starts working with moowrap they get smaller WU's and then the system starts sending them larger WU's as they finish those. If your new to moo/dnet folks might not know this and to them it would look like their run times are increasing.
ID: 2404 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
mikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 11
Posts: 2080
Credit: 1,843,042,064
RAC: 13,597
Message 2407 - Posted: 26 Jan 2012, 0:16:21 UTC - in response to Message 2384.  

But now Moo sees it as slower cards due to the increased run-time & start sending me "tiny" 190s WUs.


That's not "tiny", it's the normal WU. The tiny work is now reserved for CPUs and GPUs are using small, normal or huge tasks. :)
-w


So the 'regular' units are the 192, 193, 194, 195 and 204 versions? I am doing them in about 15 minutes on a 5770.
ID: 2407 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Profile Teemu Mannermaa
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester

Send message
Joined: 20 Apr 11
Posts: 388
Credit: 822,356,221
RAC: 0
Message 2409 - Posted: 26 Jan 2012, 13:38:05 UTC - in response to Message 2407.  

So the 'regular' units are the 192, 193, 194, 195 and 204 versions? I am doing them in about 15 minutes on a 5770.


Normal units are those with at least 192 as the second number from end of the result name. Huge ones are for at least 768 in that same place. Small ones are at least 32. Actual numbers for these vary slightly due to fragmentation and the way work generator works.

Tiny CPU work contains 9 stat units, and usually that's exact.

-w
ID: 2409 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Profile Beyond
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 11
Posts: 46
Credit: 1,254,302,893
RAC: 0
Message 2411 - Posted: 26 Jan 2012, 17:44:17 UTC - in response to Message 2319.  

The application number is shown inside the Stderr for completed WUs as:
Distributed.net Client v1.03 (ati14)
Try changing:
<version_num>130</version_num>
To:
<version_num>103</version_num>
(dnetc_wrapper_1.3_windows_intelx86__ati14.exe is correct, dont change that)
Regards Zy

Just to make things clearer, the first app_info.xml listed in this thread is all messed up, the second one much better. I modified things a bit and this is what I'm using (no api_version or gpu_ram statements, ncpu statements changed):

<app_info>
<app>
<name>dnetc</name>
<user_friendly_name>Distributed.net Client</user_friendly_name>
</app>
<file_info>
<name>dnetc_wrapper_1.3_windows_intelx86__ati14.exe</name>
<executable/>
</file_info>
<file_info>
<name>dnetc518-win32-x86-stream.exe</name>
<executable/>
</file_info>
<file_info>
<name>dnetc-gpu-1.3.ini</name>
</file_info>
<file_info>
<name>job-ati14-1.00.xml</name>
</file_info>
<app_version>
<app_name>dnetc</app_name>
<version_num>103</version_num>
<platform>windows_intelx86</platform>
<avg_ncpus>0.15</avg_ncpus>
<max_ncpus>1.0</max_ncpus>
<plan_class>ati14</plan_class>
<flops>1157115231469.729200</flops>
<file_ref>
<file_name>dnetc_wrapper_1.3_windows_intelx86__ati14.exe</file_name>
<main_program/>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>dnetc518-win32-x86-stream.exe</file_name>
<copy_file/>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>dnetc-gpu-1.3.ini</file_name>
<open_name>dnetc.ini</open_name>
<copy_file/>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>job-ati14-1.00.xml</file_name>
<open_name>job.xml</open_name>
<copy_file/>
</file_ref>
<coproc>
<type>ATI</type>
<count>0.5</count>
</coproc>
</app_version>
</app_info>

Like you say, about a 10% overall increase in production, GPU usage running at 97%+ and increased temps (3C-5C).
ID: 2411 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Copycat-Digital for WCG*
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 May 11
Posts: 44
Credit: 291,412,341
RAC: 0
Message 2438 - Posted: 29 Jan 2012, 15:43:49 UTC - in response to Message 2384.  


I might also tweak the actual size of these work as I aim for one task to take around 1-2h to crunch.

A project pref to set the size preference is not out of the question either. Except that pref probably needs to be host specific, somehow..

-w


After 6 days I'm still receiving normal (192s) on the 6950 & 6850.
Could it be something in the app-info file causing this.
They take about 15 min each average where a normal non fragmented task takes about 8 to 10 minutes each when running 2 tasks on a single GPU. I noticed some very bad ones running up to 38 min
With the large tasks (768s) I get much better performance

It will be appreciated if you can make this option available when you get a break.
Thanks again for the support we all received in the past
ID: 2438 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Profile Teemu Mannermaa
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester

Send message
Joined: 20 Apr 11
Posts: 388
Credit: 822,356,221
RAC: 0
Message 2456 - Posted: 31 Jan 2012, 5:34:39 UTC - in response to Message 2438.  

After 6 days I'm still receiving normal (192s) on the 6950 & 6850.
Could it be something in the app-info file causing this.


It could be the flops setting in the app-info file that affects this for anonymous platform users. However, scheduler will still measure the actual speed and adjust things if the flops provided to it from your BOINC Client/app-info is strange so it could be hard to convince it otherwise even with tweaking that value.

I've witnessed that the normal units are been given excessively to user so it seems scheduler is preferring them and this doesn't seem to change even after stats have been gathered. I do plan to look into fixing this soonish as it would be better to get huge ones out more since that would also help with server/traffic load.

-w
ID: 2456 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : App_info..xml


 
Copyright © 2011-2024 Moo! Wrapper Project