"O1Spot1" search - High-frequency part finished, Low-frequency task sent to all hosts

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 3739
Credit: 157648445
RAC: 59055
Topic 211203

Today around 7:35 CET we generated the last workunits of "O1Spot1Hi", the high-frequency part of the "Continuous Gravitational Wave Galactic Center search" in O1 data. We then "opened" the "low-frequency" part "O1Spot1Lo" to all CPU models to finish it quickly. As these run much faster on the "fast" hosts that previously got sent "O1Spot1Hi" tasks, we reduced the credit and flops-estimation. Owner of "slow" hosts may therefore see a reduction of credit during the rest of the search and may opt-out of it.

BM

Holmis
Joined: 4 Jan 05
Posts: 819
Credit: 246342243
RAC: 368475

Bernd Machenschalk

Bernd Machenschalk wrote:
...to finish it quickly.

That just begs the question of what's next? ;)

Rolf
Rolf
Joined: 7 Aug 17
Posts: 11
Credit: 61554517
RAC: 321633

Can you elaborate on the

Can you elaborate on the GFlops vs credits ratio for the different work units? For example, how close to the actual GFlops are the nominal GFlops? This interests me on several levels, forgive me for straying off-topic. First, I have noticed that an RX580 card does around 1100 GFlops/s for FGRPB1G, assuming that the 525 000 GFlops/unit is correct. That means the utilization factor is around 18%, given that max theoretical is 6290 GFlops/s.

Second, my R5 1600 likes the FGRP5 tasks much better than O1spotLo. (It never got any O1spotHi tasks, the CPU was not high-end enough. Or there was not enough RAM.) It can do around 1.25 O1spotLo tasks per hour, compared to almost 4 FGRP5 tasks per hour. So already before the lowered credit for O1spotLo the difference was huge, and even bigger now that one FGRP5 yields more credit than an O1spotLo. Is the nominal FGRP5 GFlops value much offset from the actual? Or is it just that the kind of work suits the CPU better.

Should I continue going for the credit and run FGRP5? I assume yes, it's the only feedback we have and I guess even more so now that the credit for O1spotLo is reduced.

Speedy
Speedy
Joined: 11 Aug 05
Posts: 18
Credit: 1421152
RAC: 10271

When you say tasks will run

When you say tasks will run much faster on fast computers can anybody give me an idea of how much of a speed increase there should be? I have a Haswell E system and they are taking over 16,000 seconds running 16 at a time.

DanNeely
DanNeely
Joined: 4 Sep 05
Posts: 1179
Credit: 649435758
RAC: 1214250

It looks like the low tasks

It looks like the low tasks will be exhausted in about 2 more weeks; will there be a fresh batch of GW work immediately available or will we have another interval with only fermi tasks available for the CPU?

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 3739
Credit: 157648445
RAC: 59055

Speedy wrote:When you say

Speedy wrote:
When you say tasks will run much faster on fast computers can anybody give me an idea of how much of a speed increase there should be? I have a Haswell E system and they are taking over 16,000 seconds running 16 at a time.

By design the "Lo" tasks contain half as may "templates" as the "Hi" ones, so they should run half as long. This may not apply exactly to each particular computer out there, though.

BM

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 3739
Credit: 157648445
RAC: 59055

DanNeely wrote:It looks like

DanNeely wrote:
It looks like the low tasks will be exhausted in about 2 more weeks; will there be a fresh batch of GW work immediately available or will we have another interval with only fermi tasks available for the CPU?

We are trying to set up another search for Gravitational Waves in time. But as we are currently experiencing technical problems that affect these preparations, and also the end of the current run is likely to fall in the holiday period a the end of the year, there likely will be a couple of days or even a few weeks where we will search for Gamma-Ray pulsars almost exclusively.

BM

DanNeely
DanNeely
Joined: 4 Sep 05
Posts: 1179
Credit: 649435758
RAC: 1214250

Understood, it's not worth

Understood, it's not worth screwing up anyone's vacation plans over.

Bill
Bill
Joined: 2 Jun 17
Posts: 4
Credit: 661604
RAC: 6477

I'm not sure if I am

I'm not sure if I am experiencing problems or not, but I have a couple of lo WUs downloaded now, and they are showing ETAs of 2-3 days.  Before, for non-GPU WUs, I have had ETAs somewhere between 12 hours and a full day.

These WUs have just started, so who knows if that time will cut down.  Just wondering if anyone else is experiencing this, and/or if there is something I should be doing.

 

Sebastian M. Bobrecki
Sebastian M. Bo...
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 59
Credit: 629696962
RAC: 548641

ETA will be tuned by client

ETA will be tuned by client when some of them will be completed.

Betreger
Betreger
Joined: 25 Feb 05
Posts: 521
Credit: 228172266
RAC: 512426

Bernd Machenschalk

Bernd Machenschalk wrote:
DanNeely wrote:
It looks like the low tasks will be exhausted in about 2 more weeks; will there be a fresh batch of GW work immediately available or will we have another interval with only fermi tasks available for the CPU?

We are trying to set up another search for Gravitational Waves in time. But as we are currently experiencing technical problems that affect these preparations, and also the end of the current run is likely to fall in the holiday period a the end of the year, there likely will be a couple of days or even a few weeks where we will search for Gamma-Ray pulsars almost exclusively.

Well if that happens I will gladly crunch Seti on my CPUs and increase Einstein's resource share accordingly to maintain a RAC of 500,000 which is my goal with this project.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.