Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Moderators: Site Moderators, PandeGroup

Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Postby Nathan_P » Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:48 pm

Came home from work this afternoon to find my 1070 stalled on the above WU. The log is showing the following

14:39:06:WU00:FS00:0x21:Project: 10496 (Run 158, Clone 16, Gen 66)
14:39:06:WU00:FS00:0x21:Unit: 0x000000548ca304f556bbb14e1ec6144f
14:39:06:WU00:FS00:0x21:CPU: 0x00000000000000000000000000000000
14:39:06:WU00:FS00:0x21:Machine: 0
14:39:06:WU00:FS00:0x21:Reading tar file core.xml
14:39:06:WU00:FS00:0x21:Reading tar file system.xml
14:39:07:WU00:FS00:0x21:Reading tar file integrator.xml
14:39:07:WU00:FS00:0x21:Reading tar file state.xml
14:39:07:WU00:FS00:0x21:Digital signatures verified
14:39:07:WU00:FS00:0x21:Folding@home GPU Core21 Folding@home Core
14:39:07:WU00:FS00:0x21:Version 0.0.18
14:39:16:WU00:FS00:FahCore returned: INTERRUPTED (102 = 0x66)

Looking back through the log this started at just before 5am so sitting idle for 9 hours. Tried restarting the slot, this didn't work so i removed the slot, restarted the client and created a new slot, the 1070 is now happily folding a a 9415 WU
Image
Nathan_P
 
Posts: 1689
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: Jersey, Channel islands

Re: Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Postby Joe_H » Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:02 pm

Project: 10496 (Run 158, Clone 16, Gen 66) may just be a bad WU, there are multiple failure reports in the database with no successes so far.
Image

iMac 2.8 i7 12 GB smp8, Mac Pro 2.8 quad 12 GB smp6
MacBook Pro 2.9 i7 8 GB smp3
Joe_H
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3760
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: W. MA

Re: Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Postby ComputerGenie » Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:52 am

As a general rule, Project 10496 sucks. Not sure if I've gotten stuck with this particular RCG, but I am sure that I'm about tired of being stuck with this project on all cards at the same time :(
User avatar
ComputerGenie
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:06 am

Re: Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Postby Nathan_P » Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:54 am

I've run it in the past without issues and am working on one now without issue, all projects have bad WU and this is one of the larger ones in terms of size.
Nathan_P
 
Posts: 1689
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: Jersey, Channel islands

Re: Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Postby Duce H_K_ » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:50 pm

ComputerGenie wrote:Project 10496 sucks.
Yep, +1. This project always heavily uses GPU resources and still not grateful when it comes to PPD. Max 670k on a GTX1070OC. Compare
Code: Select all
 Project ID: 13204
 Core: OPENMM_21
 Credit: 13541

 Name: Palit-1070OC2062 Slot 00
 Number of Frames Observed: 97

 Min. Time / Frame : 00:01:29 - 793 143,4 PPD
 Avg. Time / Frame : 00:01:30 - 779 961,6 PPD

Currently, I decided not to play hard with overclocking
Code: Select all
04:29:34:WU00:FS00:0x21:Project: 10496 (Run 110, Clone 6, Gen 49)
04:29:34:WU00:FS00:0x21:Unit: 0x0000003a8ca304f556bbaddff3e4aa0e
04:29:34:WU00:FS00:0x21:CPU: 0x00000000000000000000000000000000
04:29:34:WU00:FS00:0x21:Machine: 0
04:29:34:WU00:FS00:0x21:Reading tar file core.xml
04:29:34:WU00:FS00:0x21:Reading tar file system.xml
04:29:36:WU00:FS00:0x21:Reading tar file integrator.xml
04:29:36:WU00:FS00:0x21:Reading tar file state.xml
04:29:38:WU00:FS00:0x21:Digital signatures verified
04:29:38:WU00:FS00:0x21:Folding@home GPU Core21 Folding@home Core
04:29:38:WU00:FS00:0x21:Version 0.0.18
04:30:16:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 0 out of 2000000 steps (0%)
04:30:17:WU00:FS00:0x21:Temperature control disabled. Requirements: single Nvidia GPU, tmax must be < 110 and twait >= 900
04:32:14:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 20000 out of 2000000 steps (1%)
04:34:10:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 40000 out of 2000000 steps (2%)
04:36:06:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 60000 out of 2000000 steps (3%)
04:38:01:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 80000 out of 2000000 steps (4%)
04:39:57:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 100000 out of 2000000 steps (5%)
04:41:53:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 120000 out of 2000000 steps (6%)
04:42:37:WARNING:FS00:Size of positions 18935 does not match topology 18851
04:43:56:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 140000 out of 2000000 steps (7%)
04:45:50:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 160000 out of 2000000 steps (8%)
04:47:48:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 180000 out of 2000000 steps (9%)
04:49:46:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 200000 out of 2000000 steps (10%)
04:51:43:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 220000 out of 2000000 steps (11%)
04:53:40:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 240000 out of 2000000 steps (12%)
04:54:53:WARNING:FS00:Size of positions 18935 does not match topology 18851
04:55:45:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 260000 out of 2000000 steps (13%)
04:57:40:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 280000 out of 2000000 steps (14%)
04:59:37:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 300000 out of 2000000 steps (15%)
05:01:34:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 320000 out of 2000000 steps (16%)
05:03:31:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 340000 out of 2000000 steps (17%)
05:05:28:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 360000 out of 2000000 steps (18%)
05:07:11:WARNING:FS00:Size of positions 18935 does not match topology 18851
05:07:34:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 380000 out of 2000000 steps (19%)
05:09:31:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 400000 out of 2000000 steps (20%)
05:11:27:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 420000 out of 2000000 steps (21%)
05:13:24:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 440000 out of 2000000 steps (22%)
05:15:21:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 460000 out of 2000000 steps (23%)
05:17:18:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 480000 out of 2000000 steps (24%)
05:19:14:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 500000 out of 2000000 steps (25%)
05:19:29:WARNING:FS00:Size of positions 18935 does not match topology 18851
05:21:20:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 520000 out of 2000000 steps (26%)
05:23:17:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 540000 out of 2000000 steps (27%)
05:25:13:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 560000 out of 2000000 steps (28%)
05:27:10:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 580000 out of 2000000 steps (29%)
05:29:08:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 600000 out of 2000000 steps (30%)
05:31:05:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 620000 out of 2000000 steps (31%)
05:31:33:WU00:FS00:0x21:Bad State detected... attempting to resume from last good checkpoint. Is your system overclocked?
05:33:30:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 520000 out of 2000000 steps (26%)
05:35:27:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 540000 out of 2000000 steps (27%)
05:37:24:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 560000 out of 2000000 steps (28%)
05:39:21:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 580000 out of 2000000 steps (29%)
05:41:18:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 600000 out of 2000000 steps (30%)
05:43:15:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 620000 out of 2000000 steps (31%)
05:44:07:WARNING:FS00:Size of positions 18935 does not match topology 18851
05:45:28:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 640000 out of 2000000 steps (32%)
05:47:25:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 660000 out of 2000000 steps (33%)
05:49:22:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 680000 out of 2000000 steps (34%)
05:51:19:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 700000 out of 2000000 steps (35%)
05:53:17:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 720000 out of 2000000 steps (36%)
05:55:15:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 740000 out of 2000000 steps (37%)
05:56:31:WARNING:FS00:Size of positions 18935 does not match topology 18851
05:57:25:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 760000 out of 2000000 steps (38%)
05:59:22:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 780000 out of 2000000 steps (39%)
06:01:20:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 800000 out of 2000000 steps (40%)
06:03:17:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 820000 out of 2000000 steps (41%)
06:05:15:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 840000 out of 2000000 steps (42%)
06:07:12:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 860000 out of 2000000 steps (43%)
06:09:11:WARNING:FS00:Size of positions 18935 does not match topology 18851
06:09:33:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 880000 out of 2000000 steps (44%)
06:11:30:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 900000 out of 2000000 steps (45%)
06:13:27:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 920000 out of 2000000 steps (46%)
06:15:24:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 940000 out of 2000000 steps (47%)
06:17:22:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 960000 out of 2000000 steps (48%)
06:19:19:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 980000 out of 2000000 steps (49%)
06:21:16:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1000000 out of 2000000 steps (50%)
06:22:07:WARNING:FS00:Size of positions 18935 does not match topology 18851
06:23:17:WU00:FS00:0x21:Bad State detected... attempting to resume from last good checkpoint. Is your system overclocked?
06:25:17:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1020000 out of 2000000 steps (51%)
06:27:15:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1040000 out of 2000000 steps (52%)
06:29:13:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1060000 out of 2000000 steps (53%)
06:31:10:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1080000 out of 2000000 steps (54%)
06:33:07:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1100000 out of 2000000 steps (55%)
06:33:20:ERROR:Receive error: 10054: ?????????????????? ???????? ?????????????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????????? ??????????????????????.
06:35:04:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1120000 out of 2000000 steps (56%)
06:37:47:WARNING:FS00:Size of positions 18935 does not match topology 18851
06:39:12:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1140000 out of 2000000 steps (57%)
06:41:10:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1160000 out of 2000000 steps (58%)
06:43:07:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1180000 out of 2000000 steps (59%)
06:45:04:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1200000 out of 2000000 steps (60%)
06:47:01:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1220000 out of 2000000 steps (61%)
06:48:57:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1240000 out of 2000000 steps (62%)
06:50:53:WARNING:FS00:Size of positions 18935 does not match topology 18851
06:51:44:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1260000 out of 2000000 steps (63%)
06:53:39:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1280000 out of 2000000 steps (64%)
06:55:34:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1300000 out of 2000000 steps (65%)
06:57:28:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1320000 out of 2000000 steps (66%)
06:59:22:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1340000 out of 2000000 steps (67%)
07:01:17:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1360000 out of 2000000 steps (68%)
07:03:31:WARNING:FS00:Size of positions 18935 does not match topology 18851
07:03:53:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1380000 out of 2000000 steps (69%)
07:05:47:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1400000 out of 2000000 steps (70%)
07:07:42:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1420000 out of 2000000 steps (71%)
07:09:36:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1440000 out of 2000000 steps (72%)
07:11:30:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1460000 out of 2000000 steps (73%)
07:13:26:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1480000 out of 2000000 steps (74%)
07:15:20:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1500000 out of 2000000 steps (75%)
07:15:39:WARNING:FS00:Size of positions 18935 does not match topology 18851
07:17:26:WU00:FS00:0x21:Completed 1520000 out of 2000000 steps (76%)
07:18:39:WU00:FS00:0x21:Bad State detected... attempting to resume from last good checkpoint. Is your system overclocked?
07:18:39:WU00:FS00:0x21:ERROR:114: Max Retries Reached
07:18:40:WU00:FS00:0x21:Saving result file logfile_01.txt
07:18:40:WU00:FS00:0x21:Saving result file badstate-0.xml
07:18:52:WU00:FS00:0x21:Saving result file badstate-1.xml
07:19:06:WU00:FS00:0x21:Saving result file badstate-2.xml
07:19:18:WU00:FS00:0x21:Saving result file log.txt
07:19:19:WU00:FS00:0x21:Folding@home Core Shutdown: BAD_WORK_UNIT
07:19:31:WARNING:WU00:FS00:FahCore returned: BAD_WORK_UNIT (114 = 0x72)
07:19:31:WU00:FS00:Sending unit results: id:00 state:SEND error:FAULTY project:10496 run:110 clone:6 gen:49 core:0x21 unit:0x0000003a8ca304f556bbaddff3e4aa0e
07:19:31:WU00:FS00:Uploading 17.75KiB to 140.163.4.245
07:19:31:WU00:FS00:Connecting to 140.163.4.245:8080
07:19:31:WU00:FS00:Upload complete
07:19:31:WU00:FS00:Server responded WORK_ACK (400)
07:19:32:WU00:FS00:Cleaning up
P.S. none of 10496 WUs I saw were bad due to non-OC reasons.
Image
User avatar
Duce H_K_
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:52 pm
Location: Russia

Re: Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Postby Nathan_P » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:44 pm

given the avge PPD of a 1070 at stock is 600k, 670k does not suck. The fact that you have a very heavily clocked 1070 displaying the PPD from one of the highest scoring projects out there is irrelevant.

PPD from my 1070 (slot 0) and 1080 (slot 1)

Name: Hermes Slot 00
Path: 192.168.1.136-36330
Number of Frames Observed: 300

Min. Time / Frame : 00:01:54 - 696,142.6 PPD
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:01:57 - 669,539.9 PPD


Name: Hermes Slot 01
Path: 192.168.1.135-36330
Number of Frames Observed: 300

Min. Time / Frame : 00:01:53 - 705,404.1 PPD
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:01:56 - 678,216.5 PPD
Nathan_P
 
Posts: 1689
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: Jersey, Channel islands

Re: Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Postby ComputerGenie » Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:59 pm

Nathan_P wrote:I've run it in the past without issues and am working on one now without issue....

Nathan_P wrote:[1070]
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:01:57 - 669,539.9 PPD
[1080]
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:01:56 - 678,216.5 PPD


These comments seem to contradict each other. :e?:
User avatar
ComputerGenie
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:06 am

Re: Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Postby JonasTheMovie » Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:32 pm

690k is about what I get on my watercooled 1080 FTW at 2100Mhz when assigned 10496 WUs. Interresting that a 1070 gets about the same.
Image
JonasTheMovie
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:16 am
Location: Northern Sweden

Re: Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Postby bruce » Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:46 pm

JonasTheMovie wrote:690k is about what I get on my watercooled 1080 FTW at 2100Mhz when assigned 10496 WUs. Interresting that a 1070 gets about the same.


2560 cores @1733 should be faster than
1920 cores @1683
(unless the number of atoms in the project(s0 forces additional synchronization)

YMMV
bruce
 
Posts: 21182
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Postby Ricky » Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:26 am

I find it interesting that this project does about the same with these two cards. I believe the 1080 usually gets about 20% better PPD.

GTX1080FTW, Win 8.1

Min. Time / Frame : 00:01:56 - 678,216.5 PPD
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:02:00 - 644,590.2 PPD


GTX980tiFTW, Win 8.1

Min. Time / Frame : 00:01:56 - 678,216.5 PPD
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:02:01 - 636,615.8 PPD
Ricky
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 1:34 am
Location: New Mexico

Re: Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Postby Ricky » Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:53 pm

Four of my five GPU cards right now are running project 10496. Is there a push to get this project further along?
Ricky
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 1:34 am
Location: New Mexico

Re: Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Postby bruce » Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:59 pm

Ricky wrote:Is there a push to get this project further along?


Do you mean: More so that usual????
Maybe: maybe not.

The fact that bonus points are awarded non-linearly implies that there's always a push to get active projects further along. Assignment priorities can be adjusted to favor some projects at the expense of assignments of lower priority projects but it doesn't seem fair to reduce the bonuses for those lower priority tasks.
bruce
 
Posts: 21182
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Postby SteveWillis » Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:40 pm

I don't understand how bonuses can affect project progress since we can't choose which projects we fold.
Image
My thanks to my very indulgent wife
http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?s=&u=712804

3 AMD Linux rigs 3, 4, and 5 GPUs 7 X GTX 1080, 5 X GTX 1080 TI
SteveWillis
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:42 am

Re: Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Postby bruce » Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Changing a CPU slot from a single slot with the maximum number of CPUs to multiple slots, each with fewer CPUs will run more projects concurrently and all will be slower and earn fewer bonus points. There may be a similar [bad] choice you can make for GPUs, but if so, I'm not sure what it is.
bruce
 
Posts: 21182
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Project 10496 (158,16,66)

Postby JonasTheMovie » Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:25 pm

Is it just me, or have we seen the end of this project? My PPD has picked up alot lately.
JonasTheMovie
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:16 am
Location: Northern Sweden

Next

Return to Issues with a specific WU

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron