 |
|
|
1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
"GPU" work?
(Message 52694)
Posted 9 Oct 2015 by Pete McCann Post: Hi all. I haven't been on the forums for ages, but I'm now seeing references to GPU work. In the past this question has been raised but it was considered to not be possible. Has this now changed? I'm currently running a couple of R9 290X's on Folding @ home. If GPU work is now available for climate work, then i'd move my cards across. Maybe those in the know could enlighten me as to what is now possible and how we go about setting things up. Cheers. Pete McCann |
|
2)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
Visual Fortran Runtime error
(Message 50215)
Posted 16 Sep 2014 by Pete McCann Post: Hi Mike. Thanks for the pointer. I found the checkbox after a bit of hunting about, so hopefully that is the last we shall see of the short models and all their error messages. I've had to abort about 20 of them though! They just kept on coming. While I was hunting about I came across the place where you can change the number of cores used for project work. I had been wondering why I was only processing 4 models at once when I have 8 available. Hopefully that will up my game a bit. Cheers. Pete |
|
3)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
Visual Fortran Runtime error
(Message 50185)
Posted 15 Sep 2014 by Pete McCann Post: Hi Mile. Thanks for the input. There is obviously something about these "short" models that my PC doesn't like. I think I'll ditch the ones in my queue and hope they are replaced with something more reliable. I'm sure there are plenty of other people out there who can run these short models without any trouble. Cheers. Pete |
|
4)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
Visual Fortran Runtime error
(Message 50179)
Posted 15 Sep 2014 by Pete McCann Post: Hi. I'm getting these same error messages on all of my short models which try and run on my machine. Do I leave them running or shall I just abort all the short models from the queue? They are currently processing just one at a time as I have other models running on the other cores, but I have a queue of about 5 or 6 of these short models coming up. Please advise. Cheers. Pete |
|
5)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
Intel 4770K real and virtual cores?
(Message 49941)
Posted 1 Sep 2014 by Pete McCann Post: Ahh the good old days of 160 year model runs! You certainly had a sense of achievement if you managed to get one to the end of its run intact. The models seem to be zipping through on my modern CPU. Hopefully the science is just as valuable as before. On balance I think I can do without the hassle of backing up, in light of there being so little lost if one does fail. Thanks everyone for your input. Pete |
|
6)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
Intel 4770K real and virtual cores?
(Message 49900)
Posted 1 Sep 2014 by Pete McCann Post: Hi. Thanks for the explanation. Are all of the models now "short"? In the days of the BBC models they used to take months to run on each computer. Is this now a thing of the past? Do people still back up their models in case they go wrong or is that not needed now? Pete |
|
7)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
Intel 4770K real and virtual cores?
(Message 49885)
Posted 31 Aug 2014 by Pete McCann Post: Hi. I am returning to the climate modelling project after several years absence. I have installed the latest version of BOINC onto my main PC which has an Intel 4770K Haswell processor and 8Gb of RAM. This has 4 physical cores and 4 hyperthreaded virtual cores. After much faffing about I finally managed to get the project loaded up and retrieve some work. On past experience I was expecting to pick up 8 models to match the 8 cores on the CPU, but I've only picked up 4. Do the models only run on physical cores? Is there some setting I need to adjust in order to used all the cores and 100% of the CPU power? Perhaps those in the know could enlighten me. Many thanks. Pete McCann |
|
8)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
DAMN. Another \'Unresolvable Error\' at 80%!!!
(Message 29027)
Posted 28 May 2007 by Pete McCann Post: If the failure was due to an unstable computer, then making it more stable, by e.g. not overclocking as much, then that\'s OK, but doing everything possible to make it continue, such as moving it to a different brand of processor, with slightly different maths routines is, I feel, cheating. Hi thanks for the replies. That\'s good news that the model just made it to 2050. That\'s another \'completed\' one for the headline stats anyway. I\'m fairly sure this will not be a computer error. This model was running on a server board with opterons and registered ECC memory. It is not overclocked at all, so it should be pretty damn stable. I\'ll probably restore a backup at some point just to make sure it crashes at the same place. What figure for the timeslices is represented by the 2050 model year, or the point at which a model is deemed completed for the headline stats? Cheers. |
|
9)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
DAMN. Another \'Unresolvable Error\' at 80%!!!
(Message 29011)
Posted 27 May 2007 by Pete McCann Post: As my backup is about a week old, I have just continued with the two remaining models, hoping that they to don\'t die on me as well. 2 out of 4 is already unlucky. 4 out of 4 would be a disaster! I have put a copy of the backup to one side, to run it again on a single core machine at some point. Seems a bit of a waste of time to do this now on a quad core machine. Did the one that just failed make it to 2050 by the way? I wasn\'t sure how to check. On a brighter note, I\'ve just got a pair of models on another machine to completion, over on the BBC side. Pete |
|
10)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
DAMN. Another \'Unresolvable Error\' at 80%!!!
(Message 28991)
Posted 26 May 2007 by Pete McCann Post: I\'ve just tracked down the right page for this model. Looks like it\'s \'Negative pressure\' again. Boo Hiss. Did the model manage to make it to 2050? It will be fairly close. Are my other 2 models from this batch also likely to crash? All 4 were downloaded at the same time. Do I have a bad batch? Pete |
|
11)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
DAMN. Another \'Unresolvable Error\' at 80%!!!
(Message 28989)
Posted 26 May 2007 by Pete McCann Post: Well it is certainly not third time lucky. I\'ve just uploaded another model failure. Damn and Blast!!! It is on the same 4 core machine as last time. Computer ID 532553. Is it terminal Doc? At least I did get a BBC model to completion yesterday, and it\'s pair should complete today, so it is not all doom and gloom. Let me know about this one, as my last backup is about a week old. I\'m running a bit behind my normal regime. Cheers guys. Pete McCann. |
|
12)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
\'Unrecoverable Error\' at 80%.
(Message 28847)
Posted 21 May 2007 by Pete McCann Post: It\'s unfortunate that Peter is being forced at the moment to count crashes.....though at least these models did get a long way. Making backups is still well worth while. Sooner or later we\'ll probably all have a model that reaches the end thanks to a backup. Just for the record, I don\'t really give a stuff what my total tally of completed models is. I couldn\'t even tell you accurately now! Somewhere between 7 and 10 now I think. It was ages before I even joined a team, and for a long time crunched in isolation. I generally feel powerless as the world slips towards environmental meltdown, but this project is a way that I can in some small way further the science of climate change and hopefully drive some political grasping of the nettles in the future. I would be just as committed to these models without the whole credit, stats, and teams bit. Plus I can build really great computers and thrash the nuts off them too!!! Let\'s all just remember why we are running these models. It seems a bit silly to be falling out over something so unimportant, when planetary disaster is on the horizon! Pete |
|
13)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
\'Unrecoverable Error\' at 75%
(Message 28845)
Posted 21 May 2007 by Pete McCann Post: Since I\'m not allowed to mention 2050, I\'ll mention 2040 instead :-) Hi guys. Thank you all for the input. Ah well. That\'s life again. At least we did make it to 2040 (though 2050 would have been better!) Ssssshhhhh. Don\'t say that! :-) As for the computer, I built this from bits bought off Ebay for about £300. Not bad hey? I\'d like a pair of opteron 285\'s to put in it though! That would really put some Horse Power under the bonnet. Still all 4 models were chugging along at about 2.6 s/timestep, so it is a good work horse, and increadible for the money. |
|
14)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
\'Unrecoverable Error\' at 75%
(Message 28828)
Posted 20 May 2007 by Pete McCann Post: Let\'s keep it simple this time!! I\'ve had another crash, of a different model this time at about 75%. It\'s on my 4 core machine. Computer ID 532553 I think, according to the messages page. I have uploaded it this time, and have already restored it and run again from a back up one. I think it crashed at the same point. Could you find the reported result and tell me if it is a no hoper again. Where would I look myself to find the \'negative\' messages that tell you it has gone outside of the paraameters, so I don\'t have to bug you guys so much with future failures. Thanks guys, and no one mention 2050 this time!!!!! ;-) Cheers. Pete McCann |
|
15)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
\'Unrecoverable Error\' at 80%.
(Message 28825)
Posted 20 May 2007 by Pete McCann Post: Hi everyone. I\'ve just got back from a weekend away! I see there has been plenty going on in my absence. ARE WE ALL FRIENDS NOW? Come on everyone, loosen up, and lets stop getting hot under the collar about nothing much. Now, I can feel hot under the collar, as I\'ve had another model crash, and this time at 75%, so it has not even made it to 2050. Damn, S**t, Blast. Now that really is starting to Piss Me Off! Time for a new thread called \"Unrecoverable Error at 75%\" and this time no one mention 2050 OK!!!!!! Cheers everyone. Pete McCann |
|
16)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
\'Unrecoverable Error\' at 80%.
(Message 28750)
Posted 16 May 2007 by Pete McCann Post: Glad to hear that people have not been dumping models prematurely. It kind of defeats the object! It surely can\'t hurt to spell things out clearly, especially as there are probably loads of people crunching away in splendid isolation, and only occasionally dip into the forums etc, if ever. I think the whole issue has been well and truely discussed now in this thread, and I think on the whole we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. Thanks for a good discussion everyone. Keep on crunching. Pete |
|
17)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
\'Unrecoverable Error\' at 80%.
(Message 28719)
Posted 15 May 2007 by Pete McCann Post: there was a tendency for people to ditch their BBC models at 2050 and immediately transfer to support their team in CPDN. I can\'t believe that people were ditching their models on purpose. I came to the whole team thing rather late in the game, just to add an extra dimension to the crunching. It seems a bit bizarre if people feel the points/stats are more important than the science! I\'ve been moving my 6 machines and 14 cores slowly over to CPND, when no more BBC models were available for download. It\'s taking serveral months of course, but should be totally CPND in a few more weeks. I\'ve got 3 more machines left to build and I\'ll be ready to wizz up that league table, that\'s if I don\'t go bankrupt with the electricity bill first! Did that model crash in 2080? Man, thats a kick in the goolies! Died on the finish line. It\'s still a goal from the science point of view, though it does leave a bitter after taste. Keep Crunching everyone. Cheers. Pete. |
|
18)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
\'Unrecoverable Error\' at 80%.
(Message 28685)
Posted 14 May 2007 by Pete McCann Post: My own BBC model crashed in 2064 after being moved to a new and much faster computer. The increase in speed caused an unusual sort of CPU timeout. I\'ve taken the trouble to restore quite an old backup (my fault there!) and edit the model\'s xml files to enable it to run right to the end. Sounds a bit teckie to me! I\'ll let the \'dead dog lie\'. Pete |
|
19)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
\'Unrecoverable Error\' at 80%.
(Message 28683)
Posted 14 May 2007 by Pete McCann Post: Hi Mike. I think you got there just before me, and said the same thing in far fewer words! Cheers. Pete McCann |
|
20)
Questions and Answers :
Windows :
\'Unrecoverable Error\' at 80%.
(Message 28682)
Posted 14 May 2007 by Pete McCann Post: Hi ICE, my fellow Team England (BOINC) team mate. I think you might be reading a bit too much into all this. A model that makes it past 2050 will have completed at least 40 years of the future predictive phase of the model and will still give a good indicationas to where that model trend was heading. The 2050 to 2080 period is also going to be the most unreallistic part of any model run as this is where you are furthest away from the starting point and any errors or unrealistic variables are multipled in their consequences. Short term predictions are always more accurate than long term ones. From a science point of view I can see that the 2000 - 2050 or even the 2000 - 2030 periods are of greater reliability / worth than the 2050 - 2080 period predictions. That\'s not to say that the last 30 years are a waste of time as they will show the the models trend over a greater period of time. I can see why Carl opted to use models that have reached 2050 and prematurely crashed as complete, as it will be good for the projects public image to have more completed models, and also still of significant scientific value. My model that just crashed in the 2050\'s will still show a climate trend, but it just happens to have gone outside the predetermined limits set for all the models. I think that everyone is singing from the same hymn book as everyone wants their models to do the full 160 year run and finish at 2080. The stats and teams are a bit of fun, to make the tough slog of crunching these models more enjoyable. I\'m sure we are all passionate aboout the aims of running these models and that is why we are all doing it in the first place. The numbers game of completed models, RAC, credit, and league tables is all incidental to the main aim of advancing the science. Well it is for me anyway! I done think that anyone is seriously suggesting \'moving the goal posts\' (to continue the football theme) and changing the basis of counting completed models. I\'m sure we can all cope with two different measure of \'completed\' to be used for two different purposes. \'Proper Complete\' vs \'PR complete\'! Sure, I would have much rather had another proper \'completed\' model on my stats, especially given how long each model takes to run, but this is science and life, and \'sh*t happens\' It is a bit disappointing for me individually and for the team not to notch up another success, but at least this is just a hobby and not life and death. (Well not for a few more years yet anyway!) I\'ll just have to build some more computers that\'s all. I\'ve got a nice little P4 840 extreme edition on an Asus P5B deluxe with 2 GB Corsair PC6400 ram on the bench as we speak. UUmmmm. Tasty! Cheers. Pete McCann |
©2024 climateprediction.net