Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, farmpuma, just brew it!
JPinTO wrote:
I ran the clocks up to 725 mhz, and the GPU clients went to ~5500PPD, so the total PPD is closer to 13000.
JPinTO wrote:DriveEuro,
Here is my shortcut settings, if it's of any help:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=45&pictureid=179
JPinTO wrote:That would be awesome. I'll have to try that out when I get my cards up. Although it would be 2 GPUs and the console client rather than SMP (dual core CPU).The GPU2 client does not like to share a core with other tasks, as it appears to get no cpu cycles.
However, I assigned both GPU2 tasks to the same core and they both appear to be sharing the same core nicely without reducing the PPD. This may mean that I can run 2x SMP and 2x GPU2 on the same quad core.
JPinTO wrote:I'm running XP.
I setup as follows:
Ubuntu SMP 1: Core 1,2 Priority Normal
Ubuntu SMP 2: Core 1,2,3 Priority Lower
GPU1: Core 4
GPU2: Core 4
It worked find for one WU, then GPU1 went back to core 3 and halted as it does not like to share with SMP2. You would have to manually reassign the GPU1 back to Core 4 on each WU. There is an "advanced" option on the Config screen that seems to be a core affinity setting but I don't have time to play with it right now.
ALso, this strategy renders the PC pretty much useless for any other uses other than folding.
Pegasus wrote:Well since you have Vista your GPU2 only needs like 6-7% cpu usage and VMware leaves more than that unused by itself. On my setup I can't do that because the GPU2 client needs 100% of 1 core in XP but VMware doesn't give it any more room. VMware runs on Normal or Low while GPU2 is idle priority. So when I tried that my GPU2 client got only 12% cpu usage on the quad when it needed 25% for full performance under XP.
Pegasus wrote:On my setup I can't go through task manager and change priority. It's locked or something. It gives me an error (operation cannot be completed. access denied). I'm running the correct user name and with admin. Probably have to do it through the vmx file. BUT that wouldn't help under XP since the GPU2 requires 100% of one core and both VMware setups don't give up that much CPU time on their own. Like 10% each. Might as well stack them. If you let them all share CPU time under XP then the GPU2 client will suffer and that is where most of your points are. right?
Pegasus wrote:Well, I don't care if each of them run on ALL cores OR if -gpu 0 runs on CPU0 and -gpu 1 runs on CPU1. But what I don't want and what is happening is both -gpu 0 and -gpu 1 are running on CPU1 ONLY. CPU0 is 0% usage.
The reason I don't want them running on 1 CPU core is that I loose 1000 points total doing it this way. For now I'm running a console client to gain some of that back but it doesn't fill even half the points lost.
I've read that the new core (1.07) is in the install file now. I think I'm going to completely remove my GPU2 clients on that machine and do a fresh install.
david00214 wrote:Pegasus wrote:Well, I don't care if each of them run on ALL cores OR if -gpu 0 runs on CPU0 and -gpu 1 runs on CPU1. But what I don't want and what is happening is both -gpu 0 and -gpu 1 are running on CPU1 ONLY. CPU0 is 0% usage.
The reason I don't want them running on 1 CPU core is that I loose 1000 points total doing it this way. For now I'm running a console client to gain some of that back but it doesn't fill even half the points lost.
I've read that the new core (1.07) is in the install file now. I think I'm going to completely remove my GPU2 clients on that machine and do a fresh install.
Please let us know if this improves PPD
Ragnar Dan wrote:What I replied with was:
The "Do NOT lock cores..." thing would seem to me to be something you do not want to check, because it thwarts the configuration change you made to specifically assign each GPU core to a specific CPU core.
Not that I know w/o having investigated, but that's how it reads to me.
**** PHP.
Ragnar Dan wrote:Loss in what way?I'm still thinking there's probably a loss of potential output with the CPU not doing SMP folding, but that's a lesser concern for the time being.
Ragnar Dan wrote:From there, one assumes you change the affinity of each [email protected] to a particular core.