Just as a quick follow-up, increasing the TdrDelay from 8 secs to 20 secs definitely helps. I'm pretty sure (based on a few telltale signs, but without absolute certainty) that I still get a Timeout Recovery at some point, but they're far and few between.

[QUOTE=wombatman;394693]Just as a quick follow-up, increasing the TdrDelay from 8 secs to 20 secs definitely helps. I'm pretty sure (based on a few telltale signs, but without absolute certainty) that I still get a Timeout Recovery at some point, but they're far and few between.[/QUOTE]

Go into the registry and modify the key manually, change it to 128 (dec) see attached picture for the location. Restart the system and try again. Use the batch file I posted to track and see if it's still hanging or not.

Modify the "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\GraphicsDrivers" TdrDelay DWORD

[QUOTE=TheJudger;383727]Is there a common benchmark for CUDALucas?
[/QUOTE]

owftheevil, I'm working on going through the old messages here to price together anything that needs to be done to get CUDALucas 2.05 out of beta. I'm trying to complete the README and came accross this post.

What is the best combination cufftbench and threadbench for a good benchmark & burn-in? I'd also like to include some memtest stuff.

[QUOTE=flashjh;394698]Go into the registry and modify the key manually, change it to 128 (dec) see attached picture for the location. Restart the system and try again. Use the batch file I posted to track and see if it's still hanging or not.

Modify the "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\GraphicsDrivers" TdrDelay DWORD[/QUOTE]

I'll try that tonight and see how it does.

A good common benchmark would be something along the lines of

[CODE]./CUDALucas -cufftbench 1024 8192 5[/CODE]

That should cover most of the lengths currently being used and give a good enough idea of the card's speed for comparisons.


The -threadbench option is intended for fine tuning the card for a few particular fft lengths that will be used often.

For a burn in, the quick residue test followed by a doublecheck of an exponent that is not too close to an fft boundary would be sufficient. The <Gpu> fft.txt file gives fft boundaries. If someone was too impatient for that, they should do at least the long residue check. Many hours of the memory test are prescribed if any errors show up.

So for new card\new setup burn-in, would you think this is sufficient to recommend for optimal setup and testing?:

[CODE]CUDALucas -cufftbench 1024 8192 5
CUDALucas -threadbench 1024 8192 5
CUDALucas -r 1
CUDALucas 6972593[/CODE]

That LL only takes about an hour on a 580, so most would be patient enough for that. Do you have a better exponent in mind?

I committed r72 to sourceforge.

owftheevil, can you take a last look at the README, CHANGELOG and the CUDALucas.ini files. The only change to code was for -h.

Let me know when you've looked over and updated for final release.

Thanks!

I'll get to it this evening.

Just noticed the other post. The threadbench option needs another parameter, usually 0 or 1 at the end. The tests you propose sound good enough.

[QUOTE=owftheevil;394756]I'll get to it this evening.

Just noticed the other post. The threadbench option needs another parameter, usually 0 or 1 at the end. The tests you propose sound good enough.[/QUOTE]

Fixed

A first reading of the README found two typos and some musings of mine I would like deleted. I'll go through it once again more carefully. Overall it looks very good.

On mersenne.ca ([url]http://www.mersenne.ca/cudalucas.php?sort=ghdpd[/url])

James requests the results of this command:

CUDALucas -info -cufftbench 1024 8192 1024 >> benchmark.txt

Now it should be this, right?: CUDALucas -cufftbench 1024 8192 5 >> benchmark.txt

[QUOTE=owftheevil;394770]A first reading of the README found two typos and some musings of mine I would like deleted. I'll go through it once again more carefully. Overall it looks very good.[/QUOTE]

When you're done with your changes and all, let me know :smile: