![]() |
|
|
#2190 |
|
"Ghetto_Child"
Jul 2014
Montreal, QC, Canada
41 Posts |
well for starters v2.05Beta does not respond to the DeviceNumber= parameter inside ANY version of the CUDALucas.ini file.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2191 |
|
"Carl Darby"
Oct 2012
Spring Mountains, Nevada
4738 Posts |
Thanks for pointing that out. Now fixed with r71. You notice any other problems?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2192 | |
|
"Ghetto_Child"
Jul 2014
Montreal, QC, Canada
41 Posts |
sure probably quite a few, I see ErrorIterations= near the top and RoundOffTest= near the bottom, the descriptions for both seem to mean the same setting so are these two redundant or is one an ignored parameter from a previous version and the other the newer currently used parameter?
Also in that same upper section the following: Quote:
Last fiddled with by GhettoChild on 2014-07-18 at 19:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2193 |
|
"Carl Darby"
Oct 2012
Spring Mountains, Nevada
32·5·7 Posts |
Those control different features. ErrorIterations tells how often the roundoff errors are checked. RoundOffTest determines if an initial roundoff test is done at the beginning of each test.
Edit: would "... of the form p=k*10^n ..." be clearer? Last fiddled with by owftheevil on 2014-07-18 at 19:05 |
|
|
|
|
|
#2194 |
|
"Ghetto_Child"
Jul 2014
Montreal, QC, Canada
41 Posts |
Unfortunately no it doesn't make things clearer. When I see that syntax it is prompting me to type a value matching that entire syntax structure; a formula instead of just an integer. The default value tells me I should only put an integer. Then there is nothing indicating what the different variables in the formula represent (what "k" is substituting, what "p" is substituting, what "n" is substituting). So I don't know what letter is meant to be the 100 value or the 10000 value or the 100000 value? Or if I'm being instructed to type a value into each parameter that looks like the structure of "p=k*10^n". Maybe it means (p)rime=(k)onstant*10^(n)umber? Then what is "n" supposed to be? Ever confusing to me.
I took a quick look inside the r71 ini file, looks like the new default is devicenumber=1 not 0 anymore? Well I know in the beta setting it to 0 or 1 or 2 doesn't change the device. Maybe in a few days I'll be prepped to try out the non-beta and see if 0 and 1 work. Not asking to make anymore changes to that parameter, just want to know if you meant for the default to now be 1 instead of the former 0. thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
#2195 |
|
"Carl Darby"
Oct 2012
Spring Mountains, Nevada
32×5×7 Posts |
Thanks again for you input. No the default device is not supposed to be device 1, thats just what I left it at after testing the fix.
So does k*10^n with k = 1, 2, or 5 and n a non-negative integer make more sense? Last fiddled with by owftheevil on 2014-07-19 at 00:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
#2196 | ||
|
"Ghetto_Child"
Jul 2014
Montreal, QC, Canada
41 Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Could "k" be a substitute for each parameter (ErrorIterations=k then ReportIterations=k then CheckpointIterations=k)? Last fiddled with by GhettoChild on 2014-07-19 at 01:00 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#2197 |
|
"Carl Darby"
Oct 2012
Spring Mountains, Nevada
1001110112 Posts |
10 = 1010 in binary. Bit 0 is not set, so all reasonable lengths are tested. Bit 1 is set so thread value 32 is skipped. Bit 3 is 0 so thread value 1024 is included. Bit 4 is 1 so intermediate output is suppressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2198 |
|
"Ghetto_Child"
Jul 2014
Montreal, QC, Canada
41 Posts |
AHHH, that clears up the threadbench parameters, I was reading it as 1-0 binary number=2 in decimals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2199 | |
|
"Ghetto_Child"
Jul 2014
Montreal, QC, Canada
41 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Last fiddled with by GhettoChild on 2014-07-22 at 13:24 Reason: :redface: ...my attempt at improving clarity... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2200 |
|
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
165678 Posts |
Possible bug. I got a used GTX 580. Installed it and it was running a 1792K FFT double-check using 256 / 128 threads. Then I saw your cool new feature and ran:
./CUDALucas -threadbench 1536 2048 5 10 This created a file suggesting 1792K run with 64 / 64 threads. This combination turns out to be 10% slower than the 256 / 128 combination I was using. Needless to say, I deleted the threadbench output and resumed work. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Don't DC/LL them with CudaLucas | LaurV | Data | 131 | 2017-05-02 18:41 |
| CUDALucas / cuFFT Performance on CUDA 7 / 7.5 / 8 | Brain | GPU Computing | 13 | 2016-02-19 15:53 |
| CUDALucas: which binary to use? | Karl M Johnson | GPU Computing | 15 | 2015-10-13 04:44 |
| settings for cudaLucas | fairsky | GPU Computing | 11 | 2013-11-03 02:08 |
| Trying to run CUDALucas on Windows 8 CP | Rodrigo | GPU Computing | 12 | 2012-03-07 23:20 |