CUDALucas (a.k.a. MaclucasFFTW/CUDA 2.3/CUFFTW) - Page 82

Batalov · 2012-03-03, 21:54

Is 1.64 a good bet for a (wink-wink-nudge-nudge) test?
Or is there a more recommended version (but with 3M FFT size)?

flashjh · 2012-03-03, 21:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Batalov

Is 1.64 a good bet for a (wink-wink-nudge-nudge) test?
Or is there a more recommended version (but with 3M FFT size)?

1.64 has completed a successful test for me and that is saying a lot. It went thru multiple ^c and restarts. It's a *little* slower (like 3.8% on my 580) than 1.63, but it also did not force close.

I'd say you're good-to-go. (Of course, if you don't want to run it, you can pass it to me

)

Batalov · 2012-03-03, 22:08

Fat chance, man.

I am checking the first residues on another computer to have an early warning is something is afoul. (The first and last iterations are the most dangerous because of initial non-randomness. I am sure that this has been taken care of by the smart code, but I'll run checks anyway.)

flashjh · 2012-03-03, 22:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Batalov

Fat chance, man.

Always worth a shot.

Dubslow · 2012-03-03, 22:13

I was asking about version, because I'd be willing to run the power-of-2 FFT on my 460, if necessary. Whatever version I have (still have no clue which it is) is already compiled and ready to go (been sitting idle for the last few months). Such would be necessary if 1.64 and MPrime disagree.

chalsall · 2012-03-03, 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Batalov

Fat chance, man.

A quick quiz...

You're a Geek if it's Saturday Night, and you're more interested in a possible MP than the moist female making eyes beside you...

True, or false?

bcp19 · 2012-03-03, 22:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

A quick quiz...

You're a Geek if it's Saturday Night, and you're more interested in a possible MP than the moist female making eyes beside you...

True, or false?

I only read the forum while waiting for the screen to load a new area while playing Star Wars.

msft · 2012-03-04, 11:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

What version is this?

Code:

bill@Gravemind:~/CUDALucas∰∂ CUDALucas -v
CUDALucas version information:
 $Id: MacLucasFFTW.c,v 8.1 2007/06/23 22:33:35 wedgingt Exp $ wedgingt@acm.org
^C^C

^C

Note that ^C doesn't have an effect. The tarball in the directory says 1.3.

Please.
$ CUDALucas 216091

msft · 2012-03-04, 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by apsen

Got mismatch with 1.58 but had several err/increasing messages. Could be bad handling of that...

restart from check point file was SW error.
residues mismatch was HW error.(I guess)

Dubslow · 2012-03-04, 19:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by msft

Please.
$ CUDALucas 216091

Ah yes, now I remember why I gave up on CUDALucas running on Linux...

Code:

bill@Gravemind:~/CUDALucas∰∂ CUDALucas 216091
CUDALucas: Could not find a checkpoint file to resume from
device_number >=  device_count ... exiting

I never did figure this out. I have 270.xx drivers with a GTX 460; mfaktc 0.17 is running fine. (0.18 requires later drivers (like 285.xx), but for the life of me I have not been able to get any new drivers to properly install.)

msft · 2012-03-05, 03:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashjh

Only problem so far is I get random force closes... it's like before when it would finish and force close before it would start the next exponent, only now it's doing it randomly.

msft, any ideas what could be causing this? I didn't get any errors or warning during compile?

Sorry I don't understand with my poor english.
Please more information(log or ...).

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

2012-03-03, 21:54	#892
Batalov "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 9,497 Posts	Is 1.64 a good bet for a (wink-wink-nudge-nudge) test? Or is there a more recommended version (but with 3M FFT size)?

2012-03-03, 22:08	#894
Batalov "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 2519₁₆ Posts	Fat chance, man. I am checking the first residues on another computer to have an early warning is something is afoul. (The first and last iterations are the most dangerous because of initial non-randomness. I am sure that this has been taken care of by the smart code, but I'll run checks anyway.)

2012-03-03, 22:13	#896
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 3·29·83 Posts	I was asking about version, because I'd be willing to run the power-of-2 FFT on my 460, if necessary. Whatever version I have (still have no clue which it is) is already compiled and ready to go (been sitting idle for the last few months). Such would be necessary if 1.64 and MPrime disagree.