To match the ATi thread already started.

I'll start it off with workunit 4133491

I bench-tested that task overnight, and found a mis-matched best gaussian at lines 850/851 - the same weak similarity with every cuda application I tried:

Lunatics_x41g_win32_cuda32.exe
Lunatics_x41zb_win32_cuda32.exe
Lunatics_x41zb_win32_cuda42.exe
setiathome_6.98_windows_intelx86__cuda42.exe

Reference app was setiathome_6.98_windows_intelx86.exe, so an equivalent test to the inconclusive live run.

It would be interesting if somebody could run that task on an ATI card.

Edit - here's that best gaussian:

CUDA (this from Lunatics_x41zb_win32_cuda42.exe)

<best_gaussian>
  <peak_power>3.1339707374573</peak_power>
  <mean_power>0.51620918512344</mean_power>
  <time>2455292.6055129</time>
  <ra>11.49758206374</ra>
  <decl>19.650241570748</decl>
  <q_pix>0</q_pix>
  <freq>1419740200.0427</freq>
  <detection_freq>1419743213.6436</detection_freq>
  <barycentric_freq>0</barycentric_freq>
  <fft_len>16384</fft_len>
  <chirp_rate>33.574693025784</chirp_rate>
  <rfi_checked>0</rfi_checked>
  <rfi_found>0</rfi_found>
  <reserved>0</reserved>
  <sigma>3.7909734249115</sigma>
  <chisqr>1.1859285831451</chisqr>
  <null_chisqr>2.0525963306427</null_chisqr>
  <score>0</score>
  <max_power>6.9975395202637</max_power>
  <pot length=194 encoding="x-csv">
    21,11,10,12,8,27,5,14,68,37,22,19,12,5,12,3,4,2,35,9,34,4,23,43,6,18,57,
    10,11,24,25,1,6,33,18,33,10,30,4,7,5,56,10,27,1,64,4,72,14,17,139,196,
    9,255,65,197,174,89,4,54,7,88,2,48
  </pot>
</best_gaussian>

CPU (stock)

<best_gaussian>
  <peak_power>2.7500243186951</peak_power>
  <mean_power>0.51439195871353</mean_power>
  <time>2455292.6055517</time>
  <ra>11.498516637755</ra>
  <decl>19.65026491074</decl>
  <q_pix>0</q_pix>
  <freq>1419737750.8879</freq>
  <detection_freq>1419742978.3341</detection_freq>
  <barycentric_freq>0</barycentric_freq>
  <fft_len>16384</fft_len>
  <chirp_rate>-48.738113544999</chirp_rate>
  <rfi_checked>0</rfi_checked>
  <rfi_found>0</rfi_found>
  <reserved>0</reserved>
  <sigma>3.7909734249115</sigma>
  <chisqr>1.2279376983643</chisqr>
  <null_chisqr>2.0739624500275</null_chisqr>
  <score>0</score>
  <max_power>6.3048386573792</max_power>
  <pot length=200 encoding="x-csv">
    17,2,57,30,1,0,28,6,3,70,49,6,41,3,22,50,69,49,1,26,4,7,10,19,8,50,3,18,
    52,15,6,11,15,32,10,2,16,2,15,43,23,35,17,9,13,1,14,27,9,146,126,105,192,
    114,214,16,255,110,101,19,53,101,2,21
  </pot>
</best_gaussian>

Can you post me the Stock 6.98 reference please, and I'll run the Wu on my HD7770

Edit: Bench is now running with r1643

Claggy

And can you post download link to task WU ? Generated with your magic tool ;)

And can you post download link to task WU ? Generated with your magic tool ;)

http://boinc2.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/download/f3/05ap10al.4475.10297.140733193388035.14.229

Claggy

OK, where do I put WU 4162406?

The r1643 app produced high Q's and was Strongly similar:

MB7_win_x86_SSE_OpenCL_ATi_r1643.exe -verb -nog / 05ap10al.4475.10297.140733193388035.14.229.wu :
AppName: MB7_win_x86_SSE_OpenCL_ATi_r1643.exe
AppArgs: -verb -nog
TaskName: 05ap10al.4475.10297.140733193388035.14.229.wu
Started at : 22:50:02.603
Ended at : 23:15:51.340
1548.697 secs Elapsed
53.992 secs CPU time

R2: .\ref\ref-setiathome_6.98_windows_intelx86.exe-05ap10al.4475.10297.140733193388035.14.229.wu.res
Result : Strongly similar, Q= 99.97%

<best_gaussian>
  <peak_power>2.750018119812</peak_power>
  <mean_power>0.51439273357391</mean_power>
  <time>2455292.6055517</time>
  <ra>11.498516637755</ra>
  <decl>19.65026491074</decl>
  <q_pix>0</q_pix>
  <freq>1419737750.8879</freq>
  <detection_freq>1419742978.3342</detection_freq>
  <barycentric_freq>0</barycentric_freq>
  <fft_len>16384</fft_len>
  <chirp_rate>-48.738113544999</chirp_rate>
  <rfi_checked>0</rfi_checked>
  <rfi_found>0</rfi_found>
  <reserved>0</reserved>
  <sigma>3.7909734249115</sigma>
  <chisqr>1.2279407978058</chisqr>
  <null_chisqr>2.0739617347717</null_chisqr>
  <score>0</score>
  <max_power>6.304801940918</max_power>
  <pot length=200 encoding="x-csv">
    17,2,57,30,1,0,28,6,3,70,49,6,41,3,22,50,69,49,1,26,4,7,10,19,8,50,3,18,
    52,15,6,11,15,32,10,2,16,2,15,43,23,35,17,9,13,1,14,27,9,146,126,105,192,
    114,214,16,255,110,101,19,53,101,2,21
  </pot>
</best_gaussian>

Claggy

I'll start it off with workunit 4133491

The WU has now been validated by a third user - all three tasks are OK.

I should have checked earlier - there are no reportable gaussians in the result. So does it make sense for the validator to check for the best of none?

OK, where do I put WU 4162406?

Depends on what CPU version says ;)

I'll start it off with workunit 4133491

The WU has now been validated by a third user - all three tasks are OK.

I should have checked earlier - there are no reportable gaussians in the result. So does it make sense for the validator to check for the best of none?

This question was answered as "yes" for MB on design time and as "no" for AP :)

Here http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/workunit.php?wuid=4178828 inconclusive between CPU 6.98 stock and cuda32.
CUDA res not overflowed so maybe worth analyse.

CUDA:
Spike count: 2
Autocorr count: 1
Pulse count: 5
Triplet count: 0
Gaussian count: 0

CPU:
Spike count: 1
Autocorr count: 0
Pulse count: 5
Triplet count: 0
Gaussian count: 0

An anonymous wingmate with a laptop CPU and a desktop GPU, who has aborted most of his or her tasks? The omens aren't good, but I'll give it a bench.

http://boinc2.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/download/1c1/05ap10al.28705.1299.140733193388039.14.254

Something wrong here?

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/workunit.php?wuid=4203153

posting at cuda and ati since both versions involved...

Both hosts are anonymous, never a good start for troubleshooting.

But when one host in a validation pair gets 'result overflow' (in this case, the ATI), and the other doesn't, then usually the overflow is a host problem.

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=60134 is my host... Edited the settings now i forgot...

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/workunit.php?wuid=4122389
2 CUDA32, both non-overflowed but different number of signals.
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/workunit.php?wuid=4119498
CUDA vs CPU 6.98, different number of signals, non-overflowed
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/workunit.php?wuid=4253284
CUDA22 vs ATi both non-overflowed, different number of signals.

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/workunit.php?wuid=4122389
2 CUDA32, both non-overflowed but different number of signals.
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/workunit.php?wuid=4119498
CUDA vs CPU 6.98, different number of signals, non-overflowed
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/workunit.php?wuid=4253284
CUDA22 vs ATi both non-overflowed, different number of signals.

These are all running the Cuda 6.98 apps, and not the Bug fixed Cuda 6.99 apps,

Claggy

Yes, that's why I write in 6.987 and not in 6.99 thread ;)
BTW, my host has many CUDA tasks... but all 6.98 and no 6.99 at all :/
Thinking if I should doproject reset...

Yes, that's why I write in 6.987 and not in 6.99 thread ;)
BTW, my host has many CUDA tasks... but all 6.98 and no 6.99 at all :/
Thinking if I should doproject reset...

I've started a Cuda 6.99 thread, feel free to do a project reset.

Claggy

My first and only invalid unit with CPU.
Both wingmen are on 6.98 cuda.
I hope this is fixed in 6.99.
Sad no result print in stderr still.

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/workunit.php?wuid=4257838

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

My first and only invalid unit with CPU.
Both wingmen are on 6.98 cuda.
I hope this is fixed in 6.99.

I doubt it, all three results found 30 Autocorrections, the problem is the CPU and GPU apps do their searches in slightly different orders, so find different signals in these edge cases,

Claggy