Your times are already very impressive.
If you want to speed up a little bit look for a file called mb_cmdline_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATi_HD5.txt.
Its located in your projects folder.

Add the following line

-sbs 2048 -period_iterations_num 10 -high_perf -spike_fft_thresh 4096 -tune 1 64 1 4 -oclfft_tune_gr 256 -oclfft_tune_lr 16 -oclfft_tune_wg 256 -oclfft_tune_ls 512 -oclfft_tune_bn 64 -oclfft_tune_cw 64 -cpu_lock

Save as text.
On next WU start it will use the optimized values.

Mike

Can i add this line to all mb_cmdline...ati...txt files?
I have 4 of them.

I also own a VII now and after amazing performance jumps at Einstein@Home during the Pentathlon now i try to use it for Seti@Home. But the stock performance is in my eyes very poor with Ubuntu.
2 WUs parallel get a daily output of around 30.000cr.
3 WUs parallel get 40.000cr.
My 1070ti reaches 60.000cr with one WU per CUDA100.

I hope that the commandline-parameter will increase this a little bit.

Sure you can use this one, but for best performance change -period_iterations_num to 1.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

2 WUs parallel get a daily output of around 30.000cr.
3 WUs parallel get 40.000cr.
My 1070ti reaches 60.000cr with one WU per CUDA100.

RAC isn't a good way of determining work output as it can vary a lot just depending on the type of work being processed, and with major hardware changes it can take 6-8 weeks for it to end up near it's final value.
Just keep an eye on the processing time for the WUs & work out how many WUs per hour you're doing. The more the better.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I dont use a RAC value, i dont want to wait weeks ;)
Instead I take the results from the last day and calculate the credits/time.
The median of this value for a lot of WUs is a good prediction of the output.
Now I am at 50.000cr/d with the optimized parameters and 3 WUs in parallel (ca. 400s run time per WU for the "long runs")
Still not as much as expected, but better.

---

I dont use a RAC value, i dont want to wait weeks ;)
Instead I take the results from the last day and calculate the credits/time.

Unfortunately that still leave it susceptible to the variability of Credit allocation. Actual run time (for the same type of WU) eliminates that variability, and lets you know how things are performing in 30min (for a reasonably fast GPU. A few hours for CPUs and much slower GPUs).

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I just got a re-test of the Radeon V11 on my news feed. Virtually no change in the results. Loud, Hot, uses more power than a RTX 2080 and runs either a bit slower or a lot slower on the tests they ran (games/frame rates).

:(

So basically AMD is not going to challenge for "King of the Hill" if ever, until the next gpu generation/re-design.

Tom

---

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association).

I dont use a RAC value, i dont want to wait weeks ;)
Instead I take the results from the last day and calculate the credits/time.

Unfortunately that still leave it susceptible to the variability of Credit allocation. Actual run time (for the same type of WU) eliminates that variability, and lets you know how things are performing in 30min (for a reasonably fast GPU. A few hours for CPUs and much slower GPUs).

The run time also differs. I want a long term performance, so i think my method is not so bad.

Today i tried 4 WUs in parallel - but the PC is unsusuable and the run time increases extremely. 3 WUs seems to be the optimum.

---

The run time also differs.

Very, very, very little for the same type of WUs, compared to Credit which can be 30% higher or lower depending on your Wingman just for a given WU (let alone on different run time WUs), and over time as different types of work are processed that middle value can vary by as much as 20% (with the 30% +- variation on top of that).

I want a long term performance.

Which processing time gives- as long as you compare the same types of WU with each other. Using Credit you get the variability of Credit granted for a given WU, added to the variability of Credit granted for longer or shorter running WUs, added to the variability of the mix of work affecting the Credit granted for a given WU.

so i think my method is not so bad.

In spite of the evidence of the last 20 years to the contrary.
To each their own.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I dont mean the same type of WUs that differ, but the different WU types.
Yesterday i had other WU types than today. So i cannot compare my settings from yesterday with today if i only look at the run times.
First view: Windows needs longer. Conclusion: windows is bad.
Second view: Windows gets more credits. Windows is not so bad.

It would be much easier if the different WU types have clear names to identify them.

---

Yesterday i had other WU types than today. So i cannot compare my settings from yesterday with today if i only look at the run times.

Other than resends, the WUs have been of the same type for a week now (probably longer as I was away for a few weeks).

It would be much easier if the different WU types have clear names to identify them.

The present WUs are easy to see the different types as they have different starts to their names.
eg
blc22
blc25
blc33
blc34
blc35
And even with the different WUs, the run times have been pretty close between the different ones lately.

The Arecibo WUs also have different starts
eg
01my19aa
02my19ab
04my19ad
14fe19aa
14fe19aa
and some don't have a .vlar extension

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I dont mean the same type of WUs that differ, but the different WU types.
Yesterday i had other WU types than today. So i cannot compare my settings from yesterday with today if i only look at the run times.
First view: Windows needs longer. Conclusion: windows is bad.
Second view: Windows gets more credits. Windows is not so bad.

It would be much easier if the different WU types have clear names to identify them.

You might consider doing some Beta work, it has been consistent Arecibo AR = 1.3 for a period now. Doing them vanilla, without app_config etc, my GPU a 2060 does them in 2 mins.

Yesterday i had other WU types than today. So i cannot compare my settings from yesterday with today if i only look at the run times.

Other than resends, the WUs have been of the same type for a week now (probably longer as I was away for a few weeks).

It would be much easier if the different WU types have clear names to identify them.

The present WUs are easy to see the different types as they have different starts to their names.
eg
blc22
blc25
blc33
blc34
blc35
And even with the different WUs, the run times have been pretty close between the different ones lately.

Thank you.
Then i need to check what is going wrong in Windows.
I have only bl25, but about 15, 22, 250, 400 and 500s run time. Especially the short ones are very much.

---

-sbs 2048 -period_iterations_num 10 -high_perf -spike_fft_thresh 4096 -tune 1 64 1 4 -oclfft_tune_gr 256 -oclfft_tune_lr 16 -oclfft_tune_wg 256 -oclfft_tune_ls 512 -oclfft_tune_bn 64 -oclfft_tune_cw 64 -cpu_lock
...
Sure you can use this one, but for best performance change -period_iterations_num to 1.

The parameters are not excepted in all txt files.
For the opencl_ati_sah i get error messages.

So 26 Mai 2019 18:27:59 CEST | SETI@home | Started download of setiathome_8.22_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu__opencl_ati_sah
So 26 Mai 2019 18:27:59 CEST | SETI@home | Started download of MultiBeam_ATi_config_8.22-opencl_ati_linux.xml
So 26 Mai 2019 18:27:59 CEST | SETI@home | File mb_cmdline-8.22-opencl_ati_sah.txt exists already, skipping download
So 26 Mai 2019 18:27:59 CEST | SETI@home | [error] Signature verification failed for mb_cmdline-8.22-opencl_ati_sah.txt
So 26 Mai 2019 18:27:59 CEST | SETI@home | [error] Checksum or signature error for mb_cmdline-8.22-opencl_ati_sah.txt
So 26 Mai 2019 18:28:01 CEST | SETI@home | Finished download of MultiBeam_ATi_config_8.22-opencl_ati_linux.xml

the app is the deleted and the download of WUs is failing.

Is there anything i can do except to reset the project?

---

Hope an ATI expert chimes in. Might be best to reset the project. I don't understand the signature verification or checksum output at all.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

1`

-sbs 2048 -period_iterations_num 10 -high_perf -spike_fft_thresh 4096 -tune 1 64 1 4 -oclfft_tune_gr 256 -oclfft_tune_lr 16 -oclfft_tune_wg 256 -oclfft_tune_ls 512 -oclfft_tune_bn 64 -oclfft_tune_cw 64 -cpu_lock
...
Sure you can use this one, but for best performance change -period_iterations_num to 1.

The parameters are not excepted in all txt files.
For the opencl_ati_sah i get error messages.

So 26 Mai 2019 18:27:59 CEST | SETI@home | Started download of setiathome_8.22_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu__opencl_ati_sah
So 26 Mai 2019 18:27:59 CEST | SETI@home | Started download of MultiBeam_ATi_config_8.22-opencl_ati_linux.xml
So 26 Mai 2019 18:27:59 CEST | SETI@home | File mb_cmdline-8.22-opencl_ati_sah.txt exists already, skipping download
So 26 Mai 2019 18:27:59 CEST | SETI@home | [error] Signature verification failed for mb_cmdline-8.22-opencl_ati_sah.txt
So 26 Mai 2019 18:27:59 CEST | SETI@home | [error] Checksum or signature error for mb_cmdline-8.22-opencl_ati_sah.txt
So 26 Mai 2019 18:28:01 CEST | SETI@home | Finished download of MultiBeam_ATi_config_8.22-opencl_ati_linux.xml

the app is the deleted and the download of WUs is failing.

Is there anything i can do except to reset the project?

I am not sure. You are running the Lunatix distro under Windows. Is the above message from that machine?

Tom

---

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association).

No, its all Ubuntu.

---

I found some posts via Googling. It appears that a firewall is likely changing data when it is received and why the security checks fail. If you have a firewall running, whitelist the boinc client.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

No, there is no firewall and only 1 of the 4 apps was in this state. And as long as these 3 apps get work i dont care about it.

Now i have a new problem. It happend twice today, that a WU hangs. After 30 minuts still no progress.
I have to stop and continue it, so that it starts after 5 minutes again.
Can this be because one of the endless command-line-settings?

At the moment i am running 2 WUs in parallel on the GPU and 14 on the CPU. Still Ubuntu.

---

Exactly what cards are you using? If one of the cards is an older model, it might not have enough memory to warrant the use of -sbs 2048. You might need to drop down to -sbs 1024.
Or the cpu_lock could be the reason for the task lockup.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)

Radeon VII with 16GB.

---