| log in |
Message boards : Number crunching : LL-dc
Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
ok, forwarded to dev | |
| ID: 12058 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
This is the error text from the rx9070xt.... | |
| ID: 12059 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
So just going to crunch llr with nvidia only. :-) | |
| ID: 12060 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
So just going to crunch llr with nvidia only. :-) What driver do you have? | |
| ID: 12061 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
Adrenalin 26.9.1 for the 9070xt. The TF units crunch fine for both thr 9070 and 7900gre. But fail for both gpu's on llr. One of the earlier llr units failed with the previous adrenalin release (gre). | |
| ID: 12062 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
It is possible extend deadline of 52971783? | |
| ID: 12064 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
extended, pls check because the hosts are hidden. | |
| ID: 12065 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
extended, pls check because the hosts are hidden. 17 Sep 2026, 10:57:16 UTC Perfect, thank You! | |
| ID: 12066 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
If there is a new Mersenne prime number hidden in the Lucas-Lehmer double-checks, what is the range of the number of digits for the discovered prime number? | |
| ID: 12072 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
As far as from the last 51th around 24M+ digits. | |
| ID: 12073 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
I've tried crunching with two AMD gpu's (9070xt, 7900gre) and they fail. I've noticed others have had the same problem Is there a functional wrapper etc., for these two amd gpu's yet? I have absolutely no problems with my 40/50 series nvidias. O/S is win11. | |
| ID: 12086 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
I've tried crunching with two AMD gpu's (9070xt, 7900gre) and they fail. I've noticed others have had the same problem Is there a functional wrapper etc., for these two amd gpu's yet? I have absolutely no problems with my 40/50 series nvidias. O/S is win11. for 9070xt it is different, some are working and some not. The dev is fixing a lot of things with KI in the last weeks and waiting for a new release. | |
| ID: 12087 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
Just for interest. | |
| ID: 12096 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
For LL-dc deadline = 12d, the server has a grace_period of 24h before the WU is resent | |
| ID: 12097 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
Today I first time got 2 040 000 for task. It was strange, because all previous was paid with 1 360 000. | |
| ID: 12102 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
The credits were adjusted due to the longer runtime. While the amount is lower compared to TF, that is due to the difference between sieving and PRP. | |
| ID: 12103 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
Here were any changes in this application runtime in last two weeks? | |
| ID: 12140 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
Here were any changes in this application runtime in last two weeks? If you are running v0.12 then temporary add -fft 4:1K:4:256 to your app_config. The FFT size was changed from 2M to 4M which doubled the runtime. v0.13 fixed that issue after reported the bug. | |
| ID: 12141 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
If you are running v0.12 then temporary add -fft 4:1K:4:256 to your app_config. The FFT size was changed from 2M to 4M which doubled the runtime. v0.13 fixed that issue after reported the bug. No, I see dc 0.13 in BOINC Manager. Here is short log from stderr: 20261005 12:06:38 PRPLL v8 Windows_x64 2026-10-01 starting 20261005 12:06:38 config: -d 0 20261005 12:06:38 device 0, OpenCL 581.57, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, unique id '' 20261005 12:06:38 No FFTs found in tune.txt that can handle 84083029. Consider tuning with -tune 20261005 12:06:38 84083029 No FFTs found in tune.txt that can handle 84083029. Consider tuning with -tune 20261005 12:06:38 84083029 config: 20261005 12:06:38 84083029 Using CARRY64 20261005 12:06:39 84083029 FFT: 4M 1:1K:8:256:101 (20.05 bpw) 20261005 12:06:40 84083029 LL loaded @ 0 : 0000000000000004 20261005 12:12:39 84083029 20000 86111e7dfa1d5835 17948 ETA 17d 11:06 20261005 12:18:26 84083029 40000 4d5627f14b624537 17343 ETA 16d 20:52 20261005 12:24:11 84083029 60000 4e73d8196ad2e906 17281 ETA 16d 19:20 20261005 12:29:55 84083029 80000 ebc43cb54718c494 17207 ETA 16d 17:30 20261005 12:35:40 84083029 100000 28afde2bdc4e142c 17240 ETA 16d 18:11 20261005 12:41:29 84083029 120000 ef5f0f67e118c42c 17419 ETA 16d 22:16 20261005 12:47:20 84083029 140000 a47280c9b5cc6600 17543 ETA 17d 01:03 20261005 12:53:03 84083029 160000 292d810032aa029d 17188 ETA 16d 16:42 20261005 12:58:47 84083029 180000 fd4b774dcbc034af 17161 ETA 16d 15:57 20261005 13:04:28 84083029 200000 bf79aa537f59756d 17096 ETA 16d 14:20 20261005 13:10:10 84083029 220000 db16334ab677776f 17093 ETA 16d 14:11 20261005 13:15:52 84083029 240000 bb23e4ce550559ec 17091 ETA 16d 14:03 20261005 13:21:38 84083029 260000 21098f6ab108ba44 17288 ETA 16d 18:32 20261005 13:27:26 84083029 280000 278469bd292ea924 17384 ETA 16d 20:41 And now after near 24 hours runtime: 20261006 11:13:42 84083029 3560000 65f051465ea0638e 17157 ETA 15d 23:45 20261006 11:19:26 84083029 3580000 404f5a8f3a654c8d 17207 ETA 16d 00:47 20261006 11:25:09 84083029 3600000 b1fb253601f2dcaa 17118 ETA 15d 22:42 Anyway, if here was size change, maybe my GPU is too weak. Simply I need to know that and I'll avoid LL-dc in future. :) | |
| ID: 12142 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
Thx for the log. I will report it to the dev, the FFT 4M is also wrong. You can optimize the card with my change to run it on FFT 2M and you can try -tune from FAQ. | |
| ID: 12143 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
Message boards :
Number crunching :
LL-dc