You can use whatever you need to upload files, I use google drive as I pay for it, but if you have dropbox, box, amazon cloud, etc, etc then by all means.

If you are unsure where they are located it is in: C:\ProgramData\BOINC\projects\setiathome.berkeley.edu on windows. There are 2 files to upload

One will be named similar to this:
blc5_2bit_guppi_57403_68833_HIP11048_OFF_0003.20883.416.21.44.64.vlar

The other is smaller and will be similar to this:

blc5_2bit_guppi_57403_68833_HIP11048_OFF_0003.20883.416.21.44.64.vlar_4_0

JASON!
What are you using for comparison? What program?

I have the datafile, I'll do a manual run of stock cpu, cuda50, and sog.
SoG one will be done when I can figure out how to run that in offline mode

You can use whatever you need to upload files, I use google drive as I pay for it, but if you have dropbox, box, amazon cloud, etc, etc then by all means.

If you are unsure where they are located it is in: C:\ProgramData\BOINC\projects\setiathome.berkeley.edu on windows. There are 2 files to upload

One will be named similar to this:
blc5_2bit_guppi_57403_68833_HIP11048_OFF_0003.20883.416.21.44.64.vlar

The other is smaller and will be similar to this:

blc5_2bit_guppi_57403_68833_HIP11048_OFF_0003.20883.416.21.44.64.vlar_4_0

Cannot see this one, will it already have been uploaded, I only noticed it was a _4 after it had completed, uploaded but not reported.

I've uploaded the blc5_2bit_guppi_57403_68833_HIP11048_OFF_0003.20883.416.21.44.64.vlar data file

and I have added blc3_2bit_guppi_57449_49131_HIP83613_OFF_0028.4249.831.17.26.179.vlar_3_0 and its data file

---

Then the result file is gone. :( We got the datafile though

Once uploaded the host will delete the file, as it is no longer needed and takes up space. How long did it take with you CPU?

Then the result file is gone. :( We got the datafile though

Once uploaded the host will delete the file, as it is no longer needed and takes up space. How long did it take with you CPU?

It took 00:46:48

I've not got any more inconclusives at the moment, the other two >1 are abandoned or timed out. Will now allow network and get some more tasks.

---

Could you rerun that workunit?

I will describe what you need to do, if you need it. As we have the datafile it is safe to report it as complete

JASON!
What are you using for comparison? What program?

rescmpv4, from Lunatics Downloads benchmark suite, in its tool folder. I use an older version than exists there, often separately by command line when comparing results. The newer one which exists there I believe adds 'super' and and 'exact' categories when printing weak similarity table, which was added once Cuda and OpenCL builds because close to stock CPU it became difficult to improve them. I'll probably update once I get around to it, and the newer apps become close to what they should be again.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

At the moment I am running through a double inconclusive stock sog ati vs stock sog nv both running windows

I am going to use v2.08 is that the version your using?

Shouldn't we really looking at both data sets instead of just gbt? I am seeing a bunch of arecibo ones go inconclusive as well

Result from my manual test:
To this unit here

C:\Users\James\Desktop\comparison>rescmpv4 result_from_cpu.sah result_from_sog.sah
Result : Strongly similar, Q= 99.99%

Original inconclusive is from the ATI coproc, reporting 1 less pulse than both cpu and nv sog app

We have a triple inconclusive. What is more interesting is _2 which is a petri special, also included. No clue what caused the inconclusive.
Here

Here is the datafile and result file from my host.

We have a triple inconclusive. What is more interesting is _2 which is a petri special, also included. No clue what caused the inconclusive.
Here

Here is the datafile and result file from my host.

Stock cuda is a false overflow and petris found 2 pulses less.
It might still validate.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

We have a triple inconclusive. What is more interesting is _2 which is a petri special, also included. No clue what caused the inconclusive.
Here

Here is the datafile and result file from my host.

Stock cuda is a false overflow and petris found 2 pulses less.
It might still validate.

I would run the app manually, but alas I don't have petri's app on my laptop, so I will have to run cuda50 and compare them I guess. Unless someone wants to build petri's app for windows and send it my way......

We have a triple inconclusive. What is more interesting is _2 which is a petri special, also included. No clue what caused the inconclusive.
Here

Here is the datafile and result file from my host.

Stock cuda is a false overflow and petris found 2 pulses less.
It might still validate.

I would run the app manually, but alas I don't have petri's app on my laptop, so I will have to run cuda50 and compare them I guess. Unless someone wants to build petri's app for windows and send it my way......

Its always a good idea to bench with official app first to see if the result matches.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

We have a triple inconclusive. What is more interesting is _2 which is a petri special, also included. No clue what caused the inconclusive.
Here

Here is the datafile and result file from my host.

Stock cuda is a false overflow and petris found 2 pulses less.
It might still validate.

I would run the app manually, but alas I don't have petri's app on my laptop, so I will have to run cuda50 and compare them I guess. Unless someone wants to build petri's app for windows and send it my way......

Its always a good idea to bench with official app first to see if the result matches.

Ideally, with three apps:

The stock app (gold standard)
The app you usually use on you own rig (as a double check)
The app being used by the third-party wingmate that you suspect may be returning out-of-tolerance results

Of course, test (3) is difficult when tasks are being run on the main project by apps which aren't yet even available to all testers.

here are the results from my manual run

C:\Users\James\Desktop\comparison>rescmpv5 8034200_cpu.sah result_from_cpu.sah
Result : Strongly similar, Q= 100.0%

C:\Users\James\Desktop\comparison>rescmpv5 8034200_cpu.sah result_from_cuda42.sah
Result : Strongly similar, Q= 99.22%

C:\Users\James\Desktop\comparison>rescmpv5 result_from_cpu.sah result_from_cuda42.sah
Result : Strongly similar, Q= 99.22%

result_from_cuda42.sah is from the cuda42 app manually ran/
result_from_cpu.sah is the cpu app manually ran.
8034200_cpu.sah is the computer which had the original inconclusive thrown.

Results are all in this folder

In this case its enough for me.

99.22% is not what i call strongly similar.
Should be 99.5x%+

Thats what i call stromngly similar.

MB8_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATi_HD5_r3500.exe -device 0 -sbs 384 -tt 60 -spike_fft_thresh 2048 -tune 1 64 1 4 -oclfft_tune_gr 256 -oclfft_tune_lr 16 -oclfft_tune_wg 256 -oclfft_tune_ls 512 -oclfft_tune_bn 32 -oclfft_tune_cw 32 / blc3_2bit_guppi_57451_19958_HIP62472_0005.7585.831.17.26.109.wu : 
AppName: MB8_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATi_HD5_r3500.exe 
AppArgs: -device 0 -sbs 384 -tt 60 -spike_fft_thresh 2048 -tune 1 64 1 4 -oclfft_tune_gr 256 -oclfft_tune_lr 16 -oclfft_tune_wg 256 -oclfft_tune_ls 512 -oclfft_tune_bn 32 -oclfft_tune_cw 32 
TaskName: blc3_2bit_guppi_57451_19958_HIP62472_0005.7585.831.17.26.109.wu 
Started at  : 14:09:50.756 
Ended at    : 14:21:04.311 
    672.880 secs Elapsed
    199.588 secs CPU time
Speedup     : 13.22%
Ratio       : 1.15x
 
R2: .\ref\ref-MB8_win_x64_AVX_VS2010_r3308.exe-blc3_2bit_guppi_57451_19958_HIP62472_0005.7585.831.17.26.109.wu.res 
Result     [b] : Strongly similar,  Q= 99.95%[/b]
 
R2: .\ref\ref-MB8_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATi_HD5_r3330.exe-blc3_2bit_guppi_57451_19958_HIP62472_0005.7585.831.17.26.109.wu.res 
Result     [b] : Strongly similar,  Q= 100.0%[/b]
 

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

We have a triple inconclusive. What is more interesting is _2 which is a petri special, also included. No clue what caused the inconclusive.
Here

Here is the datafile and result file from my host.

Stock cuda is a false overflow and petris found 2 pulses less.
It might still validate.

I would run the app manually, but alas I don't have petri's app on my laptop, so I will have to run cuda50 and compare them I guess. Unless someone wants to build petri's app for windows and send it my way......

Broken/overheating 8400GS caused the initial inconclusive (no mystery).

I already built a Windows version, however, as with the other platforms its validation has known problems such that if it escapes into the Windows world it would highly likely cripple the project (both with throughput and co-validation of inaccurate results). So far the validator appears to be coping with the limited 'unofficial' Mac and Linux builds in circulation, though if significant co-validations begin to occur I will likely have to raise a discussion with project staff.

I highly appreciate the excitement/anticipation, though No-one needs to replicate the known faulty alpha application's results at this time. Patience is needed for the stage of development that one is at, rather than widescale testing.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

Hi,

Thanks to jason_gee and everyone else I have now a valid guppi result that I can run my version against to with debugging options on. That is a 'Kiska guppi' that I'm using to find a/the bug(s) that are keeping the special version still in the alpha.

Keep on waiting.

For now I'm testing with missing pulses.

---

To overcome Heisenbergs:
"You can't always get what you want / but if you try sometimes you just might find / you get what you need." -- Rolling Stones