[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 580: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 636: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
3.14.by forum • New codebase testing 0.B version - Page 2
Page 2 of 4

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:36 am
by Igor
Two 9800GTX, AMD X2 4850e, XP64:
two9800gtx.png
two9800gtx.png (4.99 KiB) Viewed 35133 times
Two 9800GTX+, AMD X2 4850e, XP64:
two9800gtxplus.png
two9800gtxplus.png (4.92 KiB) Viewed 35133 times
Two 9800GX2, AMD X2 4850e, XP64:
two9800gx2on4850e.png
two9800gx2on4850e.png (5.43 KiB) Viewed 35133 times
Two 9800GX2, AMD X4 9950, XP64:
two9800gx2phenom.png
two9800gx2phenom.png (5.82 KiB) Viewed 35133 times
More to come.

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:58 pm
by DarkPrince
BarsMonster wrote:I've reuploaded archives, it appeared it indeed had cudart.dll dependancy.
Got it running again :)

D3ad0ne wrote:Works perfect! :mrgreen:

And gave me a new high score :joy:
new.JPG
How much did you have to pay for all that shit o_O
and how much power does it need while working?

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:37 pm
by D3ad0ne
How much did you have to pay for all that shit o_O
and how much power does it need while working?
For this box alone not sure, $400 for each 295 X 3, $160 for the 9600GT, the LS-1200 PSU was $230, orginal system, motherboard, cpu etc was $2000, not including monitor and stuff.

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:42 pm
by LordMike
That's weird.. No errors or anything. 0.B just won't work out of the box...
Won't register my card, and just run CPU cracking... :/

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:53 pm
by BarsMonster
LordMike wrote:That's weird.. No errors or anything. 0.B just won't work out of the box...
Won't register my card, and just run CPU cracking... :/
Could you try to update your display drivers? What's your GPU?

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:22 pm
by LordMike
BarsMonster wrote:
LordMike wrote:That's weird.. No errors or anything. 0.B just won't work out of the box...
Won't register my card, and just run CPU cracking... :/
Could you try to update your display drivers? What's your GPU?
8800 GTS

Actually.. Following up on that.. Old Bars won't work either..
Will check drivers if I can figure out how (Opening NVidia Control panel :P)

EDIT: 185.85

EDIT: Friend has 190... I'm getting newer :P

EDIT: Got 191.07 now.. All fixed...

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:37 am
by Igor
9800GTX+, Xeon X3350 , XP32:
9800gtxxeon3355.png
9800gtxxeon3355.png (5.57 KiB) Viewed 35076 times
Is there any reason that speed varies so much between cores? Those systems were all idle otherwise.

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:44 am
by BarsMonster
Igor wrote:9800GTX+, Xeon X3350 , XP32:
9800gtxxeon3355.png
Is there any reason that speed varies so much between cores? Those systems were all idle otherwise.
Well, you might need to wait a little, it calculates averages among some 10-100 seconds of execution.
Also, GPU thread is running on one of these 4 cores, and it eats some cycles to prepare work for GPU.

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:55 pm
by D3ad0ne
Well, you might need to wait a little, it calculates averages among some
Yea I usually wait a bit as well, tends to get a little faster as it goes..

By the way finally broke into the 5's
D3ad0ne5s.JPG
D3ad0ne5s.JPG (44.85 KiB) Viewed 35047 times

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:18 am
by protter
BarsMonster wrote:
protter wrote:There is a problem with a time estimation, when I use:

gpu_time=1000
charset=aA
min_len=16
hash=1b0e9fd3086d90a159a1d6cb86f11b4c
What kind of a problem? Screenshot and details please :-)
As you can see below, ver 0.B cannot show a correct time required for a calculation.
A hour value is changed every second, for example, like 2, 21, 18, 9, 16, 19, 6....

Image

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:22 am
by BarsMonster
protter wrote:
BarsMonster wrote:
protter wrote:There is a problem with a time estimation, when I use:

gpu_time=1000
charset=aA
min_len=16
hash=1b0e9fd3086d90a159a1d6cb86f11b4c
What kind of a problem? Screenshot and details please :-)
As you can see below, ver 0.B cannot show a correct time required for a calculation.
A hour value is changed every second, for example, like 2, 21, 18, 9, 16, 19, 6....

Image
Could you try this with length 15?

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:14 pm
by protter
BarsMonster wrote: Could you try this with length 15?
Sure:

Image

Code: Select all

gpu_time=1000
charset=aA
min_len=15
hash=1b0e9fd3086d90a159a1d6cb86f11b4c  
____
Image

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:59 pm
by Sc00bz
This happens because days left is more than 2^31. I guess if days left is more than 2^31 then ETC could say "NEVER" or have it state time left in millions of years.

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:56 pm
by D3ad0ne
BarsMonster, what is the max supported amount of GPUs for BarsWF? I just order a new motherboard and it should allow me to use more than 8GPU's. I heard that there is a driver limit of 8 but I don't know anyone that has had more than 8 in a single motherboard to test that out. Also I've heard IvanG's say his ighashgpu only supports 8 cards as well. But inside pros Extreme GPU bruteforcer is now supporting mulit GPU's and he has said his software can support up to 16. In anycase I I guess I'll find out later this week what the actual results are.

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:21 pm
by IvanG
D3ad0ne wrote:Also I've heard IvanG's say his ighashgpu only supports 8 cards as well.
It's not true, actually. I haven't heard about systems with >8 GPUs so I have no idea will ighashgpu works with them or not. But there no hard limit of 8 GPUs in source code, AFAIR I used value like 32, so if CUDA layer will reports 16 GPUs it should handle it properly.

However, I've already linked somewhere here quote from nVidia's guy about systems with >8 GPUs, it's something like "good luck finding BIOS which supports such config".

I guess you'll got several problems going this way ;)

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:54 pm
by protter
good luck finding BIOS which supports such config
Hmm... actually it is possible to write BIOS by yourself :P

____
Image

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:16 pm
by IvanG
protter wrote:Hmm... actually it is possible to write BIOS by yourself :P
Well, it's possible to make hardware MD5 cracker with FPGAs or even better -- design in VHDL and order 40nm MD5 crack specific chips... But somehow I have feelings that nobody will actually do this :lol:.

There are problems with ATI GPUs at driver level -- not possible to use more than 4 of them. And still nobody found solution for this by rewriting ATI drivers. It's still impossible to normally activate more than 5 nVidia GPUs under Vista/7, again drivers issues and, again, nobody "hacked" the drivers to solve this.

So I really really doubt anyone will care about writhing his own BIOS to support specific hardware setups. Just too many time required and you must be very experienced with low level I/O.

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:27 pm
by D3ad0ne
I've already linked somewhere here quote from nVidia's guy about systems with >8 GPUs
- Perhaps this is why I thought you mentioned 8 GPU as a max.

The motherboard I picked up is the asus P6T7 WS supercomputer - http://promos.asus.com/US/Newsletter200 ... /P6T7.html it has X58 / ICH10R chipset, and an additional nforce200 x2 chipset to add more PCI-e lanes. Primarily targeted for folding@home type users. At least I should be able to get 4 GTX 295s in this one, unlike the P6T/SE version I currently have only supports 7 GPUs total.

Bars do you have any hard limit set in your software?

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:16 pm
by BarsMonster
D3ad0ne wrote:BarsMonster, what is the max supported amount of GPUs for BarsWF? I just order a new motherboard and it should allow me to use more than 8GPU's. I heard that there is a driver limit of 8 but I don't know anyone that has had more than 8 in a single motherboard to test that out. Also I've heard IvanG's say his ighashgpu only supports 8 cards as well. But inside pros Extreme GPU bruteforcer is now supporting mulit GPU's and he has said his software can support up to 16. In anycase I I guess I'll find out later this week what the actual results are.
Current limit on BarsWF side is 128 :crazy:

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:54 pm
by Rolf
BarsMonster wrote:Current limit on BarsWF side is 128 :crazy:
Michail, you think positive and look deeply in to the future, ehh ?

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:49 am
by NotFound
Rolf wrote:
BarsMonster wrote:Current limit on BarsWF side is 128 :crazy:
Michail, you think positive and look deeply in to the future, ehh ?
No. just a visionary guy, i guess. :crazy:

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:29 am
by Sc00bz
How does --gpu_mask work with 128 GPUs?

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:04 am
by BarsMonster
Sc00bz wrote:How does --gpu_mask work with 128 GPUs?
Everything over 32 is always enabled :-)

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:14 am
by Sc00bz
BarsMonster wrote:
Sc00bz wrote:How does --gpu_mask work with 128 GPUs?
Everything over 32 is always enabled :-)
Then why is there a set limit?

Re: New codebase testing 0.B version

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:59 am
by LordMike
Sc00bz wrote:
BarsMonster wrote:
Sc00bz wrote:How does --gpu_mask work with 128 GPUs?
Everything over 32 is always enabled :-)
Then why is there a set limit?
Array length? :P

Just my guess :)