We have submitted a new batch of TRYP (*adTRYP*), significantly longer than the latest TRYP (met*, eth*, pro*,...).

The latest TRYP were a real production attempt to straighforwardly obtain binding for small inhibitor molecules. It finally proved harder than first expected, therefore we are improving the underlying analysis method as well as implementing a cleverer scheme to obtain the data. That is what *adTRYP* are for, to prepare a systematic methodological study on how to produce efficiently many events of binding for small protein inhibitors. See experiments section for more info.

Cheers

Are these long runs? I see roughly 900 long runs have been added overnight. And off topic, but any new word on how the 680 is performing?

I have one of these *adTRYP* running on my GTX480@800MHz. It's computation reached 10% in 55 minutes and 40 seconds. It's running with 75% GPU usage (Swan_sync=0 applied, WindowsXP 32bit). So it will finish on my GTX480@800MHz in approximately 9 hours and 17 minutes.

on a 570 (non-OC), on W7 I too am only getting 56-58% utilization, with one core free.

I am interested in checking thread / cpu utilization, however, I have no info on how to do so. Is there a link on how to check thread utilization? Thanks.

I have one of these running on my GTX 460. I expect it to complete in a little over 20 hours.
____________

My GTX 460 did complete the WU in about 20-hours.

It then took approximately another 10 hours for the WU to successfully upload. It only successfully uploaded after I returned home from work, and sat and pressed the retry button for about a half-hour.

This is why I find the 24-hour limit on first tier bonus credits distasteful as I feel this penalizes people in my situation, and people in my situation have no control over problems with uploading results. I've done everything in my power to correct this without success as evidenced by this thread - http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=2713

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=3318070

____________

178-IBUCH_adTRYP_120402-0-5-RND1445_5
Worked quite OK on my machine, after having previously failed on 4 others machines.
And it only took about 9.6 hours to run to completion.
Do you think that my (unusually huge) amount of GPU RAM (3Gb on *each* GTX580) might be the clue here?
Or could it be the 12 cores, or the 24Gb of CPU RAM?
Dunno.
But no "large" task has failed to run to completion for some months now, if ever.
I must be getting *something* right that differs from others'?

Perhaps the Drivers?
____________
DSKAG Austria Research Team: http://www.research.dskag.at

Possibly.
I have resisted the urgings of nVidia and kept them as they are (296.10)
If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

On checking: two of the four failed tasks are running on the same revision drivers.

That cannot be it?

If you are interested enough, check workunit:
www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=3317664

I just noticed something passing strange about driver revisions:
GPUGrid reports
"[2] NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (3034MB) driver: 280.26"

Nah, forget my previous blatherings about the driver being 296.10!
I was reading the incorrect row.
They are 280.26, which NONE of the failed workstation have.

You might be correct, after all!

If you look here you will see 114 successful tasks, and no failures!

But...

Operating System Microsoft Windows 7 (295 driver on W7)
Coprocessors NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (1536MB) driver: 296.10

Might I suggest then, that operations might be enhanced by encouraging participants who have buggy-drivers, (No, not those with horse-and-cart!), to adopt a more friendly version?
As you know who they are, as well as their contact details, surely it would not be too onerous to create a script that 'points' each user to the appropriate download page?
And advising those with inappropriate task-selection/Graphics-card combinations to change? Or changing their selections of task types automatically, even?

GPUGrid may well be missing a golden opportunity by not so doing.