You first need to establish whether your GPUs are running
deterministically. if they're not, then the problem is hardware, likely
the GPU, case closed, really...
It may be because the GPU is clocked too high, or it's not getting enough
power, or it's just plain defective, but it *is* hardware. I'm not saying
AMBER has zero bugs, but there are safe reference cases we *know* *run*
*correctly*...
Other programs can't detect this as sensitively because they do not run
deterministically, really, they don't... And most errors are trivial...
So take a safe reference like the Cellulose NVE benchmark and run it for
100K iterations, twice, then compare outputs.
On a good system/GPU, they will be identical. I am beginning to think this
should be part of the test suite for AMBER.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Divi/GMAIL <dvenkatlu.gmail.com> wrote:
> I have two TITANs in my Gigabyte workstation. I have had similar issues
> of NANs for some of the simulation setups. Never could figure out why the
> simulations failed for no reason. I tried 10, 12 ang. box sizes. same
> random breakdowns. Thought of returning them suspecting memory errors. But
> some simulations ran perfectly fine. Currently running two calculations
> without any problems. Both are running pretty stable for over 100ns. I
> suspect AMBER CUDA code may have some issues under some simulation
> conditions such as NPT. In general, NVT setup is more successful than NPT,
> in my case.
>
> These are 287426 atoms simulation on one card (9 ns/day)
> On other card: 129049 atom setup (20 ns/day)
>
> Both using same NVT setup. (AMBER12/INTEL-12.x
> compilers/CentOS-6.3/Drivers 319.17/CUDA5.0)
>
> Input is below:
> &cntrl
> nstlim=500000, dt=0.002,
> ntx=5, irest=1, ig=-1,
> ntpr=1000, ntwr=10000, ntwx=10000,
> ntt=1, tautp=2, ntb=1, ntp=0, ntc=2, ntf=2,
> iwrap=1, ioutfm=1, ntxo=2,
> &end
>
> One suggestion If I may add: If you could run short simulations for no
> more
> than 500,000 steps (or 1ns with 2 fs), you might find some stability.
> Again,
> not scientific rationale from my side. But it worked in some cases for me.
>
> This is self-assembled system with GIGABYTE GA-Z77X-UP7 (with core i5
> processor) and 1200W PS/16GB memory.
>
>
> Best regards
> Divi
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Le Grand
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:46 PM
> To: AMBER Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [AMBER] experiences with EVGA GTX TITAN Superclocked -
> memtestG80 - UNDERclocking in Linux ?
>
> You can play Russian Roulette a whole bunch of rounds without blowing your
> head off.
>
> Similarly, when you have a GPU that occasionally flips a bit the wrong way,
> most of the time it will be some low order perturbation to the coordinates
> that does little more than make the trajectory nondeterministic... Except
> when it doesn't...
>
> You can't even detect this kind of misbehavior in GROMACS, ACEMD, or NAMD
> because *none* of them (to my knowledge) are capable of producing
> deterministic output at production-level performance.
>
> Titans and 680s are consumer cards. I love them to death, but if you're
> going to do production work with them, you need to qual them thoroughly
> before proceeding or you need to pay up and use Teslas instead. I'd still
> build a cluster with Titans myself, but I'd ruthlessly RMA them until I got
> satisfaction if they couldn't pass a test consisting of running an AMBER
> simulation for 100K iterations without either crashing or producing a
> nondeterministic result. The customer is always right.
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Marek Maly <marek.maly.ujep.cz> wrote:
>
> > I would wait for the results of my GOPU0, GPU1 double tests before
> > any serious conclusions.
> >
> > BTW what exactly means "GPU is hosed" ? Something like GPU is damaged or
> > so ?
> >
> > Also would be strange (not probable) to buy 2 somehow damaged GPUs (even
> > in the same way).
> >
> > As I wrote, memtestG80 tests were negative on both cards, if moreover
> > both cards will perfectly reproduce both repetitions of the Amber
> > benchmarks
> > and eventually pass some another GPU tests (can you recommend any except
> > memtestG80 ?)
> > I still believe that the GPU cards are OK (also thank to particular
> > successes in my Amb. simulations and actual A. benchmarks). So maybe I
> > will eventually try downclock, but there might be some another variables,
> > e.g. driver, OS, motherboard (I will perhaps test one card in another MB
> > just to be sure, that problem is not MB based) etc. that's why I asked
> > before that guy "ET" for the info about driver version, would be also
> > interesting OS info or MB.
> >
> > M.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dne Tue, 28 May 2013 22:13:36 +0200 Scott Le Grand <
> varelse2005.gmail.com>
> > napsal/-a:
> >
> > > Marek,
> > > Your GPU is hosed. I don't have anything else to add. I'm not going
> to
> > > go
> > > snark hunting for a bug that doesn't exist.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Marek Maly <marek.maly.ujep.cz>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi, just for the curiosity which driver are you using
> > >> on that machine with perfectly working with OC TITAN,
> > >> 319.17 or some more actual e.g. 319.23 ?
> > >>
> > >> RMA is a good idea but it could be also long time story and
> > >> also to succeed here you need to have strong arguments
> > >> especially if you are going to RMA two OC TITANs.
> > >>
> > >> I am not sure if my arguments "The cards have problems with some Amber
> > >> calculations"
> > >> would be strong enough here. Would be much better to have clear
> results
> > >> from
> > >> respected GPU tests and as it seems you may do extensive GPU tests
> also
> > >> with
> > >> multiple routines without any errors but still have problems with
> > >> particular
> > >> Amber simulations...
> > >>
> > >> BTW I am now doing Amber benchmarks with nstlim=100K and ig=default
> for
> > >> each card
> > >> twice. The tests will be done in cca 3 hours (due to slow nucleosome
> GB
> > >> test).
> > >>
> > >> But even now I have interesting results from the first test on GPU0
> > >> (nucleosome is still running) see below.
> > >>
> > >> As you can see JAC_NPT crashed around 11000 step, here is the last
> > >> md.out
> > >> record:
> > >>
> > >> *********
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> check COM velocity, temp: 0.000021 0.00(Removed)
> > >>
> > >> NSTEP = 11000 TIME(PS) = 28.000 TEMP(K) = 300.39 PRESS
> > >> =
> > >> -9.4
> > >> Etot = -58092.8958 EKtot = 14440.2520 EPtot =
> > >> -72533.1478
> > >> BOND = 443.3912 ANGLE = 1253.5177 DIHED =
> > >> 970.1275
> > >> 1-4 NB = 567.2497 1-4 EEL = 6586.9007 VDWAALS =
> > >> 8664.9960
> > >> EELEC = -91019.3306 EHBOND = 0.0000 RESTRAINT =
> > >> 0.0000
> > >> EKCMT = 6274.0354 VIRIAL = 6321.9969 VOLUME =
> > >> 236141.9494
> > >> Density =
> > >> 1.0162
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> | ERROR: max pairlist cutoff must be less than unit cell max sphere
> > >> radius!
> > >>
> > >> ********
> > >>
> > >> Any idea about that ERROR ?
> > >>
> > >> On the other hand FACTOR_IX_NPT which has much more atoms passed
> > >> without
> > >> any issue.
> > >>
> > >> Cellulose crashed on the beginning without any ERROR message in md.out
> > >> file.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I am very curious regarding exact reproducibility of the results at
> > >> least
> > >> in the
> > >> framework of both tests on individual cards.
> > >>
> > >> BTW regarding eventual downclocking, has anyone idea about some
> NVclock
> > >> alternative or
> > >> I will be really eventually forced to edit frequency value in GPU BIOS
> > >> ?
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >>
> > >> Marek
> > >>
> > >> HERE ARE THE FIRST DATA FROM MY 2x2 Bench tests
> > >>
> > >> JAC_PRODUCTION_NVE - 23,558 atoms PME
> > >> -------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> 1 x GTX_TITAN: | ns/day = 115.91 seconds/ns =
> > >> 745.39
> > >>
> > >> JAC_PRODUCTION_NPT - 23,558 atoms PME
> > >> -------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> 1 x GTX_TITAN: STOP PMEMD Terminated Abnormally!
> > >> | ns/day = 90.72 seconds/ns = 952.42
> > >>
> > >> FACTOR_IX_PRODUCTION_NVE - 90,906 atoms PME
> > >> -------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> 1 x GTX_TITAN: | ns/day = 30.56 seconds/ns
> =
> > >> 2827.33
> > >>
> > >> FACTOR_IX_PRODUCTION_NPT - 90,906 atoms PME
> > >> -------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> 1 x GTX_TITAN: | ns/day = 25.01 seconds/ns
> =
> > >> 3454.56
> > >>
> > >> CELLULOSE_PRODUCTION_NVE - 408,609 atoms PME
> > >> --------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> 1 x GTX_TITAN: Error: unspecified launch failure launching
> > >> kernel
> > >> kNLSkinTest
> > >> cudaFree GpuBuffer::Deallocate failed unspecified launch failure
> > >> grep: mdinfo.1GTX_TITAN: No such file or directory
> > >>
> > >> TRPCAGE_PRODUCTION - 304 atoms GB
> > >> ---------------------------------
> > >> 1 x GTX_TITAN: | ns/day = 595.09 seconds/ns =
> > >> 145.19
> > >>
> > >> MYOGLOBIN_PRODUCTION - 2,492 atoms GB
> > >> -------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> 1 x GTX_TITAN: | ns/day = 202.56 seconds/ns =
> > >> 426.53
> > >>
> > >> NUCLEOSOME_PRODUCTION - 25,095 atoms GB
> > >> ---------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> 1 x GTX_TITAN:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Dne Tue, 28 May 2013 20:42:32 +0200 ET <sketchfoot.gmail.com>
> > napsal/-a:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi,
> > >> >
> > >> > I just got a superclocked Titan and one at normal freq. The first
> one
> > >> ran
> > >> > like a charm with no issues so far. The other standard clocked one
> > >> could
> > >> > never get past the constant pressure stage in an NPT simulation. It
> > >> kept
> > >> > writing NAN or ********* in the outfile. I swapped them about in the
> > >> pcie
> > >> > lanes then ran it solo in each one of the lanes. Despite all this it
> > >> was
> > >> > still failing the benchmark that the other one had no problems with.
> > >> >
> > >> > I couldn't find any memory errors with GPU-burn either, but as they
> > >> cost
> > >> > near a grand a piece, I RMA'd it today. I recommend you to do the
> > >> same if
> > >> > its not giving you any joy. Life's too short. :)
> > >> >
> > >> > br,
> > >> > g
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 28 May 2013 16:57, Scott Le Grand <varelse2005.gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> AMBER != NAMD...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> GTX 680 != GTX Titan...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Ian's suggestion is a good one. But even then, you need to test
> > >> >> your
> > >> >> GPUs
> > >> >> as the Titans are running right on the edge of stability. Like I
> > >> told
> > >> >> Marek, try running 100K iterations of Cellulose NVE twice with the
> > >> same
> > >> >> random seed. if you don't get identically bit accurate output,
> your
> > >> >> GPU is
> > >> >> not working. Memtest programs do not catch this because (I am
> > >> guessing)
> > >> >> they are designed for a uniform memory hierarchy and only one path
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> read
> > >> >> and write data. I have a stock GTX Titan that cannot pass the
> > >> Cellulose
> > >> >> NVE test and another one that does. I spent a couple days on the
> > >> former
> > >> >> GPU looking for the imaginary bug that went away like magic the
> > >> second I
> > >> >> switched out the GPU.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Scott
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Robert Konecny <rok.ucsd.edu>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Hi Scott,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > unfortunately we are seeing similar Amber instability on GTX
> > >> Titans as
> > >> >> > Marek is. We have a box with four GTX Titans (not oveclocked)
> > >> running
> > >> >> > CentOS 6.3 with NVidia 319.17 driver and Amber 12.2. Any Amber
> > >> >> simulation
> > >> >> > longer than 10-15 min eventually crashes on these cards,
> including
> > >> >> both
> > >> >> JAC
> > >> >> > benchmarks (with extended run time). This is reproducible on all
> > >> four
> > >> >> > cards.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > To eliminate the possible hardware error we ran extended GPU
> > >> >> > memory
> > >> >> tests
> > >> >> > on all four Titans with memtestG80, cuda_memtest and also
> gpu_burn
> > >> -
> > >> >> all
> > >> >> > finished without errors. Since I agree that these programs may
> not
> > >> >> test
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > GPU completely we also set up simulations with NAMD. We can run
> > >> four
> > >> >> NAMD
> > >> >> > simulations simultaneously for many days without any errors on
> > >> >> > this
> > >> >> > hardware. For reference - we also have exactly the same server
> > >> >> > with
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > same hardware components but with four GTX680s and this setup
> > >> >> > works
> > >> >> just
> > >> >> > fine for Amber. So all this leads me to believe that a hardware
> > >> error
> > >> >> is
> > >> >> > not very likely.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I would appreciate your comments on this, perhaps there is
> > >> something
> > >> >> else
> > >> >> > causing these errors which we are not seeing.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Thanks,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Robert
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 04:25:24PM -0700, Scott Le Grand wrote:
> > >> >> > > I have two GTX Titans. One is defective, the other is not.
> > >> >> > Unfortunately,
> > >> >> > > they both pass all standard GPU memory tests.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > What the defective one doesn't do is generate reproducibly
> > >> >> bit-accurate
> > >> >> > > outputs for simulations of Factor IX (90,986 atoms) or larger,
> > >> >> > > of
> > >> >> 100K
> > >> >> or
> > >> >> > > so iterations.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Which is yet another reason why I insist on MD algorithms
> > >> >> (especially
> > >> >> on
> > >> >> > > GPUS) being deterministic. Besides its ability to find
> software
> > >> >> bugs,
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > > fulfilling one of the most important tenets of science, it's a
> > >> great
> > >> >> way
> > >> >> > to
> > >> >> > > diagnose defective hardware with very little effort.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > 928 MHz? That's 6% above the boost clock of a stock Titan.
> > >> Titan
> > >> >> is
> > >> >> > > pushing the performance envelope as is. If you're going to pay
> > >> the
> > >> >> > premium
> > >> >> > > for such chips, I'd send them back until you get one that runs
> > >> >> correctly.
> > >> >> > > I'm very curious how fast you can push one of these things
> > >> >> > > before
> > >> >> they
> > >> >> > give
> > >> >> > > out.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Marek Maly <
> marek.maly.ujep.cz
> > >
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > Dear all,
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > I have recently bought two "EVGA GTX TITAN Superclocked"
> GPUs.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > I did the first calculations (pmemd.cuda in Amber12) with
> > >> systems
> > >> >> > around
> > >> >> > > > 60K atoms without any problems (NPT, Langevin), but when I
> > >> later
> > >> >> tried
> > >> >> > > > with bigger systems (around 100K atoms) I obtained
> "classical"
> > >> >> > irritating
> > >> >> > > > errors
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > cudaMemcpy GpuBuffer::Download failed unspecified launch
> > >> failure
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > just after few thousands of MD steps.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > So this was obviously the reason for memtestG80 tests.
> > >> >> > > > ( https://simtk.org/home/memtest ).
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > So I compiled memtestG80 from sources (
> > >> memtestG80-1.1-src.tar.gz
> > >> >> )
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > > > then tested
> > >> >> > > > just small part of memory GPU (200 MB) using 100 iterations.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > On both cards I have obtained huge amount of errors but
> "just"
> > >> on
> > >> >> > > > "Random blocks:". 0 errors in all remaining tests in all
> > >> >> iterations.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > ------THE LAST ITERATION AND FINAL RESULTS-------
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Test iteration 100 (GPU 0, 200 MiB): 169736847 errors so far
> > >> >> > > > Moving Inversions (ones and zeros): 0 errors (6 ms)
> > >> >> > > > Memtest86 Walking 8-bit: 0 errors (53 ms)
> > >> >> > > > True Walking zeros (8-bit): 0 errors (26 ms)
> > >> >> > > > True Walking ones (8-bit): 0 errors (26 ms)
> > >> >> > > > Moving Inversions (random): 0 errors (6 ms)
> > >> >> > > > Memtest86 Walking zeros (32-bit): 0 errors (105 ms)
> > >> >> > > > Memtest86 Walking ones (32-bit): 0 errors (104 ms)
> > >> >> > > > Random blocks: 1369863 errors (27 ms)
> > >> >> > > > Memtest86 Modulo-20: 0 errors (215 ms)
> > >> >> > > > Logic (one iteration): 0 errors (4 ms)
> > >> >> > > > Logic (4 iterations): 0 errors (8 ms)
> > >> >> > > > Logic (shared memory, one iteration): 0 errors (8 ms)
> > >> >> > > > Logic (shared-memory, 4 iterations): 0 errors (25 ms)
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Final error count after 100 iterations over 200 MiB of GPU
> > >> memory:
> > >> >> > > > 171106710 errors
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > I have some questions and would be really grateful for any
> > >> >> comments.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Regarding overclocking, using the deviceQuery I found out
> that
> > >> >> under
> > >> >> > linux
> > >> >> > > > both cards run
> > >> >> > > > automatically using boost shader/GPU frequency which is here
> > >> 928
> > >> >> MHz
> > >> >> > (the
> > >> >> > > > basic value for these factory OC cards is 876 MHz).
> > >> >> > > > deviceQuery
> > >> >> > reported
> > >> >> > > > Memory Clock rate is 3004 MHz although "it" should be 6008
> MHz
> > >> but
> > >> >> > maybe
> > >> >> > > > the quantity which is reported by deviceQuery "Memory Clock
> > >> rate"
> > >> >> is
> > >> >> > > > different from the product specification "Memory Clock" . It
> > >> seems
> > >> >> that
> > >> >> > > > "Memory Clock rate" = "Memory Clock"/2. Am I right ? Or just
> > >> >> > deviceQuery
> > >> >> > > > is not able to read this spec. properly
> > >> >> > > > in Titan GPU ?
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Anyway for the moment I assume that the problem might be due
> > >> >> > > > to
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > high
> > >> >> > > > shader/GPU frequency.
> > >> >> > > > (see here :
> http://folding.stanford.edu/English/DownloadUtils)
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > To verify this hypothesis one should perhaps UNDERclock to
> > >> basic
> > >> >> > frequency
> > >> >> > > > which is in this
> > >> >> > > > model 876 MHz or even to the TITAN REFERENCE frequency which
> > >> >> > > > is
> > >> >> 837
> > >> >> > MHz.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Obviously I am working with these cards under linux (CentOS
> > >> >> > > > 2.6.32-358.6.1.el6.x86_64) and as I found, the OC tools under
> > >> >> linux
> > >> >> > are in
> > >> >> > > > fact limited just to NVclock utility, which is unfortunately
> > >> >> > > > out of date (at least speaking about the GTX Titan ). I have
> > >> >> obtained
> > >> >> > this
> > >> >> > > > message when I wanted
> > >> >> > > > just to let NVclock utility to read and print shader and
> > >> >> > > > memory
> > >> >> > > > frequencies of my Titan's:
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > [root.dyn-138-272 NVCLOCK]# nvclock -s --speeds
> > >> >> > > > Card: Unknown Nvidia card
> > >> >> > > > Card number: 1
> > >> >> > > > Memory clock: -2147483.750 MHz
> > >> >> > > > GPU clock: -2147483.750 MHz
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Card: Unknown Nvidia card
> > >> >> > > > Card number: 2
> > >> >> > > > Memory clock: -2147483.750 MHz
> > >> >> > > > GPU clock: -2147483.750 MHz
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > I would be really grateful for some tips regarding "NVclock
> > >> >> > alternatives",
> > >> >> > > > but after wasting some hours with googling it seems that
> there
> > >> is
> > >> >> no
> > >> >> > other
> > >> >> > > > Linux
> > >> >> > > > tool with NVclock functionality. So the only possibility is
> > >> here
> > >> >> > perhaps
> > >> >> > > > to edit
> > >> >> > > > GPU bios with some Lin/DOS/Win tools like (Kepler BIOS
> > >> >> > > > Tweaker,
> > >> >> > NVflash)
> > >> >> > > > but obviously
> > >> >> > > > I would like to rather avoid such approach as using it means
> > >> >> perhaps
> > >> >> > also
> > >> >> > > > to void the warranty even if I am going to underclock the
> GPUs
> > >> >> not to
> > >> >> > > > overclock them.
> > >> >> > > > So before this eventual step (GPU bios editing) I would like
> > >> >> > > > to
> > >> >> have
> > >> >> > some
> > >> >> > > > approximative estimate
> > >> >> > > > of the probability, that the problems are here really because
> > >> of
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > > overclocking
> > >> >> > > > (too high (boost) default shader frequency).
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > This probability I hope to estimate from the eventual
> > >> responses of
> > >> >> > another
> > >> >> > > > Amber/Titan SC users, if I am not the only crazy guy who
> > >> >> > > > bought
> > >> >> this
> > >> >> > model
> > >> >> > > > for Amber calculations :)) But of course any eventual
> > >> experiences
> > >> >> with
> > >> >> > > > Titan cards related to their memtestG80 results and
> > >> >> UNDER/OVERclocking
> > >> >> > > > (if possible in Linux OS) are of course welcomed as well !
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > My HW/SW configuration
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > motherboard: ASUS P9X79 PRO
> > >> >> > > > CPU: Intel Core i7-3930K
> > >> >> > > > RAM: CRUCIAL Ballistix Sport 32GB (4x8GB) DDR3 1600 VLP
> > >> >> > > > CASE: CoolerMaster Dominator CM-690 II Advanced,
> > >> >> > > > Power:Enermax PLATIMAX EPM1200EWT 1200W, 80+, Platinum
> > >> >> > > > GPUs : 2 x EVGA GTX TITAN Superclocked 6GB
> > >> >> > > > cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 412 SLIM
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > OS: CentOS (2.6.32-358.6.1.el6.x86_64)
> > >> >> > > > driver version: 319.17
> > >> >> > > > cudatoolkit_5.0.35_linux_64_rhel6.x
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > The computer is in air-conditioned room with permanent
> > >> >> > > > external
> > >> >> > > > temperature around 18°C
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Thanks a lot in advance for any comment/experience !
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Best wishes,
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Marek
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > --
> > >> >> > > > Tato zpráva byla vytvořena převratným poštovním klientem
> > >> >> > > > Opery:
> > >> >> > > > http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > _______________________________________________
> > >> >> > > > AMBER mailing list
> > >> >> > > > AMBER.ambermd.org
> > >> >> > > > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> >> > > AMBER mailing list
> > >> >> > > AMBER.ambermd.org
> > >> >> > > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> >> > AMBER mailing list
> > >> >> > AMBER.ambermd.org
> > >> >> > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > >> >> AMBER mailing list
> > >> >> AMBER.ambermd.org
> > >> >> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> > >> >>
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > AMBER mailing list
> > >> > AMBER.ambermd.org
> > >> > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> > >> >
> > >> > __________ Informace od ESET NOD32 Antivirus, verze databaze 8385
> > >> > (20130528) __________
> > >> >
> > >> > Tuto zpravu proveril ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> > >> >
> > >> > http://www.eset.cz
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Tato zpráva byla vytvořena převratným poštovním klientem Opery:
> > >> http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> AMBER mailing list
> > >> AMBER.ambermd.org
> > >> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > AMBER mailing list
> > > AMBER.ambermd.org
> > > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> > >
> > > __________ Informace od ESET NOD32 Antivirus, verze databaze 8386
> > > (20130528) __________
> > >
> > > Tuto zpravu proveril ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> > >
> > > http://www.eset.cz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tato zpráva byla vytvořena převratným poštovním klientem Opery:
> > http://www.opera.com/mail/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AMBER mailing list
> > AMBER.ambermd.org
> > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> >
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Tue May 28 2013 - 18:00:04 PDT
