We've seen this at PGR and INV now. The number of sequences will sometimes drop precipitously, or bounce back and forth between normal and not. The rx_signal_processing log shows the problem to be a drastic increase in the time to transfer samples between the ringbuffer and the GPU, reasons unknown. Theo noticed that at INV the swap was sometimes full when this occurred, and decreasing the reliance on swap for the computer made the problem go away temporarily. The most recent occurrence (today, at PGR) did not have an increased usage of swap. Unsure what the core problem is here, but the ringbuffer being moved into swap is certainly still a possibility. We may be able to move the entire ringbuffer into pinned memory (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5736968/why-is-cuda-pinned-memory-so-fast) to avoid swapping and increase reliability. I'm not sure why this has only recently become an issue, and only on some sites (namely, those that haven't been updated this year? coincidence?).
We've seen this at PGR and INV now. The number of sequences will sometimes drop precipitously, or bounce back and forth between normal and not. The
rx_signal_processinglog shows the problem to be a drastic increase in the time to transfer samples between the ringbuffer and the GPU, reasons unknown. Theo noticed that at INV the swap was sometimes full when this occurred, and decreasing the reliance on swap for the computer made the problem go away temporarily. The most recent occurrence (today, at PGR) did not have an increased usage of swap. Unsure what the core problem is here, but the ringbuffer being moved into swap is certainly still a possibility. We may be able to move the entire ringbuffer into pinned memory (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5736968/why-is-cuda-pinned-memory-so-fast) to avoid swapping and increase reliability. I'm not sure why this has only recently become an issue, and only on some sites (namely, those that haven't been updated this year? coincidence?).