News from front page of Boinc

Message boards : Number crunching : News from front page of Boinc

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 3637
Credit: 14,062,323
RAC: 8,726
Canada
Message 5754 - Posted: 9 Jul 2004, 20:21:13 UTC
Last modified: 12 Jul 2004, 1:02:26 UTC

ID: 5754 · Report as offensive
Profile Liberto [Valencia]
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jul 01
Posts: 131
Credit: 29,008
RAC: 0
Spain
Message 5776 - Posted: 9 Jul 2004, 20:50:27 UTC - in response to Message 5754.  

> July 9, 2004
>
> We made the core/app interface more flexible and general, providing better
> support for applications that consist of separate controller, worker, and
> graphics programs. We also added mechanisms that prevent multiple applications
> from running in the same slot, and that cause applications to exit if the core
> client dies.

>
> http://boinc.berkeley.edu/

> byron
> Canada

Finnally we are getting an excelent information service.
Congratulations on a job well done. Keep up the good work.

One question: why are we starting to get units that show 27hrs and 30 minutes for completion time, when all the previous were showing 4:35, ????

Hope you can give us a clue.

Liberto

ID: 5776 · Report as offensive
Darren
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Jul 99
Posts: 259
Credit: 278,869
RAC: 23
United States
Message 5785 - Posted: 9 Jul 2004, 21:00:36 UTC - in response to Message 5776.  
Last modified: 9 Jul 2004, 21:01:09 UTC

> One question: why are we starting to get units that show 27hrs and 30 minutes
> for completion time, when all the previous were showing 4:35, ????

My guess would be that they skewed the estimated times to completion because of the current work unit shortage. This would prevent the people with absurdly large cache settings from downloading 40 or so work units and allow them to spread what they have around a little better.


Darren

ID: 5785 · Report as offensive
Heffed
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Mar 02
Posts: 1856
Credit: 40,736
RAC: 0
United States
Message 5797 - Posted: 9 Jul 2004, 21:12:23 UTC - in response to Message 5776.  

> One question: why are we starting to get units that show 27hrs and 30 minutes
> for completion time, when all the previous were showing 4:35, ????

The time shown is dependant on your system speed. But have you actually processed any yet? Do they actually take that long? I still have 6 WUs before I get to the ones with longer TTCs.

<a> [/url]

ID: 5797 · Report as offensive
Profile Liberto [Valencia]
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jul 01
Posts: 131
Credit: 29,008
RAC: 0
Spain
Message 5815 - Posted: 9 Jul 2004, 21:39:47 UTC - in response to Message 5797.  

> > One question: why are we starting to get units that show 27hrs and 30
> minutes
> > for completion time, when all the previous were showing 4:35, ????
>
> The time shown is dependant on your system speed. But have you actually
> processed any yet? Do they actually take that long? I still have 6 WUs before
> I get to the ones with longer TTCs.
>
> <a> [/url]
>
Well you are correct, I still need another 4 days before starting with those "special ones", at 6 units per day I will need 4 days before starting, then I'll know.

ID: 5815 · Report as offensive
Angstrom

Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 99
Posts: 205
Credit: 10,131
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 5845 - Posted: 9 Jul 2004, 23:04:46 UTC


> > One question: why are we starting to get units that show 27hrs and 30
> minutes
> > for completion time, when all the previous were showing 4:35, ????

I dont know if its the same for everybody but on my system the completion time for the long WU's is exactly 6 times that of the "normal" ones - to the second. Strange or what?

Neil

ID: 5845 · Report as offensive
Profile Michael Brennecke

Send message
Joined: 2 Apr 04
Posts: 33
Credit: 205,887
RAC: 0
United States
Message 5958 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 5:20:21 UTC

On my main PC All my WU's say 05:11:00 to completion but I always seem to get done in approx 02:00:00 hours CPU time.

I've been confused about the time to completion thing but I haven't seen any of the "super" WU's yet. Every day brings a new surprise!!!





Total: 7875.90
RAC: 555.20
Pending: Eleventy bazillion :)




~Michael
"They better be out there, I think we need their help"

ID: 5958 · Report as offensive
Heffed
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Mar 02
Posts: 1856
Credit: 40,736
RAC: 0
United States
Message 5964 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 5:52:48 UTC - in response to Message 5958.  

> On my main PC All my WU's say 05:11:00 to completion but I always seem to get
> done in approx 02:00:00 hours CPU time.
>
> I've been confused about the time to completion thing but I haven't seen any
> of the "super" WU's yet. Every day brings a new surprise!!!

Yeah, they're a bit off. The 5:11:00 is how long the scheduler thinks it should take your system based on your benchmarks. So really, it's no more than a rough estimate at present.

<a> [/url]

ID: 5964 · Report as offensive
Profile Liberto [Valencia]
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jul 01
Posts: 131
Credit: 29,008
RAC: 0
Spain
Message 5965 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 6:00:10 UTC - in response to Message 5845.  

>
> > > One question: why are we starting to get units that show 27hrs and
> 30
> > minutes
> > > for completion time, when all the previous were showing 4:35, ????
>
> I dont know if its the same for everybody but on my system the completion time
> for the long WU's is exactly 6 times that of the "normal" ones - to the
> second. Strange or what?
>
> Neil
>
Well with mine it happens that the "normal" ones say they will last some 4hrs and 32" and normally they are finished in 3:38 average; thus I assume the new ones marked with 27hrs and based on your comment of exactly 6 times the "normals" it would become some 20hrs.
But the problem starts right there; I do have 7 units of the suppossed 27 hrs, but the report deadline for all of them IS THE SAME DAY!!!!

We will have to wait and see.
Liberto

ID: 5965 · Report as offensive
srmurphy

Send message
Joined: 10 Jul 01
Posts: 62
Credit: 90,785
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 5967 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 6:03:36 UTC - in response to Message 5797.  

> The time shown is dependant on your system speed. But have you actually
> processed any yet? Do they actually take that long? I still have 6 WUs before
> I get to the ones with longer TTCs.

No it isn't.
The estimated time on my system is also 27:30.
Real time per WU is about 2:50 - 3:20.

I recognized this problem yesterday for the first time.

Greetings
Stefan

ID: 5967 · Report as offensive
Profile PyroFox
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Apr 03
Posts: 155
Credit: 213,891
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 5971 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 6:25:28 UTC

I currently have a unit in cache with a completion time of 28h 26m, but this WU downloaded while another was in progress. my WU time is usually around 3:30. thankfully i only got one ;), it should start in 2 1/2 hours so i guess we'll see what happens :|. perhaps Heffed is correct in saying
"Yeah, they're a bit off. The 5:11:00 is how long the scheduler thinks it should take your system based on your benchmarks. So really, it's no more than a rough estimate at present.". It would make sense that the completion time is high if another was being processed when this WU downloaded and benchmarked.

-PyroFox

btw, sry if I dont make sense, it's 2 am and im tired :P

ID: 5971 · Report as offensive
Profile Carl Cuseo
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Jan 02
Posts: 652
Credit: 34,312
RAC: 0
Puerto Rico
Message 5972 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 6:32:13 UTC - in response to Message 5967.  

This could be intentionallly imposed as a way of temporarily limiting the number of WU's sent out. A recent message from the developers mentioned they were sending out much more work and if , for example you want to cache 5 days worth- bumping up the projected time would help assure that everybody asking at least gets some of what there is to go around. My estimate went from 3+ hours to 20 +. I expect many need to get caught up- The recent dumping of alot of work because of the scheduler shift and death of the old URL might call for this temporary action as well. Maybe?....cc

ID: 5972 · Report as offensive
Profile Thierry Van Driessche
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 02
Posts: 3083
Credit: 150,010
RAC: 65
Belgium
Message 6018 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 9:10:22 UTC - in response to Message 5965.  
Last modified: 20 Jul 2004, 12:43:00 UTC

> But the problem starts right there; I do have 7 units of the suppossed 27 hrs,
> but the report deadline for all of them IS THE SAME DAY!!!!

The reported deadline is 14 days from the date and time the WU has been downloaded. If your 7 WU's has been downloaded the same day it is normal that the deadline is identical.

Greetings from Belgium.

ID: 6018 · Report as offensive
Profile Thierry Van Driessche
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 02
Posts: 3083
Credit: 150,010
RAC: 65
Belgium
Message 6021 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 9:15:05 UTC

I processed 4 WU's with this "long" time and the final CPU time fits within the range of the one that has been processed before.

ID: 6021 · Report as offensive
Guido_A_Waldenmeier_

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 482
Credit: 4,774
RAC: 0
Liechtenstein
Message 6023 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 9:30:53 UTC

[/url] [/url]

ID: 6023 · Report as offensive
helmel

Send message
Joined: 10 Jan 03
Posts: 24
Credit: 5,668
RAC: 0
Guam
Message 6040 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 11:02:19 UTC
Last modified: 10 Jul 2004, 11:16:45 UTC

One could try to change the values in teh client_stat.xml file.

for a "normal" wu the values are:

|workunit|
|name|01ja04aa.2129.26368.709636.238|/name|
|app_name|setiathome|/app_name|
|version_num|308|/version_num|
|command_line||/command_line|
|env_vars||/env_vars|
|rsc_fpops_est|27924800000000.000000|/rsc_fpops_est|
|rsc_fpops_bound|446797000000000.000000|/rsc_fpops_bound|
|rsc_memory_bound|33554422.000000|/rsc_memory_bound|
|rsc_disk_bound|500000.000000|/rsc_disk_bound|
|/workunit|


and for the mystery one:


|workunit|
|name|11ja04aa.29978.26002.92308.94|/name|
|app_name|setiathome|/app_name|
|version_num|308|/version_num|
|command_line||/command_line|
|env_vars||/env_vars|
|rsc_fpops_est|167548800000000.000000|/rsc_fpops_est|
|rsc_fpops_bound|2680782000000000.000000|/rsc_fpops_bound|
|rsc_memory_bound|33554422.000000|/rsc_memory_bound|
|rsc_disk_bound|500000.000000|/rsc_disk_bound|
|/workunit|

so it seems to be the values for "rsc_fpops_est" and "rsc_fpops_bound" resbonsible for the estimated completion time. so one may change the values of the abnormal one to the normal values. perhaps this should alter the estimated completion time after a restart of boinc.

ID: 6040 · Report as offensive
Profile Thierry Van Driessche
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 02
Posts: 3083
Credit: 150,010
RAC: 65
Belgium
Message 6045 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 11:12:56 UTC - in response to Message 6040.  
Last modified: 20 Jul 2004, 12:40:59 UTC

> One could try to change the values in teh client_stat.xml file.
>
> for a "normal" wu the values are:
> |workunit|
> |rsc_fpops_est|27924800000000.000000|/rsc_fpops_est|
> |rsc_fpops_bound|446797000000000.000000|/rsc_fpops_bound|

> and for the mystery one:
> |workunit|
> |rsc_fpops_est|167548800000000.000000|/rsc_fpops_est|
> |rsc_fpops_bound|2680782000000000.000000|/rsc_fpops_bound|

These numbers are exactly 6 higher.

Greetings from Belgium.

ID: 6045 · Report as offensive
Guido_A_Waldenmeier_

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 482
Credit: 4,774
RAC: 0
Liechtenstein
Message 6046 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 11:20:04 UTC

and what will this for the --NORMAL-- USER- + or-
[/url] [/url]

ID: 6046 · Report as offensive

Message boards : Number crunching : News from front page of Boinc


 
©2016 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.