Running time estimates

Questions and Answers : Preferences : Running time estimates
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Tom Gutman

Send message
Joined: 20 Jul 00
Posts: 48
Credit: 219,500
RAC: 0
United States
Message 6244 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 21:39:18 UTC

Are the new time estimates for real? Units used to be estimated at abut 3.5 hours. That was fairly reasonable, with actual time varying from about 2.5 hours to 5 hours. Suddenly the last two units came with estimates of 21 hours. Have the work units changed, so that these are reasonable, or has something gone bonkers with the estimation mechanism? I checked my CPU, and the benchmark values shown seem reasonable.
ID: 6244 · Report as offensive
Heffed
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Mar 02
Posts: 1856
Credit: 40,736
RAC: 0
United States
Message 6262 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 22:26:46 UTC

The WUs will actually process in the same length of time as a normal WU.

<a> [/url]
ID: 6262 · Report as offensive
Profile Jaaku
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Oct 02
Posts: 494
Credit: 346,224
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 6648 - Posted: 11 Jul 2004, 20:36:53 UTC

The should be back to normal, or so i have heard :)
ID: 6648 · Report as offensive
mbiker1999

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 99
Posts: 13
Credit: 33,307
RAC: 0
United States
Message 7623 - Posted: 14 Jul 2004, 10:39:19 UTC

I suspect they are doing it to throttle the number of WU's going out. Since the caching algorithms work on time, it would mean a user would d/l less number of wu's to fill the cache requirement. But that's only a guess.
ID: 7623 · Report as offensive
Heffed
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Mar 02
Posts: 1856
Credit: 40,736
RAC: 0
United States
Message 7644 - Posted: 14 Jul 2004, 11:10:31 UTC - in response to Message 7623.  

> I suspect they are doing it to throttle the number of WU's going out. Since
> the caching algorithms work on time, it would mean a user would d/l less
> number of wu's to fill the cache requirement. But that's only a guess.

No, it was a mistake that should be remedied soon.

They wouldn't need to limit downloads like that anyway. Remember, they have absolute control over how many WUs a host receives per day. There is a current limit of 50 WUs per host. They could just as easy make it 4 WUs if they wanted to limit downloads.

<a> [/url]
ID: 7644 · Report as offensive

Questions and Answers : Preferences : Running time estimates


 
©2024 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.