After 24 hours of waiting, my first WU returned


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : After 24 hours of waiting, my first WU returned

Author Message
Profile D. Drake
Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 01
Posts: 23
Credit: 1,866
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1824 - Posted: 25 Jun 2004, 11:27:02 UTC

Pending credit: 49.42

Took 24 realtime hours and 4 CPU hours, but there it is. Is that the kind of number I can expect per result?

Also, according to my stats page, I am active at my computer 99.992% of the time or something. Does BOINC cede to even Windows core functions? I sure won't be cranking out 4-6 per day at this rate! Ah, well... quality over quantity I always say (when I am lagging behind the pack anyway ).
<p> </p>

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24694
Credit: 522,659
RAC: 19
United States
Message 1826 - Posted: 25 Jun 2004, 11:35:43 UTC - in response to Message 1824.

> Pending credit: 49.42
>
> Took 24 realtime hours and 4 CPU hours, but there it is. Is that the kind of
> number I can expect per result?
>
> Also, according to my stats page, I am active at my computer 99.992% of the
> time or something. Does BOINC cede to even Windows core functions? I sure
> won't be cranking out 4-6 per day at this rate! Ah, well... quality over
> quantity I always say (when I am lagging behind the pack anyway ).

Please look at task manager and see what task you have running that is taking all of the CPU time. On my machines that are not doing something else, I get about 99% crunch time. There are a couple of settings on the web page for your account that change the behavour when you are actively working.

STE\/E [BlackOps]
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 29 Mar 03
Posts: 1137
Credit: 3,233,449
RAC: 160
Message 1829 - Posted: 25 Jun 2004, 11:46:29 UTC
Last modified: 25 Jun 2004, 11:46:50 UTC

Yes, I would do what John says and check your Task Manager for running processes. It shouldn't take you that long to run a WU unless you are constantly using your PC for something else.

One of my PC's is a PIII 850 & I can knock WU's out in about 8-9 hr's with it so yours should be faster than that I would think...

<a>

Profile Jaaku
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Oct 02
Posts: 494
Credit: 346,224
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1834 - Posted: 25 Jun 2004, 11:50:26 UTC
Last modified: 25 Jun 2004, 11:50:57 UTC

nice one :D
Im on my 5th and waiting 1 to go to total credit as all of use have done the WU cant wait :) ( I must be sad )


Jaaku
I laughted so hard i railed myself Q]|[A

Nuwanda
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 03
Posts: 71
Credit: 1,191,971
RAC: 0
United Arab Emirates
Message 1835 - Posted: 25 Jun 2004, 11:52:56 UTC - in response to Message 1824.

> Pending credit: 49.42
>
> Took 24 realtime hours and 4 CPU hours, but there it is. Is that the kind of
> number I can expect per result?
>
> Also, according to my stats page, I am active at my computer 99.992% of the
> time or something. Does BOINC cede to even Windows core functions? I sure
> won't be cranking out 4-6 per day at this rate! Ah, well... quality over
> quantity I always say (when I am lagging behind the pack anyway ).
> <p>
>

4-6 units sounds about right for the avg comp...my 3000+xp crunches at just under 3hrs. what specs are ur comp at?

STE\/E [BlackOps]
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 29 Mar 03
Posts: 1137
Credit: 3,233,449
RAC: 160
Message 1838 - Posted: 25 Jun 2004, 11:56:37 UTC

4-6 units sounds about right for the avg comp...my 3000+xp crunches at just under 3hrs. what specs are ur comp at?
==========

3 hr's is about what my P4 HT CPU's put them out in, but it puts 2 out each time in that amount of time ... ;)

[url=http://www.boinc.dk/index.php?page=user_statistics&userid=13139]

Profile D. Drake
Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 01
Posts: 23
Credit: 1,866
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1912 - Posted: 25 Jun 2004, 14:21:16 UTC - in response to Message 1838.

AMD Athalon XP 2100+ @ 1.73 GHz with 256MB RAM. It has L1 and L2 cache, but I couldn't tell you what their configurations are... The 4-6 units I did in the past were on Classic. I'm churning out a pathetic 1 unit a day right now with boinc. I don't see any stats in the GUI saying if it was larger than a classic WU as I understand some can be.

In reply to earlier posts, I am looking at task manager and seti is running 99% and every couple of seconds iexplore.exe will grab a chunk of 2-5% (guess that's me typing in here, eh?) I think my main problem might be RAM... Seti, iexplore.exe and explorer.exe have a combined total of 48MB before you even start getting into all these services that run with XP. Although it does say I have 113MB free RAM right now...

I did have the screensaver set (which I just turned off). Since I have it set in my prefs to run when I'm not using it, there's no sense in the saver running I assume. The pretty graphics are going to bite a huge chunk of my processor.

> 4-6 units sounds about right for the avg comp...my 3000+xp crunches at just
> under 3hrs. what specs are ur comp at?
> ==========
>
> 3 hr's is about what my P4 HT CPU's put them out in, but it puts 2 out each
> time in that amount of time ... ;)
>

<p> </p>

Nuwanda
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 03
Posts: 71
Credit: 1,191,971
RAC: 0
United Arab Emirates
Message 1963 - Posted: 25 Jun 2004, 16:14:15 UTC - in response to Message 1912.

> AMD Athalon XP 2100+ @ 1.73 GHz with 256MB RAM. It has L1 and L2 cache, but I
> couldn't tell you what their configurations are... The 4-6 units I did in the
> past were on Classic. I'm churning out a pathetic 1 unit a day right now with
> boinc. I don't see any stats in the GUI saying if it was larger than a classic
> WU as I understand some can be.
>
> In reply to earlier posts, I am looking at task manager and seti is running
> 99% and every couple of seconds iexplore.exe will grab a chunk of 2-5% (guess
> that's me typing in here, eh?) I think my main problem might be RAM... Seti,
> iexplore.exe and explorer.exe have a combined total of 48MB before you even
> start getting into all these services that run with XP. Although it does say I
> have 113MB free RAM right now...
>
> I did have the screensaver set (which I just turned off). Since I have it set
> in my prefs to run when I'm not using it, there's no sense in the saver
> running I assume. The pretty graphics are going to bite a huge chunk of my
> processor.
>
> > 4-6 units sounds about right for the avg comp...my 3000+xp crunches at
> just
> > under 3hrs. what specs are ur comp at?
> > ==========
> >
> > 3 hr's is about what my P4 HT CPU's put them out in, but it puts 2 out
> each
> > time in that amount of time ... ;)
> >
>
> <p>
>


seti runs at 99 on my comp nearly all the time except one or twice when i open up a cpu intensive proggy like photoshop cs or ut2k4 :)...but then again i got 1gb of ram so that aint a problem here. u might want to look into getting some more ram...u'll need it anyway. but 1 unit per day isnt good! even my p3 600mhz pulls out atleast 2 and a half units a day. both my comps crunch at the same rate as seti classic so why is there such a big difference on urs?

Profile ror
Send message
Joined: 3 Jun 04
Posts: 28
Credit: 3,020
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1968 - Posted: 25 Jun 2004, 16:20:24 UTC - in response to Message 1963.

Assume the CPU time is correct, that means that your computer is 80% idling, probably because of SETI not crunching when it should be.

I'd suggest watching task manager for 5-10 minutes and sort by CPU usage and watch what happens as you leave it and/or you do stuff.

Profile Keck_Komputers
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 1575
Credit: 1,740,728
RAC: 717
United States
Message 2031 - Posted: 25 Jun 2004, 18:35:12 UTC

>Also, according to my stats page, I am active at my computer 99.992% of the
>time or something.

That time stat actually means the time the BOINC client is active (running & not suspended). The wording on the web site is a bit confusing.

John Keck
testing BOINC since 2002/12/08

Heffed
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 19 Mar 02
Posts: 1856
Credit: 40,736
RAC: 0
United States
Message 2135 - Posted: 25 Jun 2004, 20:59:40 UTC - in response to Message 1912.

> I don't see any stats in the GUI saying if it was larger than a classic
> WU as I understand some can be.

It's not that the WUs are bigger, it can do more processing than S@H 1.

Profile D. Drake
Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 01
Posts: 23
Credit: 1,866
RAC: 0
United States
Message 2265 - Posted: 26 Jun 2004, 4:59:28 UTC

I'm just confused is all. S@H Classic was running smoothly from the day I joined in August 2001, except for the occassional server belch, etc. It would grab a WU, sink it's teeth in and go, then send it back and start again after just a few seconds idle to do the transfers. Since I wasn't around at it's launch, I didn't see the problems and frustrations I am seeing now, problems that I am sure probably equal this launch of BOINC. In comparison, it feels like I just removed Windows XP Pro and installed MS-DOS 3.0.

Once it has the kinks out, BOINC is probably going to run circles around the Classic in actual value of work. I just erringly assumed that since Classic was awesome (I thought), that BOINC would be stunning from the start.

Have a nice weekend, folks. I'm going to waste my idle CPU time playing some Metal Of Honor I think. :o)

<p> </p>

Profile Lions Paw Principia
Send message
Joined: 14 May 99
Posts: 1
Credit: 2,194,522
RAC: 0
United States
Message 2270 - Posted: 26 Jun 2004, 5:08:50 UTC - in response to Message 2265.

I fully agree- S@H classic has a good interface, we are used to it, why couldn't they copy the general format? Just change the necessary Units on the stats (at least as far as the user interface is concerned this should have made it an easy transformation. It all seems so easy when you don't have to write the code.

Heffed
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 19 Mar 02
Posts: 1856
Credit: 40,736
RAC: 0
United States
Message 2275 - Posted: 26 Jun 2004, 5:28:40 UTC - in response to Message 2270.

> I fully agree- S@H classic has a good interface, we are used to it, why
> couldn't they copy the general format? Just change the necessary Units on the
> stats (at least as far as the user interface is concerned this should have
> made it an easy transformation. It all seems so easy when you don't have to
> write the code.

The reason being that S@H classic just didn't have enough flexibility. That was the driving force behind creating BOINC.

The concept that you can send the executable for the WU being processed is enormously powerful. With classic, work could only come from Arecibo, and only from the normal lower res electronics normally employed by S@H.

With BOINC, you can be sent WUs from another observatory using a different equipment loadout. An .exe can be written to process this different form of data, then sent out previous to the WUs from this observatory. No re-write of any of the supporting code, as it would take with classic.

Even better, it doesn't even have to be radio telescope data. Any project (such as folding@home) can use the same basic framework (the BOINC core client) to send out their own WUs, and .exe to process said WUs.

What a deal!

So, as you can see, the difference in complexity between the BOINC concept and S@H classic is quite large. Nothing like this has been done before. Even the experience of S@H classic couldn't prepare them for a project like this.

That said, I do think they could have planned a bit better for the "launch". They should have expected the amount of users, and the way they didn't even mention to us in beta until after they released it was lame, but that's all water under the bridge. Lets just make the best of it. OK? :)

Complaining really doesn't help anybody.

Message boards : Number crunching : After 24 hours of waiting, my first WU returned

Copyright © 2014 University of California