Message boards :
Number crunching :
After 24 hours of waiting, my first WU returned
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
D. Drake Send message Joined: 21 Aug 01 Posts: 23 Credit: 1,866 RAC: 0 |
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 Send message Joined: 15 Jul 99 Posts: 24806 Credit: 790,712 RAC: 0 |
> 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 Send message Joined: 29 Mar 03 Posts: 1137 Credit: 5,334,063 RAC: 0 |
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> |
Jaaku Send message Joined: 29 Oct 02 Posts: 494 Credit: 346,224 RAC: 0 |
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 Send message Joined: 2 Aug 03 Posts: 71 Credit: 1,337,642 RAC: 0 |
> 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 Send message Joined: 29 Mar 03 Posts: 1137 Credit: 5,334,063 RAC: 0 |
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] |
D. Drake Send message Joined: 21 Aug 01 Posts: 23 Credit: 1,866 RAC: 0 |
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 Send message Joined: 2 Aug 03 Posts: 71 Credit: 1,337,642 RAC: 0 |
> 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? |
ror Send message Joined: 3 Jun 04 Posts: 28 Credit: 3,020 RAC: 0 |
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. |
Keck_Komputers Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 1575 Credit: 4,152,111 RAC: 1 |
>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 Send message Joined: 19 Mar 02 Posts: 1856 Credit: 40,736 RAC: 0 |
> 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. |
D. Drake Send message Joined: 21 Aug 01 Posts: 23 Credit: 1,866 RAC: 0 |
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> |
Lions Paw Principia Send message Joined: 14 May 99 Posts: 1 Credit: 3,696,429 RAC: 33 |
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 Send message Joined: 19 Mar 02 Posts: 1856 Credit: 40,736 RAC: 0 |
> 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. |
©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.