Message boards :
Number crunching :
Quick Workunit
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Jord Send message Joined: 9 Jun 99 Posts: 15184 Credit: 4,362,181 RAC: 3 |
SETI@home - 2004-09-14 00:08:19 - Starting result 26ap04aa.4387.6961.386086.165_0 using setiathome version 4.03 SETI@home - 2004-09-14 00:09:07 - Computation for result 26ap04aa.4387.6961.386086.165 finished 72 seconds. Must be a worldrecord. Too bad I can't check the unit on the site though, just wondering if I got a noisy unit again. But as it seems, they are still out there. ;) ---------------------- Jordâ„¢ <img><img><img> |
Spacebadger Send message Joined: 25 Jul 04 Posts: 13 Credit: 11,306 RAC: 0 |
Yep i think youre right about noisy unit. I have had a couple that were done in the 20 second range. |
Tim Rieck Send message Joined: 3 Jun 99 Posts: 7 Credit: 398,993 RAC: 0 |
I have had a few short wu in the past and have no idea why. But whats really weird is I just had two wu that took forever to crunch, one was over 30 hours and the one that followed was over 70 hours. They usually take 11-13 hours to crunch, and the one being worked on now looks normal again. Can someone elaborate alittle for me about how/why this happens? Thanks |
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 19 Jul 00 Posts: 3898 Credit: 1,158,042 RAC: 0 |
> I have had a few short wu in the past and have no idea why. > But whats really weird is I just had two wu that took forever to crunch, one > was over 30 hours and the one that followed was over 70 hours. They usually > take 11-13 hours to crunch, and the one being worked on now looks normal > again. > Can someone elaborate alittle for me about how/why this happens? > Thanks Did you turn on the screen saver? What was the angle range of the work units (There is a chart in the SETI FAQ that talks to this) Did you join more projects? When minimized, which tab was present when the BOINC Work Manager was minimizzed? There may be more, but these are a few of the things that may be able to explain part of the differences... Click on my signature to get the documentation menu ... <p> Click Me! |
texasfit Send message Joined: 11 May 03 Posts: 223 Credit: 500,626 RAC: 0 |
>When minimized, which tab was present when the BOINC Work Manager was minimizzed? > > Paul Does this really make a difference? Which Tab should be present when minimized to the tray? ---------- Join the Overclockers.com SETI Team! |
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 19 Jul 00 Posts: 3898 Credit: 1,158,042 RAC: 0 |
> >When minimized, which tab was present when the BOINC Work Manager was > minimizzed? > > > > > > Paul > Does this really make a difference? Which Tab should be present when > minimized to the tray? I have no conclusive proof, just rumor control that if set to Disk or Work, the GUI keeps updateing the panes even while minimized. THis may be urban legend... I do not know for sure. I usually set mine to Projects now. You can see some of the other factors in the SETI FAQ I wrote ... click on signature to get started ... <p> For BOINC Documentaion: Click Me! |
texasfit Send message Joined: 11 May 03 Posts: 223 Credit: 500,626 RAC: 0 |
> > >When minimized, which tab was present when the BOINC Work Manager > was > > minimizzed? > > > > > > > > > > Paul > > Does this really make a difference? Which Tab should be present when > > minimized to the tray? > > I have no conclusive proof, just rumor control that if set to Disk or Work, > the GUI keeps updateing the panes even while minimized. THis may be urban > legend... I do not know for sure. I usually set mine to Projects now. > > You can see some of the other factors in the SETI FAQ I wrote ... click on > signature to get started ... > <p> > > I usually have mine on the message tab when I minimize. Might just test this theory due to my curious nature. I do refer to your documentation quit often. Have read almost all of the 7387 pages. :-) Very well done, by the way. Thanks!! ---------- Join the Overclockers.com SETI Team! |
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 19 Jul 00 Posts: 3898 Credit: 1,158,042 RAC: 0 |
> I do refer to your documentation quit often. Have read almost all of the 7387 > pages. :-) Very well done, by the way. Thanks!! Keep reading ... it changes almost all the time. Health permitting I do up to 12 hours a day working on it ... The big project underway right now is to finish most of the BOINC Web Site Owner's Manual updated with the available projects ... If you want to help, criticize the work, it keeps me on my toes. And it is only 7385 pages .... :) The best news is that I am below 300 broken links (out of 14,000 and change) and almost half of the pages still pass W3C testing (I try to fix a couple a day to improve my numbers there too). <p> For BOINC Documentaion: Click Me! |
PyroFox Send message Joined: 5 Apr 03 Posts: 155 Credit: 213,891 RAC: 0 |
yup. had 4 of those recently. I thought it was due to the optimized code, but I guess not, must be a fresh batch of noisy units. I'll try out the minimized tab thing too Paul, give me a week or so! (school...and processing time :P) -Fox [/url] |
Tim Rieck Send message Joined: 3 Jun 99 Posts: 7 Credit: 398,993 RAC: 0 |
Thanks for your reply Paul, > Did you turn on the screen saver? No, I never use screensaver > What was the angle range of the work units (There is a chart in the SETI FAQ > that talks to this) I have no idea about this angle range > Did you join more projects? No, I have no interest in the other projects > When minimized, which tab was present when the BOINC Work Manager was > minimizzed? always on messages tab > There may be more, but these are a few of the things that may be able > to explain part of the differences... Thanks again, but nothing has changed on this machine to make them crunch longer. I just thought they were odd that they required that much time compared to my average crunch. I guess it's really no difference, if you can get units that are really short, why not some that take longer. |
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 19 Jul 00 Posts: 3898 Credit: 1,158,042 RAC: 0 |
> yup. had 4 of those recently. I thought it was due to the optimized code, but > I guess not, must be a fresh batch of noisy units. > > I'll try out the minimized tab thing too Paul, give me a week or so! > (school...and processing time :P) Ok, take your time ... I am sure I am still going to be here ... The rumor is that the Work and the disk tab are the worst. In theory, the panes should not be updated when minimized ... Better news is that I am sort of caught up with one of the upgrades I was trying to get done (page counters and multi-project capabilities). I still have LOTs of holes and missing images so there is plenty to do. This is the kind of thing that would go into the Performance FAQ if we can prove it out. Not that it is something that really bothers me at this time. I would much rather hear that the Mac/Linux GUI is done :) Hint! Hint! Hint! It does look like one of the other things I was interested in seeing is started too ... Good O'l Chuck ... <p> For BOINC Documentaion: Click Me! |
Papa Zito Send message Joined: 7 Feb 03 Posts: 257 Credit: 624,881 RAC: 0 |
> I have had a few short wu in the past and have no idea why. > But whats really weird is I just had two wu that took forever to crunch, one > was over 30 hours and the one that followed was over 70 hours. They usually > take 11-13 hours to crunch, and the one being worked on now looks normal > again. > Can someone elaborate alittle for me about how/why this happens? > Thanks > > Another possibility that people seem to forget about... BOINC is set to low priority in the list of things that are running on your system. This means that anything with a higher priority (which is almost everything) will pre-empt BOINC from running. So BOINC is idle while you're playing Doom or that virus you have is launching a DoS attack on the Pentagon. This is also true for any services you may have running in the background. If you add up all the little things that can take time away from BOINC, a work unit could conceivably get pushed up to that 30-70 hour range you're seeing. Then again, I could just be talking out of my butt. ------------------------------------ The game High/Low is played by tossing two nuclear warheads into the air. The one whose bomb explodes higher wins. This game is usually played by people of low intelligence, hence the name High/Low. |
PyroFox Send message Joined: 5 Apr 03 Posts: 155 Credit: 213,891 RAC: 0 |
> > yup. had 4 of those recently. I thought it was due to the optimized code, > but > > I guess not, must be a fresh batch of noisy units. > > > > I'll try out the minimized tab thing too Paul, give me a week or so! > > (school...and processing time :P) > > Ok, take your time ... I am sure I am still going to be here ... > > The rumor is that the Work and the disk tab are the worst. > > In theory, the panes should not be updated when minimized ok, quick question for 'ya paul, bu minimized do you mean that you can see BOINC in the taskbar? or the B in the system tray? I can do both, but it'll take longer... and I still hate school :P -Fox [/url] |
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 19 Jul 00 Posts: 3898 Credit: 1,158,042 RAC: 0 |
> ok, quick question for 'ya paul, bu minimized do you mean that you can see > BOINC in the taskbar? or the B in the system tray? B in the taskbar only. Minimized it will refresh the panes because it is still "open" > I can do both, but it'll take longer... and I still hate school :P Be a teacher, then you will really hate it ... :) Actually, I did teach at a couple of the local universities and it is the theing I still miss the most ... Papa, Nope, you have it right... But I have 6 computers, with two, their only task in life is BOINC ... The Mac is my workstation, and I have two HT machines of which one is for playing games (the other USED to be also, but now only does BOINC and audio work). The last one is just a file server with a 300 GByte IDE RAID for protecting files ... <p> For BOINC Documentaion: Click Me! |
TWolf Send message Joined: 24 Jun 04 Posts: 7 Credit: 24,966 RAC: 0 |
I think I had quite a lot of "quick WUs" last night. Seti is running on my server, so I don't keep much track of it. I do know that I had 50+ WUs on my server yesterday. Today I see that I only have 4. It is impossible that it did 46+ WUs in one night, since it normally takes 4 hours to crunch one. Or does anybody else have an explanation for the 'missing' WUs? AniWay, a Dutch magazine about anime & manga |
Contact Send message Joined: 16 Jan 00 Posts: 195 Credit: 2,249,004 RAC: 0 |
Bizarre. I was doing some informal testing for the 'minimized pane bug' mentioned in this thread, when i noticed that i had processed 4 quick WU's (under 10 minutes to complete). Only happened once or twice in my SETI@home Classic. First time occurence for any of my BOINC's. I believe these short WU's were the only ones that were started and completed while BOINC was minimized on Work Pane. Maybe a coincidence. But bizarre for sure. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------2004-09-14 21:49:24 [---] Starting BOINC client version 4.08 for windows_intelx86 2004-09-14 21:49:24 [SETI@home] Project prefs: no separate prefs for home; using your defaults 2004-09-14 21:49:24 [Pirates@Home] Project prefs: no separate prefs for home; using your defaults 2004-09-14 21:49:25 [SETI@home] Host ID is 173222 2004-09-14 21:49:25 [Pirates@Home] Host ID is 977 2004-09-14 21:49:25 [---] General prefs: from SETI@home (last modified 2004-09-13 16:49:13) 2004-09-14 21:49:25 [---] General prefs: no separate prefs for home; using your defaults 2004-09-14 21:49:25 [SETI@home] Resuming computation for result 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.175_2 using setiathome version 4.03 2004-09-14 21:49:48 [---] Suspending network activity - user request 2004-09-15 04:18:04 [SETI@home] Computation for result 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.175 finished 2004-09-15 04:18:04 [SETI@home] Starting result 27au03aa.10127.208.172172.206_7 using setiathome version 4.03 2004-09-15 13:54:25 [SETI@home] Computation for result 27au03aa.10127.208.172172.206 finished 2004-09-15 13:54:25 [SETI@home] Starting result 08au03ab.28481.401.934640.47_7 using setiathome version 4.03 2004-09-15 18:48:01 [---] Resuming network activity 2004-09-15 18:48:01 [---] Insufficient work; requesting more 2004-09-15 18:48:01 [SETI@home] Requesting 51749 seconds of work 2004-09-15 18:48:01 [SETI@home] Sending request to scheduler: http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/cgi 2004-09-15 18:48:04 [SETI@home] Started upload of 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.175_2_0 2004-09-15 18:48:04 [SETI@home] Started upload of 27au03aa.10127.208.172172.206_7_0 2004-09-15 18:48:10 [SETI@home] Scheduler RPC to http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/cgi succeeded 2004-09-15 18:48:10 [SETI@home] General preferences have been updated 2004-09-15 18:48:10 [---] General prefs: from SETI@home (last modified 2004-09-15 18:36:08) 2004-09-15 18:48:10 [---] General prefs: no separate prefs for home; using your defaults 2004-09-15 18:48:10 [SETI@home] Project prefs: no separate prefs for home; using your defaults 2004-09-15 18:48:10 [Pirates@Home] Sending request to scheduler: http://pirates.vassar.edu/cgi-bin/scheduler 2004-09-15 18:48:14 [SETI@home] Finished upload of 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.175_2_0 2004-09-15 18:48:14 [SETI@home] Throughput 6616 bytes/sec 2004-09-15 18:48:14 [SETI@home] Started download of 06my04ab.10554.12081.192314.188 2004-09-15 18:48:25 [SETI@home] Finished upload of 27au03aa.10127.208.172172.206_7_0 2004-09-15 18:48:25 [SETI@home] Throughput 7677 bytes/sec 2004-09-15 18:48:25 [SETI@home] Started download of 04my04aa.14406.26641.592332.126 2004-09-15 18:50:21 [---] Insufficient work; requesting more 2004-09-15 18:50:21 [SETI@home] Requesting 286332 seconds of work 2004-09-15 18:50:21 [SETI@home] Sending request to scheduler: http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/cgi 2004-09-15 18:50:39 [Pirates@Home] Sending request to scheduler: http://pirates.vassar.edu/cgi-bin/scheduler 2004-09-15 18:51:09 [SETI@home] Finished download of 06my04ab.10554.12081.192314.188 2004-09-15 18:51:09 [SETI@home] Throughput 2068 bytes/sec 2004-09-15 18:53:35 [SETI@home] Finished download of 04my04aa.14406.26641.592332.126 2004-09-15 18:53:35 [SETI@home] Throughput 1164 bytes/sec 2004-09-15 18:55:01 [---] Suspending network activity - user request 2004-09-15 23:27:39 [SETI@home] Computation for result 08au03ab.28481.401.934640.47 finished 2004-09-15 23:27:39 [SETI@home] Starting result 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.199_2 using setiathome version 4.03 2004-09-16 09:08:17 [SETI@home] Computation for result 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.199 finished 2004-09-16 09:08:17 [SETI@home] Starting result 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.184_1 using setiathome version 4.03 2004-09-16 09:16:38 [SETI@home] Computation for result 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.184 finished 2004-09-16 09:16:38 [SETI@home] Starting result 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.177_1 using setiathome version 4.03 2004-09-16 09:26:06 [SETI@home] Computation for result 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.177 finished 2004-09-16 09:26:06 [SETI@home] Starting result 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.183_0 using setiathome version 4.03 2004-09-16 09:33:34 [---] Running CPU benchmarks 2004-09-16 09:33:34 [---] Suspending computation and network activity - running CPU benchmarks 2004-09-16 09:34:36 [---] Benchmark results: 2004-09-16 09:34:36 [---] Number of CPUs: 1 2004-09-16 09:34:36 [---] 797 double precision MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU 2004-09-16 09:34:36 [---] 1428 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU 2004-09-16 09:34:36 [---] Finished CPU benchmarks 2004-09-16 09:34:37 [---] Resuming computation and network activity 2004-09-16 18:59:55 [SETI@home] Computation for result 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.183 finished 2004-09-16 18:59:55 [SETI@home] Starting result 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.176_1 using setiathome version 4.03 2004-09-16 19:08:18 [SETI@home] Computation for result 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.176 finished 2004-09-16 19:08:18 [SETI@home] Starting result 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.185_0 using setiathome version 4.03 2004-09-16 19:16:39 [SETI@home] Computation for result 05my04aa.7961.20192.384654.185 finished 2004-09-16 19:16:39 [SETI@home] Starting result 09se03ab.10549.16274.629824.76_6 using setiathome version 4.03 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For more on 'minimized pane bug' see this possibly related thread: a bug, feature?? |
texasfit Send message Joined: 11 May 03 Posts: 223 Credit: 500,626 RAC: 0 |
I have noticed in the past couple of days that I have been having a couple of these wu's that finish in the sub 10 minute range. I first thought there may have been an error but when I checked the stderr.txt file there was nothing listed. I started looking for these more closely and they are showing up on both of my Boinc PC's which leads me to believe that during all the software/hardware issues we have had there appear to be some bad wu's. We know that if there is static or interference that the program with stop processing the wu. May have been the splitter or just the SNAP 18000 scheduler with some sort of corruption. We did have quite a few issues with MD5 errors over the past few weeks, also. Could all be related, but all this is just speculation on my part. ---------- Join the Overclockers.com SETI Team! |
texasfit Send message Joined: 11 May 03 Posts: 223 Credit: 500,626 RAC: 0 |
The quick wu's seem to have gone away. Anyone else noticed this?? A couple of things I noticed which may have caused these. 1.) The wu's that the under 10 min were from downloads of 9th/10th which was just after one of the hardware issues. 2.) I have upgraded to v4.09 from v4.05 and at that time started processing wu's that were downloaded on the 12th. ---------- Join the Overclockers.com SETI Team! |
Papa Zito Send message Joined: 7 Feb 03 Posts: 257 Credit: 624,881 RAC: 0 |
> The quick wu's seem to have gone away. Anyone else noticed this?? > > A couple of things I noticed which may have caused these. > 1.) The wu's that the under 10 min were from downloads of 9th/10th which was > just after one of the hardware issues. > 2.) I have upgraded to v4.09 from v4.05 and at that time started processing > wu's that were downloaded on the 12th. > ---------- Closest I've come were a couple WUs that were done in an hour and a half. Normally they take 3 hours. ------------------------------------ The game High/Low is played by tossing two nuclear warheads into the air. The one whose bomb explodes higher wins. This game is usually played by people of low intelligence, hence the name High/Low. |
Julian Send message Joined: 19 Jul 99 Posts: 75 Credit: 2,470,428 RAC: 0 |
I am not convinced this is a noisy unit problem I think it is something to do with a bug in Boinc or SETI. I have had the same thing for 4 days running on one machine out of the 15+ running at the moment. I have tried reinstalling and will look on Monday at deinstalling then deleting entire directory before reinstalling. I would say the odds of one system loading about 200 dodgy files is unlikely. (Before I get it in the next for letting it grab and waste these units I teach and have had no free time since Tuesday and the system is some way on the site! |
©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.