you need to match up simalar computers (speed).
It takes about 3 day for my rig to do one astrpulse work unit @ 750 plus credits, paired up with a rig that takes 3 to 4 weeks. I stopped doing astropulse.

---

You stopped doing Astropulse because you won't get credit right away?

Awww, poor baby.

My Windows machine Cruiser does Astropulse units in a little over a day (~29 hours) and I still do them. I have waited nearly two months for credit on a couple of them. Then again, I'm not a credit-monger. I figure that Astropulse might actually help find an alien signal some day.

---

Cruiser
Gateway GT5692 L-f-S Edition
-Phenom X4 9650 CPU
-4GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM
-500GB SATA HD
-Vista x64 SP1
-BOINC 6.2.19 32-bit client
-SSE3 optimized 32-bit apps

you need to match up simalar computers (speed).
It takes about 3 day for my rig to do one astrpulse work unit @ 750 plus credits, paired up with a rig that takes 3 to 4 weeks. I stopped doing astropulse.

My rig knocks out an AP WU in about 12.2 hours. Is it fair that I should have to wait for you?

If you look at S@H as a search for interesting astronomical phenomena and/or a gigantic experiment in Distributed Computing then the credits can take care of themselves.

F.

---

you need to match up simalar computers (speed).
It takes about 3 day for my rig to do one astrpulse work unit @ 750 plus credits, paired up with a rig that takes 3 to 4 weeks. I stopped doing astropulse.

Can't tell if you use them or not since your pc's are hidden but try using the optimized apps for AP if you're not already. They make a significant difference in the time it takes to complete them. If your system qualifies it's worth looking into.

---

my rig

AMD 6400+ Black Box Edition, zalman 9700 HS (can be upgraded to quad core)
ASUS Crosshair MB
8 Gig's ( 2 gig each) xms2 dhx matched pairs 800 Corsair mem
2 Seagate sata's 320 & 500 Gig
HP 20x DVD burner
nv 8800gts512oc ddr3 vid
Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Professional Series sound card
antec 650 watt ps
antec 900 case, 4 fans (can add 2 more)
vista ulta 64


you need to match up simalar computers (speed).
It takes about 3 day for my rig to do one astrpulse work unit @ 750 plus credits, paired up with a rig that takes 3 to 4 weeks. I stopped doing astropulse.

---

my rig

AMD 6400+ Black Box Edition, zalman 9700 HS (can be upgraded to quad core)
ASUS Crosshair MB
8 Gig's ( 2 gig each) xms2 dhx matched pairs 800 Corsair mem
2 Seagate sata's 320 & 500 Gig
HP 20x DVD burner
nv 8800gts512oc ddr3 vid
Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Professional Series sound card
antec 650 watt ps
antec 900 case, 4 fans (can add 2 more)
vista ulta 64


you need to match up simalar computers (speed).
It takes about 3 day for my rig to do one astrpulse work unit @ 750 plus credits, paired up with a rig that takes 3 to 4 weeks. I stopped doing astropulse.

About 10 hours on the Frozen Penny......but I quit doing them because the credits are not up to par with opti MB........

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

my rig

AMD 6400+ Black Box Edition, zalman 9700 HS (can be upgraded to quad core)
ASUS Crosshair MB
8 Gig's ( 2 gig each) xms2 dhx matched pairs 800 Corsair mem
2 Seagate sata's 320 & 500 Gig
HP 20x DVD burner
nv 8800gts512oc ddr3 vid
Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Professional Series sound card
antec 650 watt ps
antec 900 case, 4 fans (can add 2 more)
vista ulta 64


you need to match up simalar computers (speed).
It takes about 3 day for my rig to do one astrpulse work unit @ 750 plus credits, paired up with a rig that takes 3 to 4 weeks. I stopped doing astropulse.

It is a known issue that AstroPulse takes longer on AMD CPUs than Intel's. Personally, I'm not a big fan of matching up similar speed computers just so people can have their credit faster.

It is a known issue that AstroPulse takes longer on AMD CPUs than Intel's. Personally, I'm not a big fan of matching up similar speed computers just so people can have their credit faster.

I agree. Besides, it would add a bunch more overhead on the database which is already overloaded with needed queeries. Why add even more dependencies on the servers that are already constantly running into bottlenecks.

---

Boinc V7.2.42
Win7 i5 3.33G 4GB, GTX470

you need to match up simalar computers (speed).
It takes about 3 day for my rig to do one astrpulse work unit @ 750 plus credits, paired up with a rig that takes 3 to 4 weeks. I stopped doing astropulse.

They will never speed-match crunchers like you want. It adds too much overhead to the process, and their servers are hard-pressed as it is.

You do realize that some machines are really slow at regular Multibeam units too, right? Does that mean that you'll quit doing those too? You won't get that credit right away either...

If you really want to have someone add this to the features, post something in the Questions and Answers - Wish List section. It's not likely to be added, but it is where this topic should be placed.

---

Cruiser
Gateway GT5692 L-f-S Edition
-Phenom X4 9650 CPU
-4GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM
-500GB SATA HD
-Vista x64 SP1
-BOINC 6.2.19 32-bit client
-SSE3 optimized 32-bit apps

From the 14th of october I stress tested my computer for 2 weeks 24/7 100% cpu usage. It got me near to 2100 rac with MB only.Nice to see . I'm throteling back to 5/24 50% and I will only do Astropulse for the next month at least because the science looks more interesting. Credits are just a sideshow for me. The first WU I will do full throtle cause the wingman of the guy wich already completed it let him down so he'll get his credits by tomorrow.:-)
Looks like it gonna take another 12 hours wich make a total of 18.5 estimated.

you need to match up simalar computers (speed).

Yeah - Right?

And then your fast wingman has a ten day cache, and you still have to wait longer than a slower machine that does it straight away and returns a result in 3-5 days.

Its all luck of the draw. Have patience.

Certainly crunch speed is the wrong measure to be used in any discussion of credit delays. The host entries in the database have an average turnaround time for each host which would be the sensible way to match hosts, and of course the Scheduler already reads the host entry for each host which makes a request so matching need not increase database load.

                                                                Joe

Certainly crunch speed is the wrong measure to be used in any discussion of credit delays. The host entries in the database have an average turnaround time for each host which would be the sensible way to match hosts, and of course the Scheduler already reads the host entry for each host which makes a request so matching need not increase database load.

                                                                Joe

But wouldn't it increase the load if it had to keep looking for a host that fell within the window of "average turn around time?" So now, I request a WU, and it needs to find a WU that was doled out to another host with roughly the same turn around time, rather than simply giving me what's next in line...

I can see why people go for credits, but personally I dont care that much for credits, its cool for seeing what progress you are making but I dont specificaly go for the credits. I just enjoy helping out SETI and watching the data <Yeah I know Geeky>. But I think it is pretty cool. P.S. on my lesser computer, I got a huge spike past the top of my view in the SETI window across the frequency bar, it lasted for about 2 time slots. Is that a glitch or something on the data. This was the seti@home and not the astro pulse.

Certainly crunch speed is the wrong measure to be used in any discussion of credit delays. The host entries in the database have an average turnaround time for each host which would be the sensible way to match hosts, and of course the Scheduler already reads the host entry for each host which makes a request so matching need not increase database load.

                                                                Joe

But wouldn't it increase the load if it had to keep looking for a host that fell within the window of "average turn around time?" So now, I request a WU, and it needs to find a WU that was doled out to another host with roughly the same turn around time, rather than simply giving me what's next in line...

The feeder puts a limited number of tasks in a shared memory buffer, the Scheduler assigns them from there as hosts request work. So all that's needed is separate buffers for hosts in different turnaround time classes. The Homogeneous Redundancy feature which some projects use is set up that way, and new criteria for classifying hosts can be added. IOW, most of the needed capability already exists in BOINC. OTOH, when Matt made a recent change to the feeder settings to smooth out the bursts of AP work which were causing difficulties, he mentioned some concern about the shared memory buffers. That suggests the scheme might not be practical for this project.

                                                                Joe

I was just wondering what is Astropulse? It seem to take a very long time to process it. I'm using P4 3.6 with HT and run it 24/7 at 100%. It has been running now for over 3 days and its only at 34% is that correct? How big is this work unit. I'm not worrying about the credit but I want to know is there something wrong or is it a bad computation, is that why its taking so long to complete? Thanks Clue :-)

I was just wondering what is Astropulse? It seem to take a very long time to process it. I'm using P4 3.6 with HT and run it 24/7 at 100%. It has been running now for over 3 days and its only at 34% is that correct? How big is this work unit. I'm not worrying about the credit but I want to know is there something wrong or is it a bad computation, is that why its taking so long to complete? Thanks Clue :-)

Hello The Clue is in front of you.

The clue in front of you is: Astropulse FAQ.

I was just wondering what is Astropulse? It seem to take a very long time to process it. I'm using P4 3.6 with HT and run it 24/7 at 100%. It has been running now for over 3 days and its only at 34% is that correct? How big is this work unit. I'm not worrying about the credit but I want to know is there something wrong or is it a bad computation, is that why its taking so long to complete? Thanks Clue :-)

On my AMD Opteron 1210 at 1.8 GHz running Linux the standard AP takes 115 hours. The optimized version takes 55 hours, but AP is very AMD-unfriendly.
Tullio

---

Thanks for the help. :-)

---

Went to google to see if there was anything concerning AstroPulse AMD and increased time (which led me to this thread). :-/

About a month ago, had an astropulse on my machine, interesting to see one and for curiousities sake, watched as time progressed to see what happened. It originally began at some smaller value like 100 hours and slowly increased until 200+ when done. The end result turned-out to be miscalculated waste of time. :-/

Today, I happened to see my machine processing another Astropulse (I upgraded from boinc 6.2 to 6.4 a few days ago), and I again see that this Astropulse is also slowly increasing in time too. The left side now at 139hours processed while the right side shows 90 hours still to do, but the right side is increasing (time to go).

Is that normal behaviour for time to increase?
This is for an AMD Sempron machine if that info helps.
Stats for this machine are here if that helps: www.joescat.com/boinc/