Work fetch anomaly |
![]() |
| log in |
Message boards : Number crunching : Work fetch anomaly
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
No, not CUDA - relax: this is a nice boring 2.0GHz P4, single core, SSE2 workhorse running BOINC v5.10.13 (as it has for years). 14/01/2009 13:54:23||Running CPU benchmarks 14/01/2009 13:54:23||Suspending computation - running CPU benchmarks 14/01/2009 13:54:55||Benchmark results: 14/01/2009 13:54:55|| Number of CPUs: 1 14/01/2009 13:54:55|| 1036 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU 14/01/2009 13:54:55|| 1640 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU 14/01/2009 13:54:56||Resuming computation 14/01/2009 13:54:57|Einstein@Home|Resuming task h1_1097.70_S5R4__713_S5R4a_2 using einstein_S5R4 version 610 14/01/2009 15:00:39|SETI@home|Resuming task ap_16no08ab_B5_P0_00225_20090109_17418.wu_0 using astropulse version 500 ... 15/01/2009 05:55:09|SETI@home|Sending scheduler request: To fetch work 15/01/2009 05:55:09|SETI@home|Requesting 69 seconds of new work 15/01/2009 05:55:14|SETI@home|Scheduler RPC succeeded [server version 607] 15/01/2009 05:55:14|SETI@home|Deferring communication for 11 sec 15/01/2009 05:55:14|SETI@home|Reason: requested by project 15/01/2009 05:55:16|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Started download of file 16no08af.913.2526.11.8.244 15/01/2009 05:55:16|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Started download of file ap_02no08ab_B5_P1_00017_20090114_31303.wu 15/01/2009 05:55:23|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Finished download of file 16no08af.913.2526.11.8.244 15/01/2009 05:55:23|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Throughput 70130 bytes/sec 15/01/2009 05:55:23|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Started download of file ap_02no08ab_B4_P0_00191_20090114_29537.wu 15/01/2009 05:56:56|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Finished download of file ap_02no08ab_B5_P1_00017_20090114_31303.wu 15/01/2009 05:56:56|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Throughput 86135 bytes/sec 15/01/2009 05:56:56|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Started download of file ap_02no08ab_B4_P1_00099_20090114_30525.wu 15/01/2009 05:57:00|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Finished download of file ap_02no08ab_B4_P0_00191_20090114_29537.wu 15/01/2009 05:57:00|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Throughput 87255 bytes/sec 15/01/2009 05:57:00|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Started download of file ap_02no08ab_B5_P1_00014_20090114_31303.wu 15/01/2009 05:58:29|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Finished download of file ap_02no08ab_B4_P1_00099_20090114_30525.wu 15/01/2009 05:58:29|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Throughput 90566 bytes/sec 15/01/2009 05:58:29|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Started download of file ap_02no08ab_B4_P1_00098_20090114_30525.wu 15/01/2009 05:58:37|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Finished download of file ap_02no08ab_B5_P1_00014_20090114_31303.wu 15/01/2009 05:58:37|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Throughput 87265 bytes/sec 15/01/2009 05:58:37|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Started download of file 16no08af.913.2526.11.8.232 15/01/2009 05:58:47|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Finished download of file 16no08af.913.2526.11.8.232 15/01/2009 05:58:47|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Throughput 40189 bytes/sec 15/01/2009 05:58:47|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Started download of file 08no08ae.17951.2526.5.8.247 15/01/2009 05:58:54|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Finished download of file 08no08ae.17951.2526.5.8.247 15/01/2009 05:58:54|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Throughput 53030 bytes/sec 15/01/2009 05:58:54|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Started download of file 16no08af.913.2526.11.8.238 15/01/2009 05:59:05|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Finished download of file 16no08af.913.2526.11.8.238 15/01/2009 05:59:05|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Throughput 38955 bytes/sec 15/01/2009 05:59:28|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Finished download of file ap_02no08ab_B4_P1_00098_20090114_30525.wu 15/01/2009 05:59:28|SETI@home|[file_xfer] Throughput 142266 bytes/sec So the SETI server thinks my humble P4 can do 5 Astropulse tasks and 4 MB tasks in 69 seconds, all on a single core shared with Einstein????? Boincview has it calculated as a more realistic 25 days. And I only asked for 1 day. Raistmer and Jason, help! My P4 needs you.... | |
| ID: 853921 · | |
|
Hi , yes that is quite optimistic and maybe 1 of the reasons, why BOINC 6.4.5. is written. | |
| ID: 853927 · | |
Can you look into your client_state.xml and let us know what the duration correction factor is for SETI? ____________ | |
| ID: 853939 · | |
<time_stats> <on_frac>0.994240</on_frac> <connected_frac>-1.000000</connected_frac> <active_frac>0.999917</active_frac> <cpu_efficiency>0.919307</cpu_efficiency> <last_update>1232056125.233749</last_update> </time_stats> efficiency is low because this is my BoincView logger, primary browser, email client - heavy use daily driver. All normal. SETI DCF is 0.190565 (client_state), 0.1906 (BV) - absolutely normal (I tend to run one optimisation step beyond current release, as part of Lunatics testing program) Einstein has 16-18 hours still to run on new S5R5, but looks normal. No extra WUs cached - I think I'd better stop work fetch on both projects while this lot work through. Einstein fetched that task lunchtime yesterday (14/01/2009 12:12:56|Einstein@Home|Requesting 11 seconds of new work), and started it lunchtime today (15/01/2009 13:28:48|Einstein@Home|Starting task h1_0589.80_S5R4__701_S5R5a_1 using einstein_S5R5 version 301) - exactly in line with my 1-day cache setting. As you might guess, I know this system very well indeed, and I've always known what to expect from BOINC running on it. This event is outside all previous experience, and it happened while I was asleep in bed - missed all the fun, darn it! And before anyone asks, no, it isn't running in high priority (EDF) - just quietly getting on with things, exactly as BOINC should. | |
| ID: 853951 · | |
|
Hmmmm... | |
| ID: 853956 · | |
|
Sorry, should have posted a link for the host: 1791152. Yep, that creation date of 26 Nov 2005 14:22:39 UTC is absolutely genuine - it was one of the first hosts I migrated from Classic, when I got the closedown circular. I actually gave it a bit of a spring-clean last weekend, upgraded the RAM from 512MB to 1GB (first hardware upgrade since I bought it), and finally got round to installing SP3 for XP. Not that that would make any difference. | |
| ID: 853963 · | |
Maybe it's just me, but the "connected frac" looks really odd. Shouldn't it be between 0 and 1, not less than zero?? ____________ | |
| ID: 854009 · | |
|
Simply put, connected_frac was broken through at least 5.10.38. As far as I know, it still doesn't work. | |
| ID: 854028 · | |
Maybe it's just me, but the "connected frac" looks really odd. Shouldn't it be between 0 and 1, not less than zero?? connected_frac = -1 means "I don't know how often you're connected". This AFAIK depends on how you're connected to the net, and your OS. If not mis-remembers, it's always shown only -1 for me, atleast upto v5.10.45. No idea on v6... ____________ "I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might." | |
| ID: 854147 · | |
Maybe it's just me, but the "connected frac" looks really odd. Shouldn't it be between 0 and 1, not less than zero?? Most of my machines are on routers, so have a 100% ethernet connection at least for the first hop. I do have one machine on a DSL modem on a rather poor line, which keeps dropping out. The connected frac for that machine, with BOINC v6.2.19, is showing as 64.4344%, which is probably about right for when it's switched on (part-time cruncher). | |
| ID: 854153 · | |
Message boards : Number crunching : Work fetch anomaly
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |