Message boards :
Technical News :
Mirror (Feb 26 2009)
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2
Author | Message |
---|---|
Bryan Price Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3 Credit: 509,972 RAC: 0 |
Oh, I didn't see your post, Bryan. It's only my first post! :-p LOL! It's also my second account, but who's counting... :/ I didn't think to capture the traffic to see if it was already being compressed. Duh! |
Bryan Price Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3 Credit: 509,972 RAC: 0 |
I just received a 1200+ hour Astropulse work unit (computer is a P4 2.65Mhz) isn't that kinda long ?? I got something like a 480 hour AP unit according to BOINC, but I should have it done in 80 hours (8 hours at 10%, 16 hours at 20%). I'm hoping it keeps me busy over the weekend. :) |
Ingleside Send message Joined: 4 Feb 03 Posts: 1546 Credit: 15,832,022 RAC: 13 |
Another thing that would have greatly helped keep that situation from spiraling out of control is what I believe would be a better way to do the quota system. Instead of doubling the quota for a good result returned, it should just be +2. It was pointed out that if you are on an 8-CPU system and you turn in 800+ bad tasks, it only takes eleven (11) good results to bring the quota back to 800. 4-cpu takes 10, 2-cpu only takes 8. Then there's the CUDA quotas that were thrown into the mix, as well, with the multiply factor for that. I think +2 instead of 2x would keep problem computers at bay very nicely. It doesn't even have to be +2.. it can be +5..just as long as it's not multiplication. Actually, 7 good results in a row will give you full quota, regardless of single-core or 8-way system. The quota is always between 1 and 100, but is multiplied by #cpu then deciding to send work or not. This also means 99 errors in a row will give computers minimum quota, even if it's a 8-way system. "I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might." |
Cosmic_Ocean Send message Joined: 23 Dec 00 Posts: 3027 Credit: 13,516,867 RAC: 13 |
Another thing that would have greatly helped keep that situation from spiraling out of control is what I believe would be a better way to do the quota system. Instead of doubling the quota for a good result returned, it should just be +2. It was pointed out that if you are on an 8-CPU system and you turn in 800+ bad tasks, it only takes eleven (11) good results to bring the quota back to 800. 4-cpu takes 10, 2-cpu only takes 8. Then there's the CUDA quotas that were thrown into the mix, as well, with the multiply factor for that. I think +2 instead of 2x would keep problem computers at bay very nicely. It doesn't even have to be +2.. it can be +5..just as long as it's not multiplication. That's right..I forgot the quota was just 1-100 period.. So yeah. I think it should take more than 8 good results to go from 1 to 100. Linux laptop: record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up) |
John McLeod VII Send message Joined: 15 Jul 99 Posts: 24806 Credit: 790,712 RAC: 0 |
Another thing that would have greatly helped keep that situation from spiraling out of control is what I believe would be a better way to do the quota system. Instead of doubling the quota for a good result returned, it should just be +2. It was pointed out that if you are on an 8-CPU system and you turn in 800+ bad tasks, it only takes eleven (11) good results to bring the quota back to 800. 4-cpu takes 10, 2-cpu only takes 8. Then there's the CUDA quotas that were thrown into the mix, as well, with the multiply factor for that. I think +2 instead of 2x would keep problem computers at bay very nicely. It doesn't even have to be +2.. it can be +5..just as long as it's not multiplication. The following sequence if repeated will also never generate a minimum quota. 49 errors followed by 1 good result. BOINC WIKI |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
Another thing that would have greatly helped keep that situation from spiraling out of control is what I believe would be a better way to do the quota system. Instead of doubling the quota for a good result returned, it should just be +2. It was pointed out that if you are on an 8-CPU system and you turn in 800+ bad tasks, it only takes eleven (11) good results to bring the quota back to 800. 4-cpu takes 10, 2-cpu only takes 8. Then there's the CUDA quotas that were thrown into the mix, as well, with the multiply factor for that. I think +2 instead of 2x would keep problem computers at bay very nicely. It doesn't even have to be +2.. it can be +5..just as long as it's not multiplication. 99 bottles of beer on the wall? "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14644 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
The following sequence if repeated will also never generate a minimum quota. And that's close to what we saw last weekend. 49 errored Astropulse results, followed by one good MB result, means the host can continue indefinitely - even if it is trashing every task from one of the applications. That defeats the purpose of quota: BOINC needs to apply it per application. |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
The following sequence if repeated will also never generate a minimum quota. And maybe pull back just a little on the ramp-up of the quota..I am in favor of it recovering quickly.......but even half as much as it is now would be enough to heal a broken host in short order. "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
John McLeod VII Send message Joined: 15 Jul 99 Posts: 24806 Credit: 790,712 RAC: 0 |
The following sequence if repeated will also never generate a minimum quota. How about +2 rather than *2 for the recovery. (+1 was too slow, and *2 is too fast). BOINC WIKI |
©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.