Mirror (Feb 26 2009)
Mirror (Feb 26 2009) |
|
| log in |
Message boards : Technical News : Mirror (Feb 26 2009)
Previous · 1 · 2
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
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! ____________ | |
ID: 870120 ·  | |
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. :) ____________ | |
| ID: 870122 · | |
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." | |
| ID: 870422 · | |
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 uptime: 1484d 22h 42m Ended due to UPS failure, found 14 hours after the fact | |
| ID: 870433 · | |
|
John McLeod VII Volunteer developer Volunteer tester  Send message Joined: 15 Jul 99 Posts: 22343 Credit: 439,209 RAC: 396  | |
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 | |
| ID: 870784 · | |
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? ____________ ****** "Ask not, what your kitty can do for you. Ask what you can do for your kitty." As it is kitten, so shall it be done.  | |
| ID: 870859 · | |
|
Richard Haselgrove  Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 7462 Credit: 39,763,712 RAC: 33,942  | |
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. | |
| ID: 870879 · | |
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. ____________ ****** "Ask not, what your kitty can do for you. Ask what you can do for your kitty." As it is kitten, so shall it be done. | |
| ID: 870882 · | |
|
John McLeod VII Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 15 Jul 99 Posts: 22343 Credit: 439,209 RAC: 396 | |
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 | |
| ID: 871230 · | |
Message boards : Technical News : Mirror (Feb 26 2009)
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |
