Message boards :
Number crunching :
Friday, July 9, server start
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3
Author | Message |
---|---|
Geek@Play Send message Joined: 31 Jul 01 Posts: 2467 Credit: 86,146,931 RAC: 0 |
Same thing here........finally got some CUDA work assigned to 2 computers but unable to download them. Cricket graph up over 90. Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc.... |
Uli Send message Joined: 6 Feb 00 Posts: 10923 Credit: 5,996,015 RAC: 1 |
I observe that the limit has been lifted (or increased) shortly after 6pm PDT. Ok, thanks, that explains why I now have 12 WU, well 11 one hasn't made it quite yet. Pluto will always be a planet to me. Seti Ambassador Not to late to order an Anni Shirt |
BANZAI56 Send message Joined: 17 May 00 Posts: 139 Credit: 47,299,948 RAC: 2 |
I had to hide both the jobs limit thread and the new outage schedule thread. Queries for those threads were clobbering the boinc database. Thanks for all you are doing Jeff! Very very interesting info about the threads you mention. Seemed like a no brainer that huge arse threads were a bad idea. (esp. for those of us stuck with dial-up.) This as some even went out of their way to create them... Even had that (bad idea) conversation here with someone who was NEVER ever wrong about anything..........ever. lol Too bad he was burned out on this place, otherwise he could tell us how we're still wrong... ;) |
Odan Send message Joined: 8 May 03 Posts: 91 Credit: 15,331,177 RAC: 0 |
I am starting the servers up. The runtime is longer but not 23 times longer, more like 12 times. That means they take somewhere in the region of twice the download bandwidth per unit crunch time. I see that as supporting the "bandwidth hog" description but I wouldn't go quite so far as to call them that :) When AP were in much readier supply last year, in fact they were produced to fully satisfy demand & we had a reservoir of units ready to send, we did run for quite a while where the download bandwidth was maxed out. IIRC we were running with approx 400,000 AP in progress as the stable demand. Most of this year we have averaged about 100,000 in progress which is well below the demand if distribution were less restricted. |
hiamps Send message Joined: 23 May 99 Posts: 4292 Credit: 72,971,319 RAC: 0 |
I am starting the servers up. What I don't understand is...If a couple of threads needed to be hidden because they were pounding the servers...What is 100,000 computers constantly asking for work but not getting any doing? Guess I don't understand servers at all. Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons... And no good credit hound! |
Hellsheep Send message Joined: 12 Sep 08 Posts: 428 Credit: 784,780 RAC: 0 |
I am starting the servers up. It's not 2 threads that caused the problem, it's the number of times those threads were being queried from the database. Each time someone visits a thread on the forums, their browser sends a message to the server requesting the page, the server says "I need to query the database to get the information for this page" and it talks to the database asking for it, the database retrieves it and sends the data back to the server in a message and then the server outputs it to the page and your browser renders that page (or something like that anyway). So imagine 100,000 forum users all reading the same thread and refreshing over and over. ;) - Jarryd |
hiamps Send message Joined: 23 May 99 Posts: 4292 Credit: 72,971,319 RAC: 0 |
I am starting the servers up. Is that because of the data in our nametags? Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons... And no good credit hound! |
zoom3+1=4 Send message Joined: 30 Nov 03 Posts: 65752 Credit: 55,293,173 RAC: 49 |
I am starting the servers up. I think the forums server is able to handle lots of threads, While the server where the News thread is at wasn't intended for that much traffic. The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's |
Hellsheep Send message Joined: 12 Sep 08 Posts: 428 Credit: 784,780 RAC: 0 |
I am starting the servers up. Well, that all contributes to it, sure. The thing is, each thread requires a query to the database containing the information relevant to where the thread is stored, how it's stored and how many posts and where those posts can be located in the database (post numbers etc). Then, each post in each thread requires another query to retrieve the actual post itself. So if there are 500 posts in a thread on a single page and one user loads that thread, essentially there are 501 queries to the database just to retrieve the thread and it's posts. Not including the user data and whatever else it needs to get i guess (unless that's tied in with the post data in the database.) So small math, if 400 users were to read a thread with 500 posts. Essentially that would require 200,000 queries just to get it for all of them. I may actually be wrong with this, but as far as i know that's how forums work. It's also possible that rather than queries for each post, each thread inside the database also contains the post data, meaning instead of 501 queries it'd be 1 query per page load, still when 400 users load that same thread, 400 queries. So even if i'm wrong about whichever way it does it, if 50,000 people view the same topic, there was at least 50,000 queries to that same area of the database. - Jarryd |
hiamps Send message Joined: 23 May 99 Posts: 4292 Credit: 72,971,319 RAC: 0 |
So putting a limit on the thread count would help the servers do more work? Say a thread has to be restarted at 200 posts? Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons... And no good credit hound! |
hiamps Send message Joined: 23 May 99 Posts: 4292 Credit: 72,971,319 RAC: 0 |
I think I'm beginning to see the light why certain Seti staff wanted to ditch the forums a few years ago ....... I bet some of the threads in the Cafe just kill the servers... Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons... And no good credit hound! |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
The CPU and GPU limits have gone very well. A lot of people have had a lot of trouble with the total limit. Raising it is helping, elimination of it would be prudent. Just an opinion. Janice |
Hellsheep Send message Joined: 12 Sep 08 Posts: 428 Credit: 784,780 RAC: 0 |
So putting a limit on the thread count would help the servers do more work? Say a thread has to be restarted at 200 posts? There is already a limit for the NC forum i believe. Also the staff have actually made it so only the first post and the last 75 posts show and you have to press a button to display all posts if the thread is larger than 75 posts. It wouldn't help the servers do more work, but help them be more stable to prevent database issues. - Jarryd |
arkayn Send message Joined: 14 May 99 Posts: 4438 Credit: 55,006,323 RAC: 0 |
|
zoom3+1=4 Send message Joined: 30 Nov 03 Posts: 65752 Credit: 55,293,173 RAC: 49 |
It is not an official limit, just one that we try to keep at a reasonable limit because some people are still on dial-up. Although some ISPs are I've read, dropping dial-up, If It becomes a trend, Some are going to have to get some sort of alternate, Like either DSL, Cable or Satellite. The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's |
Josef W. Segur Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 4504 Credit: 1,414,761 RAC: 0 |
Your facts are right, since the chirp resolution change S@H Enhanced raw task estimates produced by the splitters are about 1/12 the raw AP estimates. It is of course the estimates which affect work fetch much more than actual runtimes, though. There's another factor now in the server-side estimate adjustments. My guess is there are 40000 or more hosts running stock applications which are eligible for AP work. Most if not all of those hosts will have more than 10 completed Enhanced tasks so the estimate adjustments will be in effect and the host DCF will have been forced up by about a factor of 5 (0.2 -> 1.0). Very few will have 10 completed AP tasks (and the BOINC code doesn't seem able to count them anyhow), so no adjustment will be in effect for those. The 12 ratio becomes 60. Completion of an AP task in 1/5 the estimated time will temporarily reduce DCF 8% or so, giving a ~55 ratio, but Enhanced tasks will again force it up. If David again turns on server-side adjustment for anonymous platform hosts, the same effects will apply for another 30000 or so hosts. I don't think D.A.'s adjustments are going to be all that stable for individual cases, but may have about that effect across the set of 40000 hosts. When he gets the counting of AP tasks working, and enough time has passed that most hosts are getting adjusted estimates for all kinds of work, then I agree that reduced AP delivery during the initial recovery after the weekly outage would definitely be a good idea. Perhaps then the best approach would be simply not pre-splitting any AP work during the outage and not enabling AP splitting until late Friday afternoon Berkeley time. Joe |
zoom3+1=4 Send message Joined: 30 Nov 03 Posts: 65752 Credit: 55,293,173 RAC: 49 |
Well I'd that hope D.A. could soon get Anonymous DCF running like It should be, When He's able to of course. The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's |
Tony Li Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 6 Credit: 1,337,747 RAC: 0 |
Just FYI: Due to personal circumstances, I'm not able to participate on weekends. As a result, I'm effectively now only getting work two days a week. Well, given the lack of WUs, my CPU is now off contributing to other projects. I'm surprised that there isn't more concern about retaining the general case of retaining compute cycles. |
©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.