Status / Credit (Nov 03 2010) |
![]() |
| log in |
Message boards : Technical News : Status / Credit (Nov 03 2010)
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Yes Pics | |
| ID: 1046030 · | |
|
Maybe there's some confusion about this credit granting process. | |
| ID: 1046035 · | |
Maybe there's some confusion about this credit granting process. YAY!! tight limits should give fast turn around.. and AWESOME!! ____________ Janice | |
| ID: 1046037 · | |
|
Matt -- | |
| ID: 1046048 · | |
|
I've got my first allocations since the scheduler was switched back on, and I see: | |
| ID: 1046061 · | |
PS I do expect pics of the new servers though:) Ditto, Asahp please. ____________ BSG Anthem My Facebook page | |
| ID: 1046062 · | |
<<<SNIP>>> PS I do expect pics of the new servers though:) I agree LOL Would love to see them, in action preferably ;-D [/img] ____________ Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. | |
| ID: 1046083 · | |
|
I think the priority of most crunchers is not the receipt of credits. It is to prevent the waste of crunching time that results from WUs being resent when the primary crunching has been held up by an outage. | |
| ID: 1046140 · | |
Matt -- downloads seem to work better when both are up, observed. ____________ | |
| ID: 1046141 · | |
|
yes much better with two. | |
| ID: 1046145 · | |
|
dl's work better right after the second server is enabled, then comes to a crawl. | |
| ID: 1046155 · | |
I've got my first allocations since the scheduler was switched back on, and I see: My first batch of new work was all initial issue VLARs, after a couple of them had been done i got one new shortie. Since then all of my new work has been VLAR re-issues, not a shortie in sight. ____________ Grant Darwin NT. | |
| ID: 1046203 · | |
Does it make people feel good to get credit for work which probably now has no chance of contributing to the science? Has the project underestimated the quality of the participants? +1 with arbitrary credit granting (and giving credits for nothing is arbitrary) they lost their last (very small already) meaning. Better leave credits in auto state and work on database cleanup, I'm sure there is enough work to do :P | |
| ID: 1046204 · | |
I've got my first allocations since the scheduler was switched back on, and I see: Yes, the newly-split work didn't last long, and it's been nothing but resent ghosts or other fallout ever since. Which is exactly what we needed to happen. I haven't seen any VLARs here, but I wouldn't expect to - I've selected not to request CPU work, so the CPUs work on other projects while I run CUDA. Observation: the backlog of results 'ready to send' ran out, for both MB and AP, around 10:00 UTC, or a few minutes before. There's still a trickle, but effectively no new downloads will have been added to the download server queue since then. The download pipe remained saturated at 93 Mbit/sec until about 10:50 UTC, the best part of an hour later. That gives us some idea of the relative speeds of the various project components: I think we need to use the remaining time before the new servers arrive to work out some way of helping the scheduler request/reply messages get through (and hence avoid creating a new set of ghosts), while Oscar and friend keep the pipe full. | |
| ID: 1046212 · | |
|
In the past hours, starting probably late last night, local time (UTC+1), all SETI BĂȘta WU's are UPLoaded are new ones were D'lOaded. All 3 QUADS + CUDA are running SETI MB WU's. | |
| ID: 1046231 · | |
|
i thought we were here to donate processer time, credits are interesting but not what we are here for, or am i alone in thinking the S.e.t.i programme is what counts | |
| ID: 1046240 · | |
IMO, you're right and no your not alone, although, exceptions proved the rule, so 'they say', you could say, why not only count the tasks done, which would not have been fair, unlike 'most' Projects, SETI@home Multibeam and Astropulse get their, info from a (piggybagging) of the Arecibo Observatorium Telescope. Well Credits are a way to establish the amount of work done by your hosts, instead of using FLOPS* or of FLOP per WU, Jeff Cobb, has made a Formula determening the work done, FLOPS, but also Memory Bus, Harddisk, Network, all are taken into account, measuring work done for a WU. Besides, an Incomplete Picture that it's hardly manageble, let alone handy, to Count only FLOPS, numbers would easily have 18, 21, 23 and even more then 25 digits. From the Account Page, personal, all Projects Results. Now that new WU's MB as AP have been given out, is this the last [i]Task flow, before the New Servers are UP & Running? (*Whetstone is a more reliable way of measuring Floating Point Operations per Second). ____________ Knight Who Says Ni N!, OUT numbered................. | |
| ID: 1046271 · | |
... The 1148513 MB and 26888 AP in "ready to send" at the start plus about 12000 MB and 5000 AP reissues created during the saturation period would have taken nearly 19 hours of download with an actual throughput of 90 Mbps. I suspect ghost creation of 100000 or more. With the queues drained as much as possible by other means, I hope the staff will try <resend_lost_results>1</resend_lost_results> in the project config.xml at least for short periods. Bursts of activity caused by that should be tolerable, and go a long way toward having the server "in progress" actually match what is on participants' hosts. This being Friday, I expect whoever is in the lab has other plans, but maybe next week? Joe | |
| ID: 1046275 · | |
it's just that both the mysql (boinc) and informix (science) databases are too darn big. Matt, I did bring that very point up a some while ago, and you replied that there were many other applications out there with much bigger Informix databases than Seti had. I'm assuming therfore that this is not a limitation upon Informix, but on your old servers? ____________ Damsel Rescuer, Kitty Patron, Raccoon Friend, Uli Fan, Julie Supporter, ES99 Admirer, Dishonourable Mentions ** | |
| ID: 1046299 · | |
it's just that both the mysql (boinc) and informix (science) databases are too darn big. http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/idshelp/v115/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.adref.doc/ids_adr_0719.htm Judging by what IBM says on it's site about informix databases Seti had limitations with the hardware. IBM says the maximum databases that they can hold is 21 million, with 477,102,080 tables in a dynamic system, 32k threads, with a maximum database size of 4TB. (I wouldn't imagine Seti has larger than that going on, but you never know!) So I suppose it would be safe to say it was a hardware limitation they are fighting. These new machines hopefully will be more than enough to handle things for a while, I don't see them ordering machines that wouldn't. ____________ Traveling through space at ~67,000mph! | |
| ID: 1046311 · | |
Message boards : Technical News : Status / Credit (Nov 03 2010)
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |