The 400 and 50 WU limits are way too small

The GPU limit is actually 400 - and the only host I have with a cache setting that tests that is currently showing 390 in progress. So some work is being made and getting out, even if not enough for everyone.

Yes, the limits are too low, and the temporary server bug which caused them to be introduced (back in September) is taking a very long time to be fixed. They knows what needs doing, and we keep reminding them that it's on their 'to do' list - but that's a very long list, and other crises keep intervening. Too much to do, too few people to do it.

Agree with those guys. You can't really complain about lack of work when you've aborted hundreds if not thousands of tasks.
____________

If you look at the errors they are almost all WU aborted for my QX6700 system. When my 980X first ran out 5 days ago I aborted all outstanding work and stopped running SETI@home. The crazy thing is now the QX6700 get's more WUs than the 980X, it even got 30 GPU WUs this morning!

As Richard said this is a problem that I noticed and reported on the 8th August last year, so it is over 6 months now.

I might point out this is a BOINC problem and the limits have been introduced by Seti to protect their servers and our computers.

I might add that the original problem, on that computer, incorrect very high initial calculation of the APR for the AP application has still not corrected itself. The general trend is still downwards, but with large spikes when a 30 repeating pulses is found.

What do I need to do to get more WUs in my cache?

Well, you can't get more than the limits, but it might help, if you stop aborting hundreds of WUs, as that' what most of your errors are.

Actually, project admins never ever said why there are suddenly limits. The theory to "protect your computer from over-fetch" is user speculation to which I personally don't subscribe to. I'm convinced that this is permanent and to protect S@H servers from sillies with 4+ GPUs and 10-day caches which then needed to fetch literally 10.000-20.000 (2 minute) workunints and that caused huge strain on the servers at every scheduler request.

Actually, project admins never ever said why there are suddenly limits. The theory to "protect your computer from over-fetch" is user speculation to which I personally don't subscribe to. I'm convinced that this is permanent and to protect S@H servers from sillies with 4+ GPUs and 10-day caches which then needed to fetch literally 10.000-20.000 (2 minute) workunints and that caused huge strain on the servers at every scheduler request.

me too i find stupid that my little PC which crunch 2 wu per 5-6 hours (2 core) and crunch a GPU every 15-18 mins has always getting his works all the time every hours.

While my big one can do 4x WUs every 30mins-1hr (4 cores) and a GPU every 1.4min to 8mins cant even get 1 WU in 23 hrs.

and me too it happended to release 100WU last week when people were crying to get work 3 days in a row while i was super fine (mainly from my PC which takes an eternity to process them). i ve done that to share with people, i shared the love.

we cant take WUs from 1 pc and send by internal network to another one in need.
not the way the system has been written.



Those like me, and so many people who have more than 1 PC. we have BIG ones and little ones. our little have ridiculous tons of WU and our BIG has 0.

the best, we need for BOINC 8.0.xx a server/client type of the application.

you install a server on the PC you want. it s the only prog allowed to communicate with the project. all WUs are "tag" to this computer. the server take care to asking/send all WU for all its clients. Its job is to get a good nice queue of WUs to process for all its children.

and then on each PC you have (the PC you ve installed the server included too), you install a Client. the client ask the server : gimme work (cpu or a gpu) for this or that core or gpu. the server gives him a copy, the client process it and send back the result to the server (and ask for another one)

that way, the server keep them all and give them 1 by 1 by 1 to the PC who need 1. you dont end with a little with 500 WU for 10 days while a big one with 0 to process 6-8 days in a row.


i dunno what would be the stress on the Project servers. but i m sure some of their project server would have less querries. instead to have 6 PC Client asking for work, you only have 1 Server BOINC asking every 5 mins.

thats my 2cents.

cause having all these BIG BIG Cruncher empty for days & weeks is just stupid. while you have a turtle on the other desk with 500 WUs
All your PCs have equal amount of work as they need.
____________

The idea for a super host has been around for some time: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/SuperHost.
Most of the time people want to do this for a machine to proxy all of their other hosts through.

I like the limits for the faster turn around time, but dislike them the few times my machines have run out of work. Then going over their their backup project. Which is always when I am trying to do some long term benchmarking to check out configuration changes.
____________
SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours

Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!

The idea for a super host has been around for some time: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/SuperHost.
Most of the time people want to do this for a machine to proxy all of their other hosts through.

I like the limits for the faster turn around time, but dislike them the few times my machines have run out of work. Then going over their their backup project. Which is always when I am trying to do some long term benchmarking to check out configuration changes.