I am puzzled...

I am puzzled by the behavoir of my Q6600 system overnight. Lastnight when I last looked all the ATI WU's had a remaining time of 7 hours or so. This morning they are all 90+ hours. The CPU WU's are showing 1-3 hours remaining which looks to be the same as lastnight. Everything in the log looks ok to me and work is being done in expected amount of time. Just not sure why the DCF for the GPU went whacko.
____________
I used to be a cruncher like you, then I took an arrow to the knee.

You had one unit running over 16000 seconds.

____________

You had one unit running over 16000 seconds.

You had one unit running over 16000 seconds.

And several VLAR running over 25,000 seconds - like task 2334375975.

Ok, so they should come back down over time? The system has only been up and crunching for 38 hours since it got overhualed. I know the 2 ATI 6670 GPUs aren't the fastest crunchers but 90 hours is alittle out of the ballpark.
____________
I used to be a cruncher like you, then I took an arrow to the knee.

How do I check for this bug and is it correctable?
____________
I used to be a cruncher like you, then I took an arrow to the knee.

each time a gpu one is ticking you can lower 30sec to 1 mins each, but when you get a cpu one ticking, specially big long ones, you can jump 8 to 12 mins (on the estimations for each WU in the queue)

boinc doesnt do estimations for cpu and gpu seperatly. it s 1 estimation for both.


am I right, guys ?
____________

The Application details for that host are showing a pretty insane APR for the ATI app.

I'll leave it to the ATI specialists to decide how plausible it is.

How do I check for this bug and is it correctable?

Actually you want it in a different format than that.

it should look something like this.
<flops>200.52843553287e09</flops>

That is for my GPU's.
____________

Actually you want it in a different format than that.

it should look something like this.
<flops>200.52843553287e09</flops>

That is for my GPU's.

BANKS are under orders to tighten their accounting, but we fear HSBC may be paying too much attention to the small things rather than the gigapounds. Andrew Beggs wanted to know the distance from his home to the bank's nearest branch. He consulted the bank's website, which came up with the answer 0.9904670356841079 miles (1.5940021810076005 kilometres). This is supposedly accurate to around 10-13 metres, much less than the radius of a hydrogen atom. Moisture condensing on the branch's door would bring it several significant digits closer.

Testing superscripts for DA.

BANKS are under orders to tighten their accounting, but we fear HSBC may be paying too much attention to the small things rather than the gigapounds. Andrew Beggs wanted to know the distance from his home to the bank's nearest branch. He consulted the bank's website, which came up with the answer 0.9904670356841079 miles (1.5940021810076005 kilometres). This is supposedly accurate to around 10^-13 metres, much less than the radius of a hydrogen atom. Moisture condensing on the branch's door would bring it several significant digits closer.

I can read many articles in New Scientist without even registering. I am a registered non paying guest in Nature magazine and can read all its editorials and even some articles, same in Nature Communications.
Tullio

The Application details for that host are showing a pretty insane APR for the ATI app.

I'll leave it to the ATI specialists to decide how plausible it is.

I dropped to 2 task per GPU and the times have dropped from 90 hours to around 30. This is still 5-6 times higher than I have seen most task finish in. I'll just let it keep crunching and watch it.
____________
I used to be a cruncher like you, then I took an arrow to the knee.

Superscripts seem OK, but don't click the Use BBCode tags to format your text link while editing - you'll lose your changes. I'll tell him.