Hello Computer 6137511, control your machine


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Hello Computer 6137511, control your machine

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
JohnDKProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 00
Posts: 842
Credit: 44,333,064
RAC: 75,812
Denmark
Message 1227891 - Posted: 5 May 2012, 16:34:00 UTC

Your GPU makes only errors, please control it :)

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=6137511

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1227914 - Posted: 5 May 2012, 16:59:57 UTC - in response to Message 1227891.

lovely, another anonymous user that cannot be contacted or identified
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Link
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 03
Posts: 828
Credit: 1,563,884
RAC: 309
Germany
Message 1227945 - Posted: 5 May 2012, 17:32:17 UTC - in response to Message 1227914.

And once again the quota system seems to be useless, however this time the max. tasks per day value is not simply frozen at some specific number but is apparently not going under 100 while counting up for each validated result (is was at 102 after two valid results when I looked at it the first time). With over 160 invalid/error results this host should be very close to 1 task per day, even if there were few valid results between that.

They really need to fix this, it's not working for many hosts here and also not on Milkyway, so it must be somewhere inside BOINC.
____________
.

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,755,053
RAC: 1,310
United States
Message 1228077 - Posted: 5 May 2012, 22:33:42 UTC - in response to Message 1227914.

lovely, another anonymous user that cannot be contacted or identified

I'm curious how/why? I mean you need to give an email address to even have an account here, right? It's too bad that email isn't public. :-)
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1228101 - Posted: 5 May 2012, 23:50:31 UTC - in response to Message 1228077.

the account is anonymous so there is no means to contact them through a PM
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Gundolf Jahn
Send message
Joined: 19 Sep 00
Posts: 3184
Credit: 358,391
RAC: 28
Germany
Message 1228112 - Posted: 6 May 2012, 0:34:31 UTC - in response to Message 1228077.

lovely, another anonymous user that cannot be contacted or identified

I'm curious how/why?

It's just a user who has hidden his/her computer(s).

Gruß,
Gundolf

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,755,053
RAC: 1,310
United States
Message 1228113 - Posted: 6 May 2012, 0:36:48 UTC - in response to Message 1228112.

lovely, another anonymous user that cannot be contacted or identified

I'm curious how/why?

It's just a user who has hidden his/her computer(s).

Gruß,
Gundolf

I suppose if my computer made that many errors I'd hide it too.
:-)
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

DesO
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 12
Posts: 144
Credit: 2,624,617
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1228125 - Posted: 6 May 2012, 1:28:04 UTC

Before the icey finge of blame points its not me !

Profile Fred J. Verster
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 21 Apr 04
Posts: 3240
Credit: 31,770,991
RAC: 4,749
Netherlands
Message 1228415 - Posted: 6 May 2012, 19:58:44 UTC - in response to Message 1228125.
Last modified: 6 May 2012, 20:09:49 UTC


lovely, another anonymous user that cannot be contacted or identified


I'm curious how/why?


It's just a user who has hidden his/her computer(s).

Gruß,
Gundolf


I suppose if my computer made that many errors I'd hide it too.
:-)
____________
-Dave (Two)

Before the icey finge of blame points its not me !


No, it's an anonymous host,
6137511.

So, don't worry ;-)
This host shouldn't get the normal amount of tasks, unless it delivers valid
results, IIRC!
____________

Profile Link
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 03
Posts: 828
Credit: 1,563,884
RAC: 309
Germany
Message 1228424 - Posted: 6 May 2012, 20:23:27 UTC - in response to Message 1228415.

No, it's an anonymous host,
6137511.

So, don't worry ;-)
This host shouldn't get the normal amount of tasks, unless it delivers valid
results, IIRC!

In theory yes, unfortunately the quota system is (once again) not working for this host, it's allowed to get 100 tasks per day all the time and somehow it has even got 845 today, as you can see on the host's application details page.
____________
.

Wembley
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Sep 09
Posts: 415
Credit: 888,257
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1228438 - Posted: 6 May 2012, 21:00:46 UTC - in response to Message 1228424.

No, it's an anonymous host,
6137511.

So, don't worry ;-)
This host shouldn't get the normal amount of tasks, unless it delivers valid
results, IIRC!

In theory yes, unfortunately the quota system is (once again) not working for this host, it's allowed to get 100 tasks per day all the time and somehow it has even got 845 today, as you can see on the host's application details page.

Returning errored work units is different than having work units marked as invalid after being compared to a wingman.
____________


Donate with your searches and online buys:
http://www.goodsearch.com/toolbar/university-of-california-setihome

Profile Len
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 10
Posts: 53
Credit: 1,933,582
RAC: 1,246
United Kingdom
Message 1228596 - Posted: 7 May 2012, 8:16:56 UTC

Given the limited bandwidth available and the abilities to analyse data, you would have thought there would be a way to track such a complete waste of bandwidth and stop giving it work until it sorts out its ability to compute valid results.

Sure we will all get an invalid result occasionally, either from bad data or a temporary host-side glitch. So I'm not saying that an invalid result alone should cause one's allocation to be lowered. However there should be some comparison done with valid V invalid results, that affects the allotment and takes it right down to a minimum in cases like this.

It is simply wasting valuable resources that others could put to good use. The system could then send a notification to the host as to why their allotment is reduced.

Len
____________
I think I am. Therefore I am. I think.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8644
Credit: 24,091,005
RAC: 21,463
United Kingdom
Message 1228619 - Posted: 7 May 2012, 10:28:40 UTC - in response to Message 1228424.

No, it's an anonymous host,
6137511.

So, don't worry ;-)
This host shouldn't get the normal amount of tasks, unless it delivers valid
results, IIRC!

In theory yes, unfortunately the quota system is (once again) not working for this host, it's allowed to get 100 tasks per day all the time and somehow it has even got 845 today, as you can see on the host's application details page.

I've got one that is having problems with AP tasks, 74 of them. host 4840320, AP tasks But still allowed to d/load 100/day, probably because it processes MB tasks ok.

Looks like another modification needed in BOINC, so that it can stop downloads by task.

Josef W. SegurProject donor
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4245
Credit: 1,047,814
RAC: 274
United States
Message 1228688 - Posted: 7 May 2012, 14:49:07 UTC - in response to Message 1228619.


I've got one that is having problems with AP tasks, 74 of them. host 4840320, AP tasks But still allowed to d/load 100/day, probably because it processes MB tasks ok.

Looks like another modification needed in BOINC, so that it can stop downloads by task.

The quotas have been per app_version since April 2010. But the basic 100 comes from a single setting which applies to all kinds of tasks. Obviously if 100 is reasonable for MB, something like 10 would be for AP.

The real issue has always been how quickly the quota should grow. The present logic is a reported "success" doubles it if it is below 100 (capped to 100). Only errors recognized by the science application or core client can reduce the quota below the basic setting, since invalid tasks are reported as successes.

There have been several discussions on the boinc_dev mail list about the quota mechanism, but it remains in the condition that it can only protect against hosts which report all tasks from an app_version as errors.
Joe

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8644
Credit: 24,091,005
RAC: 21,463
United Kingdom
Message 1228695 - Posted: 7 May 2012, 15:16:11 UTC - in response to Message 1228688.


I've got one that is having problems with AP tasks, 74 of them. host 4840320, AP tasks But still allowed to d/load 100/day, probably because it processes MB tasks ok.

Looks like another modification needed in BOINC, so that it can stop downloads by task.

The quotas have been per app_version since April 2010. But the basic 100 comes from a single setting which applies to all kinds of tasks. Obviously if 100 is reasonable for MB, something like 10 would be for AP.

The real issue has always been how quickly the quota should grow. The present logic is a reported "success" doubles it if it is below 100 (capped to 100). Only errors recognized by the science application or core client can reduce the quota below the basic setting, since invalid tasks are reported as successes.

There have been several discussions on the boinc_dev mail list about the quota mechanism, but it remains in the condition that it can only protect against hosts which report all tasks from an app_version as errors.
Joe

So this host still gets 100/day, of course, as he gets at least three "successes" because the was too much blanking.

Profile Link
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 03
Posts: 828
Credit: 1,563,884
RAC: 309
Germany
Message 1228696 - Posted: 7 May 2012, 15:16:26 UTC - in response to Message 1228688.

The real issue has always been how quickly the quota should grow. The present logic is a reported "success" doubles it if it is below 100 (capped to 100).

That basically means 1 out of 50 results must be reported as success for to keep it at 100 in the long term. Waaay to little IMHO, 1 down for each error, 1 or max. 2 up for each success, I think 50% success is not too much to expect.



Only errors recognized by the science application or core client can reduce the quota below the basic setting, since invalid tasks are reported as successes.

There have been several discussions on the boinc_dev mail list about the quota mechanism, but it remains in the condition that it can only protect against hosts which report all tasks from an app_version as errors.

Why that limitation? Each time a result is marked invalid, the count for "censecutive valid results" is reseted, it schoud not generate much load on the servers nor should it be hard to implement, that the max. tasks per day is decreased by one.

Still it does not explain, why a host limited to 100 tasks per day (for a specific app) is able to get over 800.
____________
.

Profile Link
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 03
Posts: 828
Credit: 1,563,884
RAC: 309
Germany
Message 1228699 - Posted: 7 May 2012, 15:21:13 UTC - in response to Message 1228695.

So this host still gets 100/day, of course, as he gets at least three "successes" because the was too much blanking.

No, the host reports them as success, that all of them are invalid does not matter for the quota system. Only results reported as errors decrease the qouta, at least that's how I understand Joe's explanation.
____________
.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8644
Credit: 24,091,005
RAC: 21,463
United Kingdom
Message 1228709 - Posted: 7 May 2012, 15:40:33 UTC

With the host I reported if you look in Application details it is recorded;

AstroPulse v6 6.01 windows_intelx86
Number of tasks completed 0
Max tasks per day 101
Number of tasks today 1
Consecutive valid tasks 1
Average turnaround time 0.00 days

One success today but that is a "too much blanking"

Non of the other are recorded. The big problem there, IMO, is not counting the tasks completed when they are errors. Because the host has "completed" at least 74 tasks, but all are errors or "too much blanking". There should be some mechanism to spot this and decrease "Max tasks per day" and "too much blanking" should not increase "Max tasks per day".

Josef W. SegurProject donor
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4245
Credit: 1,047,814
RAC: 274
United States
Message 1228710 - Posted: 7 May 2012, 15:42:24 UTC - in response to Message 1228696.

...
Still it does not explain, why a host limited to 100 tasks per day (for a specific app) is able to get over 800.

For GPUs, the basic quota is multiplied by the project's gpu_multiplier setting, 8 for this project. So although the "Max tasks per day" displays the internal unmultiplied value, 100 corresponds to an actual 800 quota for the cuda_fermi app version.

Why it has somewhat more than 800 sent "today" is probably because it has about 19 tasks which did validate in the last 24 hours, so the quota was probably at 808, 816, or maybe as much as 952 (119 * 8).
Joe

Profile red-ray
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jun 99
Posts: 308
Credit: 9,024,991
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1228739 - Posted: 7 May 2012, 18:24:26 UTC

To me it looks like http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=3378825 has a bit of a problem. About 11,000 WUs about to be invalid is my guess.

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Hello Computer 6137511, control your machine

Copyright © 2014 University of California