What is wrong?

Message boards : Number crunching : What is wrong?

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Zapiao
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 29 Oct 01
Posts: 110
Credit: 122,278
RAC: 0
Portugal
Message 1274666 - Posted: 24 Aug 2012, 1:03:30 UTC

HI guys, my boinc its set to Minimum work buffer: 10 days, Max additional work buffer: 10 days, Use at most: 1 GB of disk space. All of the WUS have 5h to execute. It is normal ?

ID: 1274666 · Report as offensive
Profile Gatekeeper
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 04
Posts: 887
Credit: 176,479,616
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1274672 - Posted: 24 Aug 2012, 1:19:42 UTC

Judging from your completion times for work you've done, I'd say the estimates for work on board are pretty close.

Using BOINC 7.xx, though, you probably should adjust your cache settings to something lower, like, maintain 5 days cache, and an additional .01 days. That way, BOINC will try to give you 5 days worth of work, but check to see if you need more every .01 days.


ID: 1274672 · Report as offensive
Zapiao
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 29 Oct 01
Posts: 110
Credit: 122,278
RAC: 0
Portugal
Message 1274679 - Posted: 24 Aug 2012, 1:36:23 UTC - in response to Message 1274672.  

And if i have 1 days cache, and an additional 0.01 days the WUS will decrease the completion time? I thought that rising the days cache i would have more WUS to crunch.

ID: 1274679 · Report as offensive
Ianab
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 08
Posts: 690
Credit: 16,363,459
RAC: 7,895
New Zealand
Message 1274718 - Posted: 24 Aug 2012, 4:59:34 UTC - in response to Message 1274679.  

Nope.

The work units will take the same amount of time, just the system will queue more of them up.

All that setting does is download extra work units, to keep you going if you can't talk to the server for a few days.

Ian

ID: 1274718 · Report as offensive
Profile Ex
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 2,079,454
RAC: 424
United States
Message 1274721 - Posted: 24 Aug 2012, 5:09:25 UTC

Setting to 2+.01 gives me roughly 3-4 days of work for some reason, always has since 7.xxx

(I'm currently running my server out of tasks and it's been 3.5 days so far and still crunching away on all cores... ;-))


-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

ID: 1274721 · Report as offensive
Zapiao
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 29 Oct 01
Posts: 110
Credit: 122,278
RAC: 0
Portugal
Message 1274724 - Posted: 24 Aug 2012, 5:18:28 UTC - in response to Message 1274721.  
Last modified: 24 Aug 2012, 5:20:02 UTC

So if you put 10+ 10 it will give 10 days plus another 10 ?
And why all WUS have 5h to complete?


By your command !!!

ID: 1274724 · Report as offensive
rob smithProject Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 13335
Credit: 154,661,174
RAC: 116,660
United Kingdom
Message 1274727 - Posted: 24 Aug 2012, 5:24:01 UTC

I think using 10 +10 will give you a very lumpy ride. It will give you a 10 day stock, but only check that you need new work every 10 days. Far better to go for a something like 5 day cache and check every 0.1 days (or less) that way you will "always" have a nearly full cache.


Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

ID: 1274727 · Report as offensive
Profile Gatekeeper
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 04
Posts: 887
Credit: 176,479,616
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1274732 - Posted: 24 Aug 2012, 5:29:51 UTC - in response to Message 1274724.  
Last modified: 24 Aug 2012, 5:31:39 UTC

And why all WUS have 5h to complete?


The short answer is they don't. maybe all the ones you have now do, but the next batch, with different Angle Ranges, could be different. It seems you only have work for your CPU; CPU's are much slower than GPU's.

ID: 1274732 · Report as offensive
Zapiao
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 29 Oct 01
Posts: 110
Credit: 122,278
RAC: 0
Portugal
Message 1275115 - Posted: 25 Aug 2012, 2:37:52 UTC - in response to Message 1274732.  

And why all WUS have 5h to complete?


The short answer is they don't. maybe all the ones you have now do, but the next batch, with different Angle Ranges, could be different. It seems you only have work for your CPU; CPU's are much slower than GPU's.

But having 5h to complete due the configuration 10 +10 too?

ID: 1275115 · Report as offensive
Profile Gatekeeper
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 04
Posts: 887
Credit: 176,479,616
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1275229 - Posted: 25 Aug 2012, 6:02:28 UTC - in response to Message 1275115.  

And why all WUS have 5h to complete?


The short answer is they don't. maybe all the ones you have now do, but the next batch, with different Angle Ranges, could be different. It seems you only have work for your CPU; CPU's are much slower than GPU's.

But having 5h to complete due the configuration 10 +10 too?


Work unit completion time has nothing to do with cache settings, and vice versa.

ID: 1275229 · Report as offensive
rob smithProject Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 13335
Credit: 154,661,174
RAC: 116,660
United Kingdom
Message 1275234 - Posted: 25 Aug 2012, 6:12:20 UTC

The time to complete is how long the task take to run once it starts. This is determined by the processing power of your computer (not a lot you can do about that)

The cache is the amount of work you have waiting to run - you can control the size of your cache.

There is a relationship between the two - the time to complete is used to calculate how many tasks are in your cache. For example: If your computer takes 6 hours to complete an "average" task, and you have a cache size of 4 days then there will be about 16 tasks sitting in your cache waiting to run, if you double to size of your cache to eight days then the number of tasks in your cache will increase to about 32.


(Fun starts with cache sizes when you get tasks that are expected to take vastly different times to complete, the sums get harder....)


Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

ID: 1275234 · Report as offensive
Zapiao
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 29 Oct 01
Posts: 110
Credit: 122,278
RAC: 0
Portugal
Message 1275244 - Posted: 25 Aug 2012, 6:33:03 UTC - in response to Message 1275234.  

By the way it takes 5h to complete. This CPU (GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Core(TM) i3 CPU M 380 @ 2.53GHz [Family 6 Model 37 Stepping 5]) was suppose to be faster dont you think?


By your command !!!

ID: 1275244 · Report as offensive
Profile Dirk Sadowski
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7066
Credit: 101,385,662
RAC: 79,360
Germany
Message 1275263 - Posted: 25 Aug 2012, 8:25:30 UTC - in response to Message 1275244.  

Zapiao wrote:

By the way it takes 5h to complete. This CPU (GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Core(TM) i3 CPU M 380 @ 2.53GHz [Family 6 Model 37 Stepping 5]) was suppose to be faster dont you think?


No, I guess with stock project applications the time could be OK.

You could install optimized project applications, CPU calculation time will be around the half.

Also then you could let calculate work units on your AMD/ATI HD5xxx.


* Best regards! :-) * Sutaru Tsureku, team seti.international founder. * Optimize your PC for higher RAC. * SETI@home needs your help. *

ID: 1275263 · Report as offensive
Zapiao
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 29 Oct 01
Posts: 110
Credit: 122,278
RAC: 0
Portugal
Message 1275265 - Posted: 25 Aug 2012, 8:32:00 UTC - in response to Message 1275263.  
Last modified: 25 Aug 2012, 8:33:05 UTC

Where i can find them?


By your command !!!

ID: 1275265 · Report as offensive
ClaggyProject Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4623
Credit: 46,346,601
RAC: 2,924
United Kingdom
Message 1275271 - Posted: 25 Aug 2012, 8:57:41 UTC - in response to Message 1275265.  
Last modified: 25 Aug 2012, 8:59:54 UTC

Where i can find them?

Optimised App release News is posted in the Bottom Stickie, which is the next thread above yours (at the moment):

Optimized Applications and Other Binaries - Read Only

Claggy

ID: 1275271 · Report as offensive

Message boards : Number crunching : What is wrong?


 
©2016 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.