Message boards :
Number crunching :
Limits
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Lionel Send message Joined: 25 Mar 00 Posts: 680 Credit: 563,640,304 RAC: 597 |
Are the limits still in place ??? |
HAL9000 Send message Joined: 11 Sep 99 Posts: 6534 Credit: 196,805,888 RAC: 57 |
Are the limits still in place ??? Until otherwise noted. SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[ |
Lionel Send message Joined: 25 Mar 00 Posts: 680 Credit: 563,640,304 RAC: 597 |
oh well, that just means a lot of boxes are going to keep knocking on the front door adding to the general level of congestion whilst they can't get work ... |
HAL9000 Send message Joined: 11 Sep 99 Posts: 6534 Credit: 196,805,888 RAC: 57 |
The limits were put in place because there were to many results in one of the tables. So any time someone requested work or reported work there was a good chance there would be a timeout, or something along those lines. It was announced that there is a plan to makes workunits/tasks 4 times their current size, but that development will take a few months. So we might be sitting on the 100 task limit until then. Other projects have a hard limit of tasks in progress and they are doing fine. So I don't really see an issue. Other than my 24 core box that can only get a cache of about 12 hours. I have a backup project or two so really my machines are good. SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[ |
Ianab Send message Joined: 11 Jun 08 Posts: 732 Credit: 20,635,586 RAC: 5 |
Exactly, with the limits in place hopefully the database stays small enough that it's got a good response time, and is stable. So all those extra requests can at least be handled, and the system keeps humming along. Only thing missing is the big cache for the high end boxes. OR - they can open the floodgates, and let folks fill 10 days caches, have the database grow back to 6 million WU's, and grind to a halt again. Know which option I'd go with. As Hal says, there is a medium term plan of creating bigger WU's, which is sensible as machines are now more powerful then when the current WU's where designed. This then shrinks the database to 25% it's current size, and things are back under control, until the next iteration of Moore's law. (a few years?) Ian |
Mark Lybeck Send message Joined: 9 Aug 99 Posts: 245 Credit: 216,677,290 RAC: 173 |
100 WU means currently 4 hours of buffer on one of my hosts. 100 WU for CPU is enough but not for GPU. 1000 WU would mean 40 hours for GPU. 24hours worth of buffer would be in most cases enough to cover during the weekly maintenance break. But 4 hours is too little. |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
100 WU means currently 4 hours of buffer on one of my hosts. 100 WU for CPU is enough but not for GPU. 1000 WU would mean 40 hours for GPU. 24hours worth of buffer would be in most cases enough to cover during the weekly maintenance break. But 4 hours is too little. Wayyyyyyy too little for the kitty crunching farm! 1000 would work until things get sorted and limits can be lifted again. "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
Mark Stevenson Send message Joined: 8 Sep 11 Posts: 1736 Credit: 174,899,165 RAC: 91 |
+1 |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13736 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
OR - they can open the floodgates, and let folks fill 10 days caches, have the database grow back to 6 million WU's, and grind to a halt again Or better yet they reduce the limit to 50, but make it per core/ per GPU instance. That way pople will actually be able to cache more than a couple of hours work, but won't be able to get 10+ days worth. Database remains small & people are able cache work. Sounds good to me. Grant Darwin NT |
zoom3+1=4 Send message Joined: 30 Nov 03 Posts: 65747 Credit: 55,293,173 RAC: 49 |
OR - they can open the floodgates, and let folks fill 10 days caches, have the database grow back to 6 million WU's, and grind to a halt again That would work for Me, the 50 per gpu that is. The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13736 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
That would work for Me, the 50 per gpu that is. As long as it's per instance. ie My GTX560Ti runs 3 at a time, so it should get 150, the GTX460 2 at a time so it would get 100. My Core 2 Duo would get 100, my i7 would get 400. Ideally the GPUs should get 5 times the number the CPUs get, but the way things are that'd be too much to hope for. Grant Darwin NT |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
That would work for Me, the 50 per gpu that is. Not positive, but I don't think there is a mechanism in Boinc to tell the servers how many WUs you run concurrently on a given GPU. Just the number of active GPUs in the rig. So I would still vote for the 1000 per active GPU. "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
juan BFP Send message Joined: 16 Mar 07 Posts: 9786 Credit: 572,710,851 RAC: 3,799 |
So I would still vote for the 1000 per active GPU. I´m with the kitties 1000/GPU is good, 100 on a 2x690 host for example, is simply ridiculous. PS: I hate limits! |
zoom3+1=4 Send message Joined: 30 Nov 03 Posts: 65747 Credit: 55,293,173 RAC: 49 |
So I would still vote for the 1000 per active GPU. Doesn't everybody? The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's |
Khangollo Send message Joined: 1 Aug 00 Posts: 245 Credit: 36,410,524 RAC: 0 |
|
Team kizb Send message Joined: 8 Mar 01 Posts: 219 Credit: 3,709,162 RAC: 0 |
|
ivan Send message Joined: 5 Mar 01 Posts: 783 Credit: 348,560,338 RAC: 223 |
So is this 100 WU limit per a computer or per an account? Per computer, plus another 100 if it has at least one usable GPU. |
Team kizb Send message Joined: 8 Mar 01 Posts: 219 Credit: 3,709,162 RAC: 0 |
So is this 100 WU limit per a computer or per an account? So currently the most I'd be able to get is 100 WUs for the CPU and 100 WUs for GPUs regardless of the number of GPUs in the computer? My Computers: â–ˆ Blue Offline â–ˆ Green Offline â–ˆ Red Offline |
Bill G Send message Joined: 1 Jun 01 Posts: 1282 Credit: 187,688,550 RAC: 182 |
So is this 100 WU limit per a computer or per an account? That is correct. SETI@home classic workunits 4,019 SETI@home classic CPU time 34,348 hours |
mikeej42 Send message Joined: 26 Oct 00 Posts: 109 Credit: 791,875,385 RAC: 9 |
So is this 100 WU limit per a computer or per an account? Hopefully they never change to a per account limit system. For those of us stuck with CPU only systems that would be a pretty serious restriction. |
©2024 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.