Limits


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Limits

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
Lionel
Send message
Joined: 25 Mar 00
Posts: 545
Credit: 227,133,115
RAC: 198,415
Australia
Message 1311995 - Posted: 7 Dec 2012, 0:30:58 UTC

Are the limits still in place ???
____________

Profile HAL9000
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 99
Posts: 4161
Credit: 113,849,833
RAC: 147,826
United States
Message 1311997 - Posted: 7 Dec 2012, 0:33:10 UTC - in response to Message 1311995.

Are the limits still in place ???

Until otherwise noted.
____________
SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours

Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!

Lionel
Send message
Joined: 25 Mar 00
Posts: 545
Credit: 227,133,115
RAC: 198,415
Australia
Message 1312005 - Posted: 7 Dec 2012, 0:56:42 UTC - in response to Message 1311997.


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 ...
____________

Profile HAL9000
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 99
Posts: 4161
Credit: 113,849,833
RAC: 147,826
United States
Message 1312042 - Posted: 7 Dec 2012, 5:07:51 UTC - in response to Message 1312005.


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 ...

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 BP6/VP6 User Group today!

Ianab
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 08
Posts: 664
Credit: 12,379,346
RAC: 9,336
New Zealand
Message 1312086 - Posted: 7 Dec 2012, 8:31:44 UTC - in response to Message 1312042.

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: 209
Credit: 99,954,171
RAC: 100,469
Finland
Message 1315675 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 18:53:28 UTC

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.

____________

Mark StevensonProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 8 Sep 11
Posts: 52
Credit: 20,019,679
RAC: 38,444
United Kingdom
Message 1315689 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 19:20:43 UTC

+1

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5811
Credit: 58,726,831
RAC: 48,368
Australia
Message 1315735 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 20:58:39 UTC - in response to Message 1312086.

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.

zoom314Project donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 46257
Credit: 36,670,819
RAC: 5,374
Message 1315900 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 7:02:26 UTC - in response to Message 1315735.
Last modified: 16 Dec 2012, 7:02:46 UTC

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.

That would work for Me, the 50 per gpu that is.
____________
My Facebook, War Commander, 2015

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5811
Credit: 58,726,831
RAC: 48,368
Australia
Message 1315905 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 7:49:23 UTC - in response to Message 1315900.

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.

juan BFBProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 07
Posts: 5267
Credit: 291,935,830
RAC: 471,282
Brazil
Message 1316049 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 15:30:09 UTC - in response to Message 1316017.
Last modified: 16 Dec 2012, 15:35:46 UTC

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!
____________

zoom314Project donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 46257
Credit: 36,670,819
RAC: 5,374
Message 1316071 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 15:49:52 UTC - in response to Message 1316049.

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!

Doesn't everybody?
____________
My Facebook, War Commander, 2015

Profile Khangollo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 1 Aug 00
Posts: 245
Credit: 36,410,524
RAC: 0
Slovenia
Message 1316083 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 16:10:50 UTC

100 WU is not even enough for little GT 440 for 1 day, BTW.
____________

Team kizb
Send message
Joined: 8 Mar 01
Posts: 219
Credit: 3,709,162
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 1316089 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 16:23:17 UTC

So is this 100 WU limit per a computer or per an account?
____________
My Computers:
Blue Offline
Green Offline
Red Offline

Profile ivan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Mar 01
Posts: 608
Credit: 137,763,348
RAC: 148,998
United Kingdom
Message 1316091 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 16:24:31 UTC - in response to Message 1316089.

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
Germany
Message 1316094 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 16:28:29 UTC - in response to Message 1316091.

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.


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:
Blue Offline
Green Offline
Red Offline

Profile Bill GProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 1 Jun 01
Posts: 347
Credit: 40,809,698
RAC: 71,775
United States
Message 1316095 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 16:30:25 UTC - in response to Message 1316094.

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.


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?

That is correct.
____________

mikeej42
Send message
Joined: 26 Oct 00
Posts: 109
Credit: 790,355,200
RAC: 55,005
United States
Message 1316096 - Posted: 16 Dec 2012, 16:30:58 UTC - in response to Message 1316091.

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.


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.
____________

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Limits

Copyright © 2014 University of California