Faster credit: 4 copies of each WU initially being sent out now

Message boards : Number crunching : Faster credit: 4 copies of each WU initially being sent out now
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5

AuthorMessage
The Jedi Alliance - Ranger
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Dec 00
Posts: 72
Credit: 60,982,863
RAC: 0
United States
Message 58738 - Posted: 31 Dec 2004, 17:38:07 UTC - in response to Message 58733.  


>
> How are you getting 4885 MIPS out of that computer? My 2.0 4M is only doing
> 3161 :(
>

I've got a 2.0 GHz P4 M that's showing 5051 MIPS. It depends on the bus speed, memory speed and the L2 cache size.

ID: 58738 · Report as offensive
Divide Overflow
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 365
Credit: 131,684
RAC: 0
United States
Message 58743 - Posted: 31 Dec 2004, 17:49:23 UTC - in response to Message 58733.  
Last modified: 31 Dec 2004, 17:53:14 UTC

> How are you getting 4885 MIPS out of that computer? My 2.0 4M is only doing
> 3161 :(

I've got a 1.8 4M that does 4550, so his benchmark sounds pretty reasonable to me. Ranger's correct, memory and bus speed are big factors. Are you sure you're not throttling down for heat or power reasons?

I hope the scheduler gets kicked into high gear to send out the additional WU copies required for validation. While new WU's are being sent out with 4 copies, there are still a lot of "older" WU's with 3 results that are held up waiting for that fourth to come down the pipe...

ID: 58743 · Report as offensive
Profile Benher
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Jul 99
Posts: 517
Credit: 465,152
RAC: 0
United States
Message 58752 - Posted: 31 Dec 2004, 18:24:27 UTC - in response to Message 58486.  


>
> It's even worse than that, John. You're not getting work units - you're
> getting the results of somebody else's calculation on a work unit. All the
> crunching you're doing is on something they already know. Otherwise it
> wouldn't be a "result", it would be a "work unit". The "result" is the end of
> the computation, not the beginning. See Merriam-Webster OnLine which defines
> "result" as: "2 : something obtained by calculation or investigation". A
> "result" is the _output_, not the input.

Bill,

The philosophical distinction the programmer (David Anderson) made when he wrote the code was that BOINC would be passing out "Empty" result templates, and receiving back filled results from hosts.
ID: 58752 · Report as offensive
Bill & Patsy
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 01
Posts: 141
Credit: 508,875
RAC: 0
United States
Message 58810 - Posted: 31 Dec 2004, 22:29:33 UTC - in response to Message 58752.  

>
> >
> > It's even worse than that, John. You're not getting work units - you're
> > getting the results of somebody else's calculation on a work unit. All
> the
> > crunching you're doing is on something they already know. Otherwise it
> > wouldn't be a "result", it would be a "work unit". The "result" is the
> end of
> > the computation, not the beginning. See Merriam-Webster OnLine which
> defines
> > "result" as: "2 : something obtained by calculation or investigation".
> A
> > "result" is the _output_, not the input.
>
> Bill,
>
> The philosophical distinction the programmer (David Anderson) made when he
> wrote the code was that BOINC would be passing out "Empty" result templates,
> and receiving back filled results from hosts.
>
Thanks, Ben. I think I may finally be getting it. There seems to be somewhat of a consensus that this terminology is not clear (polite term for "confusing"). Paul directed me to his website, which addresses this unfortunate choice of terms, and David might want to consider Paul's treatment of this issue since we're going to be seeing a LOT of newbies when Classic shuts down. David shouldn't be making things harder for them than necessary...

Thanks for the feedback.

--Bill

ID: 58810 · Report as offensive
Profile Paul D. Buck
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Jul 00
Posts: 3898
Credit: 1,158,042
RAC: 0
United States
Message 58997 - Posted: 1 Jan 2005, 12:01:16 UTC - in response to Message 58810.  

Bill,

> Thanks, Ben. I think I may finally be getting it. There seems to be somewhat
> of a consensus that this terminology is not clear (polite term for
> "confusing"). Paul directed me to his website, which addresses this
> unfortunate choice of terms, and David might want to consider Paul's treatment
> of this issue since we're going to be seeing a LOT of newbies when Classic
> shuts down. David shouldn't be making things harder for them than
> necessary...

My personal favorite is "core client" which is still being used even though it was depreciated for almost 6 months now. It was always entertaining when people were trying to figure out what was causing problems and the distinction between the "core client" (currently called BOINC Work Manager, new name BOINC Manager for the cross-platform version)and the "client" (the science application) when talking about version numbers ...

It was very much in the mode of "Who's on first, What is on second ..."

> Thanks for the feedback.

We live to tell ... :)
ID: 58997 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5

Message boards : Number crunching : Faster credit: 4 copies of each WU initially being sent out now


 
©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.