Message boards :
Number crunching :
A thought on the server outage
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Geek@Play Send message Joined: 31 Jul 01 Posts: 2467 Credit: 86,146,931 RAC: 0 |
It occurs to me that a lot of client computers are not maintaing a proper cache level. If you cannot withstand a 12 hour outage the cache level is probably set too low. Going into panic mode and punching the update button continuously does not help. Also performing a detach and re-attatch to the project is definately detrimental to the overall operation. A chache level of 2 days is what I consider the minimum level. At that setting you could probably keep crunching over a weekend outage. OK - Flame on, I'm ready! Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc.... |
STE\/E Send message Joined: 29 Mar 03 Posts: 1137 Credit: 5,334,063 RAC: 0 |
I agree with you Geek@Play, I usually have 4-5 days of Cache available on all my Computers. |
Scott Brown Send message Joined: 5 Sep 00 Posts: 110 Credit: 59,739 RAC: 0 |
That's fine if your machines are on 24/7, but lower caches seem to work best with boxes that are on only part-time (e.g., during business hours, etc.)--especially if they are multi-project hosts. Also, in my case for example, I am going out of town for two weeks, so setting the cache low was necessary if I didn't want to have a bunch of late work units. |
. Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 410 Credit: 16,559 RAC: 0 |
> It occurs to me that a lot of client computers are not maintaing a proper > cache level. If you cannot withstand a 12 hour outage the cache level is > probably set too low. Going into panic mode and punching the update button > continuously does not help. Also performing a detach and re-attatch to the > project is definately detrimental to the overall operation. A chache level of > 2 days is what I consider the minimum level. At that setting you could > probably keep crunching over a weekend outage. > > OK - Flame on, I'm ready! > Why would we flame you? :-) I have my cash level set as low as 0.1 day, so I only have max. 2 WU's at the time, one in progress and one in waiting. And this suits me fine, as I won't be a bottleneck for credit granting. And a outage can't make my day miserable, because so what? There are WU's enough for everybody, and if somebody can't live without their box crunching something, there are other projects to join! Just my oppinion! |
STE\/E Send message Joined: 29 Mar 03 Posts: 1137 Credit: 5,334,063 RAC: 0 |
That's fine if your machines are on 24/7 ========= All my Computers run 24/7 365 days of the year .... :) |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 |
> That's fine if your machines are on 24/7, but lower caches seem to work best > with boxes that are on only part-time (e.g., during business hours, > etc.)--especially if they are multi-project hosts. Also, in my case for > example, I am going out of town for two weeks, so setting the cache low was > necessary if I didn't want to have a bunch of late work units. Hmmm.... I run part-time. Every computer that can be turned off at the end of my (incredibly long) work day is turned off. Servers stay on, but they're not running BOINC. BOINC seems to do a good job of figuring out how much my machines are on per-day and adjusting the number of Work Units appropriately. I agree that it's nice to flush your cache before going on vacation.... |
©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.