Posts by Ace Casino

log in
1) Message boards : Number crunching : Not Running @ 100% Anymore (Message 1473065)
Posted 5 Feb 2014 by Profile Ace Casino
I appreciate all the work you put into this Hal9000.

I'm not sure about the frequency right now.

Maybe there is some kind of glitch with win8's and task manager.

As long as my computer isn't returning invalid results and it's not dying.

Thanks for your help
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Not Running @ 100% Anymore (Message 1472780)
Posted 4 Feb 2014 by Profile Ace Casino
Task Manger in 8.x now displays usage in 0.1% increments, vs 1% as in previous OS's. So if you sort by usage you will see several processes using 0.1% to 0.4%.

I see the same reported 98-99% reported by Task Manger when using Windows 8.x on my test machines. At no point does it ever display 100%. Task Manager also shows the CPU frequency as flopping between 2.74 & 2.77GHz. All other software I use on that machine shows a solid 2.8GHz & a steady load.

My i7-4770 computer is using Win8.1 and shows 100% in task manager, with no fluctuation.
I guess it still could be something strange with Win8 computers?

3) Message boards : Number crunching : Not Running @ 100% Anymore (Message 1472733)
Posted 4 Feb 2014 by Profile Ace Casino
Both Process Explorer and Task Manager read 98/99%.

So what do they show using the other 1 or 2% ? If it's the "System idle process" that's a very different indication than having some Windows service grabbing more time than you want.

That's just it, nothing is using the other 1 or 2%. It's just that BOINC is not running at 100%, and all preferences are set to run at 100%.

I thought I'd see if anyone ever had this kind of problem. I'll watch and see what happens. All 5 of my other computers are always pegged at 100%.

4) Message boards : Number crunching : Not Running @ 100% Anymore (Message 1472374)
Posted 3 Feb 2014 by Profile Ace Casino
Both Process Explorer and Task Manager read 98/99%.

I have restarted several times and temps stay around 55c. Not using any type of utility to control anything.

Just thought I'd get some input to see if this is the beginning of the end for that computer. I've had a lot of computers running BOINC and all ran at 100%, this is the 1st computer that dipped when it was set to run at max speed.

5) Message boards : Number crunching : Not Running @ 100% Anymore (Message 1472339)
Posted 3 Feb 2014 by Profile Ace Casino
My i3 computer recently started to only run at 99%, sometimes 98%. It has been running at 100%, with no problems, for about a year.

Every computer I have ever hooked up to BOINC has run at 100%.

The computer seems to be operating normally except for this. The preferences are set at 100% processors, and 100% CPU.

I tried: Upgraded BOINC Manager, upgraded GPU driver, upgraded operating system from Windows 8 to 8.1.

I can’t see any process running in Process Explorer that might be holding it back.

I’m not getting any errors on WU’s for any project. It just won’t run at 100%.

Any help would be great.

6) Message boards : Number crunching : Resource Share (Message 1429799)
Posted 17 Oct 2013 by Profile Ace Casino
I'm within the standards of BOINC, it's Resource Share that is flawed, just as I suspected.

7) Message boards : Number crunching : Resource Share (Message 1429744)
Posted 17 Oct 2013 by Profile Ace Casino
Here's the definition of Resource Share:

Resource share
Determines the proportion of your computer's resources allocated to this project. Example: if you participate in two BOINC projects with resource shares of 100 and 200, the first will get 1/3 of your resources and the second will get 2/3.

It does not talk about Greed.

I pretty much knew the reason it wasn't working is the WU limits of SETI, and the 45 day vs. 10 deadlines of Einstein.

Resource share has always been a weak link with BOINC.

I have 1 computer that does Einstein and Rosetta, resource share works ok.

So, does it work or not with Einstein and SETI?
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Resource Share (Message 1429706)
Posted 17 Oct 2013 by Profile Ace Casino
I’ve been trying for almost 5 months now to change the resource share of SETI and Einstein. I have several computers and I keep increasing the resource share of SETI and decreasing the share on Einstein, it’s not working.

Resetting projects doesn’t seem to work. I lowered cache size on projects. Just to give you an idea where I am now on resource share: On my i7 computer I have SETI 10,000 v Einstein 30 share. It’s been like this for a few weeks and no change. There is no significant ‘scheduling priority’ deficit for either project.

It's not like I just changed the settings and I'm impatient. 5 months now (might be longer) with zero change.

9) Message boards : Number crunching : Resource Share (Message 1429687)
Posted 17 Oct 2013 by Profile Ace Casino
Does Resource Share work between SETI and Einstein?

If no, that’s all I needed to know.

If yes, I’ll give more detail.

10) Message boards : Technical News : Tom (Dec 23 2008) (Message 844531)
Posted 24 Dec 2008 by Profile Ace Casino
If any of the problems such as upload, running out of WU’s, bandwidth limits has anything to do with CUDA being released, why not limit the number of CUDA WU’s you can request per day to a lower number, until thing sort themselves out.

Only allow 20, 40, 60 WU’s a day per computer.

I don’t know if this is possible, you only allow a certain number of Wu’s per CPU on a computer. Why not only allow a certain number of WU’s per NIVIDIA card? Something LOW for now, then turn it up slowly over time.

Happy Holidays
11) Message boards : Number crunching : The End of Distributive Computing as we know it (Message 843625)
Posted 22 Dec 2008 by Profile Ace Casino
I believe this is the end to Distributed Computing, as we have known it for a decade or so.

If you can complete work in seconds, rather than minutes or hours…why keep us around? The WU’s I’ve seen have completed in 4 - 7 seconds with CUDA. The wingman that have been paired with the CUDA have taken anywhere from 1,000+ seconds to 3,000+ seconds.

SETI could take the $500,000 in donations per year, start buying NVIDIA cards, and do it there self a lot easier without the hassle from outside people.

Other “potential” projects will surely opt for do-it-yourself now, rather than setup a Boinc Project. Even if they do decide to use distributed computing it may be limited to 1,000 or 20,000 users, or whatever that magic number might be. In the future Projects with only the most “Massive” amounts of data would use distributed computing. Even these Projects may limit the number of people due to the data transfer limitations, data creation, or other limitations they may have.

The end of Distributive Computing as we know it may not happen overnight……but will likely happen in the next few years if NVIDIA or other types of drivers prove as, or more successful in crunching data. Computers from: home to Super, are getting faster and less expensive and are becoming easily affordable for almost anyone, especially a University or research group. There may always be a small niche for Distributed Computing in the future, but not on the scale it is now.

Think of yourself as a Columbus or Magellan, you helped pave the way….but even their trips came to an end.
12) Message boards : Number crunching : A question about water... (Message 828351)
Posted 8 Nov 2008 by Profile Ace Casino
Put a smoke detector directly above the wet computers and leave it there forever.

Get the type that will notify you by cell phone, if it goes off, you can get home quickly and save your RAC.
13) Message boards : Technical News : Rags and Bones (Oct 27 2008) (Message 824208)
Posted 28 Oct 2008 by Profile Ace Casino
If part or any of the problems is too many connections hammering away at Berkeley, why don’t you increase the deadline for the small (quickly crunched) WU’s that go out? Better yet, give every WU the same deadline: 3 weeks. 3 weeks is about the deadline I’m getting now for a normal Wu’s.

The small WU’s take me 20 minutes to crunch and get a 7-day deadline. (putting me into HIGH PRIORITY) and crunching these first.

The normal Wu’s take me 60 minutes to crunch and get a 3-week deadline.

When I download the small Wu’s they start to crunch at slightly different times, due to the download process. If I have an active internet connection when the 1st WU finishes crunching, Boinc connects to report, then the second WU finishes and Boinc connects again reporting it, and again and again and again. This can happen up to 20 - 40 times in a row (depending on how many small wu‘s I get)…and I’m just one person. Multiply this times thousands of people.

Uniform deadlines of 3-weeks for all WU’s might slow down the repeated connections to report 1 or 2 Wu’s because they have a short deadline and have gone into High Priority.
14) Message boards : Number crunching : Long term debt, again (Message 820178)
Posted 18 Oct 2008 by Profile Ace Casino
The easiest way to do away with your LTD is to detach and reattach.

I’ve been fiddling with resource share and dept for a few months now. I’ve detached and reattached several times to get rid of LTD. No one gets hurt….Redundancy…remember

I said the resource share should be based on 100%, it is….but it isn’t, from my experience. Here is what I mean:

Example 1

2 projects: 99% on one project, 1% on another project = 100%. This ratio is not good for what I want. I will download days, sometimes weeks worth of work, for the project with the 1% share, on a project I only want to run a little. Even with this ratio the dept can climb and climb, especially if no work is available from the project, even for a short time.

Example 2

2 projects: 375% on one project, 1% on another project: 99.73% to .27% = 100%. This ratio is getting close to what I want. But the difference in these 2 ways of dividing resource share is amazing. I know 1 project is only getting .27% of resource share in this example as opposed to 1% with the other example, but dividing resource like example 2, is like night and day.

Alinator, I know you know more about Boinc than most. I also see that you don’t have a dual or quad computer. Things might look one way on paper, but real world application might surprise you. To see hundreds of WU’s download when resource share is set to 1% amazes me. I hear all the time that Boinc has been set up for the average user to be as simple as possible. How many average users would know to raise the percent of resource share into the hundreds (example 500%) on one project and possibly a fraction of a percent on another to run a project part-time? 99% to 1% seems logical, but is not on a multiple core computer. Having single, dual and quad computers myself, I notice the ratio goes up exponentially with more cores (don’t say ya daa) I’m talking huge differences. Differences the average (and the above average) person could not see coming when setting resource share. Example 1 and 2 the difference is only .73% for the second project, but the way the resource share is set up (99% vs. 375%) is a gigantic difference.

This is why sometime in the future it would be nice to be able to divide resource share with the number of cores of your computer. The number of cores on computers keep rising, it seems a logical step to take at some point. 16 cores - 16 different projects (if that is what you choose), all running simultaneously at 100% resource share.
15) Message boards : Number crunching : Now enough about SETI. I leave (Message 817721)
Posted 12 Oct 2008 by Profile Ace Casino
What kind of computers you running?

Your RAC divided by 200 (computers) = 12.5 RAC per computer

Are they 50mghz computers or 75mghz?

Try running 2 - 2ghz computers and you will have the same RAC

16) Message boards : Number crunching : Norton Antivirus '09 (Message 816608)
Posted 10 Oct 2008 by Profile Ace Casino
I saw a story on the news, in the last week or so, how there is a Trojan/virus being distributed with a bogus Free Norton Offer.

Google it and you will see. I’ve never seen Norton for free unless it was an old version with outdated updates or came with a new computer.
17) Message boards : Cafe SETI : One to Tee you off (Message 810419)
Posted 20 Sep 2008 by Profile Ace Casino
Fair question to ask:

48 countries in Europe.

28 who are competing.

I would be embarrassed to be a country that admitted they where so weak individually they needed 27 other countries to help beat the USA. We all know the USA is great but does I take 28 countries to beat us?

PS> 9 - 12 handicap here > 78 last round…and you?
18) Message boards : Number crunching : Somebody needs to kick the servers! (Message 808322)
Posted 15 Sep 2008 by Profile Ace Casino
Jack, is willing to donate his time and expertise and your knocking him down???

Jack, post your intentions to help in the “technical news” section, under the last thread Matt has posted, and see what comes of it.

Maybe Jack is privy to software that could identify a problem…who knows?

Money is great, but why discourage someone wanting to help out if they may be able to.???

The Red Cross gets millions from donations but could not do its job without volunteers!

And as a side note the Red Cross and most every other reputable organization that asks for donations has learned: the more you ask for money the less people give….this is a fact! This is the reason for an annual fund drive.

SETI and anyone who keeps saying give, give give…may actually be hurting the cause. You may see initial spikes in donations but in the long run you will see less…facts are facts.

When Blurff started his fund drive when SETI was down for several days, it was a brilliant move. When Blurff started his second fund drive a couple days after the first, it was a very poor move and the SETI staff should have stopped it.

Right now how many of you are saying: but the second drive raised money too. Yes, it did, but probably in the short term, it may have hurt the long term.

People who donated during the first drive may have felt a sense of community. May have felt special being part of something unique. May have felt their individual donation is being recognized as important. It may have been their first donation and this was awesome to do.

Then SETI starts another drive a couple days later. How many of the people who donated in the first drive felt let down? That the first fund drive was not so special. They may even feel dooped over it if SETI is going to hold a fund drive every few days. Some or many who donated may be saying I wont fall for that again, and never give again.

This is the nature of fund raising my friends. it’s a very slippery slope. I know some of you have good intentions. Ask to often for money and people WILL turn away…permanently!
19) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : September 10th 2008 - Cern LHC switch on (Message 806598)
Posted 10 Sep 2008 by Profile Ace Casino
September 10, 2008

Associated Press:

The World ended…………LHC
20) Message boards : Number crunching : Resource Share Local Overide? (Message 801469)
Posted 23 Aug 2008 by Profile Ace Casino
The most important function of the CPU scheduler is to meet deadlines - even if that means temporarily ignoring all other settings about how to divide the resources of the computer.

If you only have 1 core allocated (in preferences), then the deadline should be met. That is what you have allocated…1 core (if this was possible today). The deadline would be based on knowing your only going to use 1 core, therefore it would not download work that 2,4, or 8 cores would need to process.

What could be more difficult than resource share. I see people that post on these boards all the time that are confused. If it was all based on 100% it might not be that bad. But when you can say 500% for project "A" and 50% for project "B" and 8% for project "C" it all can get difficult for the average person that is not a daily participant. How would you know that you can go above 100% in resource share if you where not a regular reader of these boards?

Next 20

Copyright © 2014 University of California