Here's another from 11 Oct 99. My PII-300 hasn't finished crunching yet, but according to the other two that have completed it, it will be an 88.something.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=91880684 (sorry about getting lazy with the URL).

My PII-300 still has about 14 hours to go which will put it at about 90 hours total to crunch this one WU.

Labbie

Since you've got a live one in captivity, so to speak, a couple of questions:

What was the original time estimate when you got it - anything like the 90 hours it's turning out to be? My first one was vvveeerrryyy slow (by the standards of the machine that crunched it!), and it knocked my DCF for six... (over 0.47 when I thought to look, 14 hours later: it's back to 0.35 and falling now).

Do you feel comfortable copying the downloaded WU data file, and looking inside the copy with a text editor to get, in particular, the RA and DEC figures that say where in the sky it was collected from?

Sorry if this double-posts, but something happened to my first response (maybe THEY don't want us to look at it). ;)

The original estimate was approx 90 hours, I thought it would trim itself down as this PC had not been crunching for about 10 days prior to downloadiong this WU. I just looked and it will take between 93 & 94 hours to complete.

I am comfortable looking at a file, I'm assuming it is the one that starts with "11oc99". I'm not sure what to look for in the file, if you can give me an idea I'd be happy to get the info for you.

---

Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now

I'm not sure what to look for in the file, if you can give me an idea I'd be happy to get the info for you.

You're running Windows, which makes it easier to guide you - I wouldn't know what to say if you were running *nix!

Yes, we're looking at the 354KB file starting 11oc99, and datestamped 21 Sep 2006 12:54:01 UTC (not sure what correction to apply for your timezone). Ignore the little file dated now-ish - those are your results.

Double-click on the file. Windows won't know what to do with it: select "select the program from a list".

Choose "Internet explorer" from the list, and uncheck the box underneath that asks "Always use the selected program to open this kind of file?" - then click OK.

I'm interested in the "workunit_header" information - at least as much as in the example snippet below, from another tape, down to <time_recorded>. But it would be nice if you could copy the entire header block and save it for later.

Highlight the header block, and use ctrl-C to copy it: open notepad and use ctrl-V to paste the text in: save and close the notepad file: close internet explorer (I've suggested using that, because you can't save changes to the file and mess it up!).

Then if you wouldn't mind, paste the first few lines here, and somebody else who knows more astronomy than me will be able to tell us all where in the sky Arecibo was looking when these unusual WUs were recorded.

<workunit_header>
  <name>15my06aa.1163.25569.990916.3.237</name>
  <group_info>
    <tape_info>
      <name>15my06aa</name>
      <start_time>2453871.3094261</start_time>
      <last_block_time>2453871.3094261</last_block_time>
      <last_block_done>25569</last_block_done>
      <missed>0</missed>
      <tape_quality>0</tape_quality>
      <sb_id>0</sb_id>
    </tape_info>
    <name>15my06aa.1163.25569.990916.3</name>
    <data_desc>
      <start_ra>5.7340545087709</start_ra>
      <start_dec>18.015036214466</start_dec>
      <end_ra>5.7633010293823</end_ra>
      <end_dec>18.015036214466</end_dec>
      <true_angle_range>0.42662432260281</true_angle_range>
      <time_recorded>Mon May 15 19:25:35 2006</time_recorded>
      <time_recorded_jd>2453871.3094443</time_recorded_jd>

I'm not sure what to look for in the file, if you can give me an idea I'd be happy to get the info for you.

You're running Windows, which makes it easier to guide you - I wouldn't know what to say if you were running *nix!

Yes, we're looking at the 354KB file starting 11oc99, and datestamped 21 Sep 2006 12:54:01 UTC (not sure what correction to apply for your timezone). Ignore the little file dated now-ish - those are your results.

Double-click on the file. Windows won't know what to do with it: select "select the program from a list".

Choose "Internet explorer" from the list, and uncheck the box underneath that asks "Always use the selected program to open this kind of file?" - then click OK.

I'm interested in the "workunit_header" information - at least as much as in the example snippet below, from another tape, down to <time_recorded>. But it would be nice if you could copy the entire header block and save it for later.

Here it is, I've saved the entire file somewhere else on my system in case we need/want to look further into it later.

<workunit>
<workunit_header>
<name>11oc99aa.8109.20178.754822.3.172</name>
<group_info>
<tape_info>
<name>11oc99aa</name>
<start_time>2451463.5280993</start_time>
<last_block_time>2451463.5280993</last_block_time>
<last_block_done>20178</last_block_done>
<missed>0</missed>
<tape_quality>0</tape_quality>
<sb_id>0</sb_id>
</tape_info>
<name>11oc99aa.8109.20178.754822.3</name>
<data_desc>
<start_ra>21.481303893653</start_ra>
<start_dec>10.80082345535</start_dec>
<end_ra>21.47521504599</end_ra>
<end_dec>10.821240860354</end_dec>
<true_angle_range>0.094121306083206</true_angle_range>
<time_recorded>Tue Oct 12 00:40:28 1999</time_recorded>
<time_recorded_jd>2451463.5281133</time_recorded_jd>

---

Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now

Yes, it's another one from that 11 October 1999 tape. I've got WUs from 91872539 (Alinator) to 91883957 (littlegreenmanfrommars), all with an AR of about 0.09, split from tape between 14:48:03 and 15:54:36 on 20-Sep-2006.

Sure looks as if Arecibo was studying something quite intensively on 11 October 1999....

Certainly is interesting, Richard!
I've copied and pasted some info I think is relevant from the result page:

Work Unit Info
True angle range: 0.087304

Flopcounter: 24432963811397.789000

Spike count: 0
Pulse count: 4
Triplet count: 1
Gaussian count: 0

---

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=383313082

94.72 Mind you, atm... only one quorum member other than me has reported, and that was a "compute error".

Still waiting for the quorum to be completed, and validation, as of time of posting.

WU number is: 11oc99aa.8109.20321.804812.3.110_1

Guess what??? October 11th again!

True angle range: 0.087304

And if you look through a workunit header you'll find

<beam_width>0.0829999968</beam_width>

The significance of that is because Pulse finding is done in 1 beam_width units. For an angle range just under 0.083 all data can be processed in a single chunk, like:

|---------------------------------------------------|

For that 0.087, the program has to do:

|---------------------------------------------------|

 |---------------------------------------------------|

                                                         Joe

67.24

97.96

---

True angle range: 0.087304

And if you look through a workunit header you'll find

<beam_width>0.0829999968</beam_width>

The significance of that is because Pulse finding is done in 1 beam_width units. For an angle range just under 0.083 all data can be processed in a single chunk, like:

|---------------------------------------------------|

For that 0.087, the program has to do:

|---------------------------------------------------|

 |---------------------------------------------------|

                                                         Joe

That explains a bit towards why this particular tape is giving such high credit claims Joe. Your contribution is not only relevant, it makes sense! Thanks, mate :)

---

Here's an 84.33 that is NOT from 11 Oct 99. It completed last night.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=92289092

Labbie

---

Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now

Here's an 84.33 that is NOT from 11 Oct 99. It completed last night.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=92289092

Labbie

I think I previously reported this one, sorry.

Labbie

---

Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now

I found two VLARs crunched by each of my two machines (PD950s), the first ones I've noticed. They're about 0.03 degree, 58.5 credits and require about 10,850 seconds to crunch. This means that based on just these two, VLARs are medium-low yielders, about 19-20 credits per hour, compared to the low (18 per hour) yield of 30-credit ones, and higher-yield ones (about 25 credits per hour) for my setup. This info is very preliminary and may not be typical.

---

I found two VLARs crunched by each of my two machines (PD950s), the first ones I've noticed. They're about 0.03 degree, 58.5 credits and require about 10,850 seconds to crunch. This means that based on just these two, VLARs are medium-low yielders, about 19-20 credits per hour, compared to the low (18 per hour) yield of 30-credit ones, and higher-yield ones (about 25 credits per hour) for my setup. This info is very preliminary and may not be typical.

I hope Ric K on one of the others is monitoring these VLAR units, because before Enhanced was released here, there was only a few VLAR units crunched on Beta and it was difficult to see what the trend was. The few of us monitoring the units, Pappa etc, couldn't work out wether the differences seen in crunch times were Intel/AMD or single/multi cpu issues. Or even if there were OS's differences.

It seems from the few reported here that some computers are seeing longer than expected crunch times, some are producing errors (mainly -9 overflows) whilst the same unit is being crunched OK by others, whilst others are just reporting high claimed/granted credits.
It's a bit odd.

Andy

I found two VLARs crunched by each of my two machines (PD950s), the first ones I've noticed. They're about 0.03 degree, 58.5 credits and require about 10,850 seconds to crunch. This means that based on just these two, VLARs are medium-low yielders, about 19-20 credits per hour, compared to the low (18 per hour) yield of 30-credit ones, and higher-yield ones (about 25 credits per hour) for my setup. This info is very preliminary and may not be typical.

I hope Ric K on one of the others is monitoring these VLAR units, because before Enhanced was released here, there was only a few VLAR units crunched on Beta and it was difficult to see what the trend was. The few of us monitoring the units, Pappa etc, couldn't work out wether the differences seen in crunch times were Intel/AMD or single/multi cpu issues. Or even if there were OS's differences.

It seems from the few reported here that some computers are seeing longer than expected crunch times, some are producing errors (mainly -9 overflows) whilst the same unit is being crunched OK by others, whilst others are just reporting high claimed/granted credits.
It's a bit odd.

Andy

Only a few have been reported, but there seems to be an extended block and you can find them just by moving up or down adjacent (or, usually, alternate) WU numbers.

I've looked at

91872539
91872605
91877145
91880387
91880684
91882518
91883949
91883951
91883953
91883955
91883957
91885463

which all fit the pattern. Plenty of data lying around (until it gets purged) if you want to look for it.

I normaly get a 100 wu's a cycle

I normaly get a 100 wu's a cycle

OOOOH, a dual dually Opty 285.... Kewl.

BTW I hate you! (Only kidding but turning green nonetheless.) :-)

Alinator

I'm not sure what to look for in the file, if you can give me an idea I'd be happy to get the info for you.

You're running Windows, which makes it easier to guide you - I wouldn't know what to say if you were running *nix!

Yes, we're looking at the 354KB file starting 11oc99, and datestamped 21 Sep 2006 12:54:01 UTC (not sure what correction to apply for your timezone). Ignore the little file dated now-ish - those are your results.

Double-click on the file. Windows won't know what to do with it: select "select the program from a list".

Choose "Internet explorer" from the list, and uncheck the box underneath that asks "Always use the selected program to open this kind of file?" - then click OK.

I'm interested in the "workunit_header" information - at least as much as in the example snippet below, from another tape, down to <time_recorded>. But it would be nice if you could copy the entire header block and save it for later.

Here it is, I've saved the entire file somewhere else on my system in case we need/want to look further into it later.

<workunit>
<workunit_header>
<name>11oc99aa.8109.20178.754822.3.172</name>
<group_info>
<tape_info>
<name>11oc99aa</name>
<start_time>2451463.5280993</start_time>
<last_block_time>2451463.5280993</last_block_time>
<last_block_done>20178</last_block_done>
<missed>0</missed>
<tape_quality>0</tape_quality>
<sb_id>0</sb_id>
</tape_info>
<name>11oc99aa.8109.20178.754822.3</name>
<data_desc>
<start_ra>21.481303893653</start_ra>
<start_dec>10.80082345535</start_dec>
<end_ra>21.47521504599</end_ra>
<end_dec>10.821240860354</end_dec>
<true_angle_range>0.094121306083206</true_angle_range>
<time_recorded>Tue Oct 12 00:40:28 1999</time_recorded>
<time_recorded_jd>2451463.5281133</time_recorded_jd>

It finally completed, taking a mere 353,517.74 seconds, or 5,891.9623 minutes, or 98.1993 hours. It's also crunching with Chicken's MMX optimized app, so just imagine how much time it could have taken.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=91880684

---

Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now

It finally completed, taking a mere 353,517.74 seconds, or 5,891.9623 minutes, or 98.1993 hours. It's also crunching with Chicken's MMX optimized app, so just imagine how much time it could have taken.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=91880684

For a PII/300 that's not too shabby. A lot better than my K6/300's can manage which is around 420 KSec for a midband AR result running an MMX app. AMD FPU's were really pretty lame in the old days.

I haven't drawn a VLAR on one of them yet, but wouldn't be surprised if it added another 100+ KSec to the run time.

Alinator

here's a sample of my data, this shows 50 or so wus done by my AMD64 3700 Sandiego in the last couple months. These are WUs done with 5.15 official app. both charts are of the same wus in the same order, just the displayed info has been changed. Doh, the bottom chart is CPU seconds, the top is "granted credit/hour".



[edit]the text at the bottom should read "angle range" not "Result ID"

If I'm reading that right, the larger the Angle Range, the longer it takes to crunch (of course!) but the less creds per hour you get. Interesting!

---

If I'm reading that right, the larger the Angle Range, the longer it takes to crunch (of course!) but the less creds per hour you get. Interesting!

I thought that was the other way round? i.e. large AR = quicker crunch times?

Might just be me ... not had a beer yet, so am still confusedly sober. Must remedy that ...

---