Which was your highest credit for 1 WU?

Message boards : Number crunching : Which was your highest credit for 1 WU?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 8 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Labbie
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Jun 06
Posts: 4083
Credit: 5,930,102
RAC: 0
United States
Message 425859 - Posted: 24 Sep 2006, 23:20:45 UTC - in response to Message 425832.  

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
ID: 425859 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14658
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 425884 - Posted: 24 Sep 2006, 23:54:46 UTC - in response to Message 425859.  
Last modified: 24 Sep 2006, 23:56:57 UTC

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>
ID: 425884 · Report as offensive
Profile Labbie
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Jun 06
Posts: 4083
Credit: 5,930,102
RAC: 0
United States
Message 425899 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 0:31:32 UTC - in response to Message 425884.  
Last modified: 25 Sep 2006, 0:36:17 UTC

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
ID: 425899 · Report as offensive
Profile littlegreenmanfrommars
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Jan 06
Posts: 1410
Credit: 934,158
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 426012 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 2:59:48 UTC - in response to Message 425799.  

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
ID: 426012 · Report as offensive
Josef W. Segur
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4504
Credit: 1,414,761
RAC: 0
United States
Message 426023 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 3:14:09 UTC - in response to Message 425686.  
Last modified: 25 Sep 2006, 3:15:40 UTC

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
ID: 426023 · Report as offensive
Profile greggus

Send message
Joined: 31 Aug 01
Posts: 2
Credit: 10,684
RAC: 0
United States
Message 426028 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 3:21:04 UTC

67.24
ID: 426028 · Report as offensive
Profile John R. @ SETI.USA

Send message
Joined: 3 Jul 99
Posts: 13
Credit: 82,149,277
RAC: 47
United States
Message 426030 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 3:24:16 UTC

97.96


ID: 426030 · Report as offensive
Profile littlegreenmanfrommars
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Jan 06
Posts: 1410
Credit: 934,158
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 426074 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 6:59:11 UTC - in response to Message 426023.  

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 :)

ID: 426074 · Report as offensive
Profile Labbie
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Jun 06
Posts: 4083
Credit: 5,930,102
RAC: 0
United States
Message 426152 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 13:43:19 UTC

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
ID: 426152 · Report as offensive
Profile Labbie
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Jun 06
Posts: 4083
Credit: 5,930,102
RAC: 0
United States
Message 426193 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 15:20:12 UTC - in response to Message 426152.  

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
ID: 426193 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde C. Phillips, III

Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 00
Posts: 1851
Credit: 5,955,047
RAC: 0
United States
Message 426239 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 18:55:54 UTC

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.
ID: 426239 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19168
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 426326 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 21:43:57 UTC - in response to Message 426239.  

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
ID: 426326 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14658
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 426333 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 21:55:41 UTC - in response to Message 426326.  

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.
ID: 426333 · Report as offensive
Randy Hancock
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 10 Aug 06
Posts: 169
Credit: 220,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 426372 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 22:48:05 UTC - in response to Message 426333.  

I normaly get a 100 wu's a cycle
ID: 426372 · Report as offensive
Alinator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 05
Posts: 4178
Credit: 4,647,982
RAC: 0
United States
Message 426382 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 23:03:01 UTC - in response to Message 426372.  

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
ID: 426382 · Report as offensive
Profile Labbie
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Jun 06
Posts: 4083
Credit: 5,930,102
RAC: 0
United States
Message 426399 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 23:25:00 UTC - in response to Message 425899.  

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
ID: 426399 · Report as offensive
Alinator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 05
Posts: 4178
Credit: 4,647,982
RAC: 0
United States
Message 426416 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 23:47:18 UTC - in response to Message 426399.  
Last modified: 25 Sep 2006, 23:49:03 UTC


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
ID: 426416 · Report as offensive
Astro
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 02
Posts: 8026
Credit: 600,015
RAC: 0
Message 426434 - Posted: 26 Sep 2006, 0:22:37 UTC
Last modified: 26 Sep 2006, 0:35:18 UTC

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"
ID: 426434 · Report as offensive
Profile littlegreenmanfrommars
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Jan 06
Posts: 1410
Credit: 934,158
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 426550 - Posted: 26 Sep 2006, 6:59:08 UTC

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!

ID: 426550 · Report as offensive
Profile Suzuki
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 01
Posts: 318
Credit: 4,474,402
RAC: 1
United Kingdom
Message 426582 - Posted: 26 Sep 2006, 10:53:42 UTC - in response to Message 426550.  

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 ...
ID: 426582 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 8 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Which was your highest credit for 1 WU?


 
©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.