"Unable to handle request

Can't find workunit"

What can be done about this work unit. Been there since January 07.

---

"Unable to handle request

Can't find workunit"

What can be done about this work unit. Been there since January 07.

Looks like another one to be added to Richard's list here.

The offending WU is this one

F.

---

Between 32.5% and 53% is still a relatively narrow range when you also take into account other individual variables (like number of boxen in your farm, range of speeds, cache settings, etc.).

Still... pending is higher on average than when we were on the old trio-quorum.

---

"Unable to handle request

Can't find workunit"

What can be done about this work unit. Been there since January 07.

Looks like another one to be added to Richard's list here.

The offending WU is this one

F.

Different problem in its details, but same generic issue: if a task/result drops out of the step-by-step sequence, it falls down the back of the filing cabinet and gets lost forever. Anyone got a scavenger we could borrow?

Oh yes, and RAC = 4,310.44, pending = 12,818.89 : 33.62% (1 day cache, variety of machines)

I have over 1,000 "credits" pending, which represents nearly a week of production for me... snip...

Man, I'd be happy with 1,000 credits pending. Here's mine:
Pending credit: 30,866.48

Tradesies:
Pending credit: 140,738.36

Hmmm, three of you mentioned your pending number and I did a rough calculation to come up with the following:

Jedi Mstr - Pending credit: 30,866.48 - RAC: 13,834 - RAC % of PC: 44.8
Clyde C Phillips - PC: ~4,000 - RAC: 1,650 - RAC % of PC: 41.3
Osiris30 - PC: 140,738.36 - RAC: 60,355 - RAC % of PC: 42.9

I wonder if that trend of low 40% is the same for most others too? Probably not but I thought it was interesting that it was true for those three.

If my math isn't wonky that would mean the average clear time for WUs is about 2.5 days from report to quorom check off.

Pending Credit 168.68
RAC 117.57
RAC is 70% of Pending.

---

BOINC WIKI

Pending Credit 168.68
RAC 117.57
RAC is 70% of Pending.

And now...for something completely different:

Pending Credit: 1617.73
RAC: 587.32
RAC is 36% of Pending

I have a few large credit results that a few hosts grabbed and then they seem to be either not reporting anything, or just starting to report stuff that they've had for a couple of weeks. Some of mine will likely have to go for the full duration of the original deadline, then get a reissue which may or may not be reported quicker the 2nd time around...

Also, with what I just noticed about the odd-numbered resultIDs not being sent out right now, pending is going to spike up for a while...

Brian

My RAC / Pending = 1542/4940 = 31.2%; the other way around 4940/1542 = 3.2 days’ worth of crunching.

---

My RAC / Pending = 1542/4940 = 31.2%; the other way around 4940/1542 = 3.2 days’ worth of crunching.

Ok, let's see if there's a correlation to cache depth.. I'm running 3 days and averaging 2.5 on a WU pairing... anyone else?

My RAC / Pending = 1542/4940 = 31.2%; the other way around 4940/1542 = 3.2 days’ worth of crunching.

Ok, let's see if there's a correlation to cache depth.. I'm running 3 days and averaging 2.5 on a WU pairing... anyone else?

0.5 day here.

My RAC / Pending = 1542/4940 = 31.2%; the other way around 4940/1542 = 3.2 days’ worth of crunching.

Ok, let's see if there's a correlation to cache depth.. I'm running 3 days and averaging 2.5 on a WU pairing... anyone else?

0.5 day here.

Well right off the bat that wrecks that possible avenue of exploration.

Well right off the bat that wrecks that possible avenue of exploration.

A sample of one isn’t much to draw conclusions from!

Since my hosts all run multiple projects, their turnaround of S@h work is inclined to be slower than a S@h-only cruncher's would be with the same cache setting. (check computer summaries) Well, the faster systems’ turnaround stats aren’t much affected by resource-sharing, apparently: they’re in the 0.45–0.65 day range. While the slower systems are averaging 2–3 days and more—a 400-MHz G4 can get spread pretty thin these days—they account for only a small proportion of my production.

OTOH the average turnaround isn’t necessarily a very good indicator of the typical ‘age’ of reported results: for example my G5, which runs between about four and nine projects (depending on how many have work) tends to crunch for only a couple of them at a time. As a result S@h’s “turn” comes only every two or three days, but it downloads a fairly large batch of WUs each time. RAC smooths out this ‘clumping’ fairly well, but I imagine the host’s pendings oscillate a fair bit because of it—I just don’t track them that closely.

Here's mine since the 27th of August (when I finally had all computers running Seti only).

Here's mine since the 27th of August (when I finally had all computers running Seti only).

i got over 2000 credits pending ..ie since last night around 11 pm i got just under 200 credited and almost 200 pending , total pending about 2200..looks like others are in the same boat .. if seti would clear everyone's pending file the results would be super , for all yes :-) ..i got pending credit that has been pending since september ..my pc runs 24 -7

---

i got over 2000 credits pending ..ie since last night around 11 pm i got just under 200 credited and almost 200 pending , total pending about 2200..looks like others are in the same boat .. if seti would clear everyone's pending file the results would be super , for all yes :-) ..i got pending credit that has been pending since september ..my pc runs 24 -7

It's not down to SETI to clear the pending, it's down to other crunchers returning matching results - then your pending will convert to granted.

F.

---

Pending credit takes so long, because now, since we went to 2 initial replications and 2 results to form quorum, you have to rely on ALL wingmen, including MIA's.

When inital replication was three, pending was usually cleared when the first of two wingmen reported back.

Andy

I think we need a new STICKY THREAD. Something like READ THIS - Validation Process, Credit Granting and PENDING. Which would explain as simply as possible. It should use simple terminology, be understanable by people whose first language is not English etc.

It should also be a locked thread so the good information does not get lost by a low signal/noise ratio. Any takers ?

Although I understand the phrase "wingman" I prefer "quorum partner" or "crunching partner". Can anyone else suggest a better alternative which would be understandable to those without a military background ?

K.

---

Sir Arthur C Clarke 1917-2008

Here's a different way to look at it. Stealing from shorting stocks, I'm calling it "days to cover". Meaning it's Pending divided by Granted credit/day. It shows how long it would take the Pendings to consumed based upon a how much is granted in a day. Ofcourse, the validation process makes this about worthless, but here it is.

note: for the last 7 days I've been running stock app, but was running optimized for much of the data preceding that.

I myself have a similar problem, and alot of the work that is still waiting for me was back in September and alot more from early Oct to mid and late Oct as well, with workunits deadlines for 10th of Nov, and some probaly more earlier. and so on.. my pending RAC is a total of 802.78 currently at this time..

---

Although I understand the phrase "wingman" I prefer "quorum partner" or "crunching partner".

Agreed. "Wingman" is evocative slang, but slang, nonetheless.

Personally, I use "quorum partner" hoping it more likely that will be understood. I also avoid undefined abbreviations and acronyms for the same reason.

---