Message boards :
Number crunching :
Panic Mode On (7) Server Problems! Closed for Renovation
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 12 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 19 May 99 Posts: 411 Credit: 1,426,457 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Considering the outages We're having and have had in the past, I have a 2.5 day cache, At one time someone said that was excessive, I'm glad I ignored that and left It there now. Well my 2.5 day cache (I did bump it to 3 but I dont think it grabbed any as that was the start of the downtime) had left both PC's with less than 3hrs work when they started grabbin WU's a few minutes ago - yay! ![]() |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I must have got lucky as all my Quads managed to snatch work in the brief time the servers have been back up. I do have a 10 day cache though, so little danger of running out of work (I would have hoped!). It's relative. If you crunch only one project, then something around 3 days is probably good. I think using the "extra days" setting to control the cache works best. If you crunch more than one project (at different sites, SETI and SETI beta don't count as different), then you can run with a really short cache, and let the long-term debt handle it. If your cache size is longer than the shortest deadline on a project, that can be an issue. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 8 Dec 05 Posts: 630 Credit: 59,973,836 RAC: 0 ![]() |
10 days is just silly and forces everyone dependent on them to wait for credit, and the server cannot expire them to make room for more work while they are still in circulation, so my advice to everyone: Please set your caches to the MINIMUM you actually NEED. 2 days should be enough for everyone to cope even with this unusual and extended outage. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 23 May 99 Posts: 4292 Credit: 72,971,319 RAC: 0 ![]() |
10 days is just silly and forces everyone dependent on them to wait for credit, and the server cannot expire them to make room for more work while they are still in circulation, so my advice to everyone: Mine is set for 3 days and a few months ago I ran out. Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons... And no good credit hound! ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 21 Apr 04 Posts: 3252 Credit: 31,903,643 RAC: 0 ![]() |
10 days is just silly and forces everyone dependent on them to wait for credit, and the server cannot expire them to make room for more work while they are still in circulation, so my advice to everyone: Yeah, maybe i'am in trouble, cause several WU's, deadlined @ 17!; 18; 19 & 20 april, how do i get those 17 april WU's to upload now? Can this be done manually, they are not in the 'SEND' part off BOINC manager. They are 'ready to report' ?! ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 23 Oct 02 Posts: 5862 Credit: 10,957,677 RAC: 18 ![]() ![]() |
10 days is just silly and forces everyone dependent on them to wait for credit, and the server cannot expire them to make room for more work while they are still in circulation, so my advice to everyone: While I am still waiting for credit from over a Month ago I don't see that 10 days ago is a particularly big problem for anyone. The cache still turns around very quickly compared to say someone that has a slower machine on only a part of the day whilst they are working etc. 2 Days is not enough in this instance as 2 of my Optiplex (3Ghz) machines (which did have a 2 day cache) have run out of work already - as it happens I had made a decision yesterday to retire them when they ran out of work, so it has just happened sooner than I anticipated. Besides, whether you get the credit NOW or in 2 weeks time, your RAC will still work out the same as an average over x amount of time. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 27 Aug 06 Posts: 835 Credit: 2,129,006 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I had it set to 15 days, so go on have a moan at me, yet I've almost cleared it n 12. 2 days is fine if you want to run other projects, at the present moment I do not wish to do so. It makes no difference I am still getting pending credits from the last 15 day set of tasks I cached. I have reduced this to 8 days. But it is not getting any lower than that. ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 30 Aug 01 Posts: 1228 Credit: 47,779,411 RAC: 32 ![]() ![]() |
I don't see a problem running a large cache if people want to, if it was such a terrible thing, the settings would not allow it. Personally I run 1 - 2 days, depending on the host, a couple of mine ran out of work in the last day, no big deal, I just turned them off to save some cash. -Dave ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 8 Dec 05 Posts: 630 Credit: 59,973,836 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Look. You can all do what you like, but I'm saying there is no need to be so anally retentive over workunits. I ran out too, but did abc for a few hours and now have new seti WUs, it's no big deal! If everyone had 10 day caches, there would be (10 x WU per day x number of users) workunits in circulation and they would need to be stored on disk and kept track of in the database, so those with large caches are actually contributing to the problems you are so desperately trying to avoid! If everyone had 0-2 day caches, then the Tuesday downtime would be shorter and the servers and storage space wouldn't be so stressed, and everyone can have shorter pending lists and go home earlier... There are about 3 million WUs in circulation, each taking up about a third of a megabyte - go figure! It just makes sense to act responsibly to help smooth things along, that's all. As for ridiculously long deadlines - there needs to be a method of cancelling orphaned WUs if someone bites of more than they can chew and throws up... |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 23 May 99 Posts: 4292 Credit: 72,971,319 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Look. You can all do what you like, but I'm saying there is no need to be so anally retentive over workunits. I ran out too, but did abc for a few hours and now have new seti WUs, it's no big deal! You seemed to miss many peoples point...We are on the Seti board because a lot of us feel loyal to Seti and do not run other projects...When Seti goes away unless some new project comes along I am as passionate about I will probably just turn things off again like I did when Boinc took over. Maybe finding ABC's is important to you but not worth my electric bill.... Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons... And no good credit hound! ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 19 May 99 Posts: 411 Credit: 1,426,457 RAC: 0 ![]() |
You seemed to miss many peoples point...We are on the Seti board because a lot of us feel loyal to Seti and do not run other projects...When Seti goes away unless some new project comes along I am as passionate about I will probably just turn things off again like I did when Boinc took over. Yep I totally agree. If S@H disappears thats it for me, I wont crunch any of the other prijects as none really catch my interest and are not worth the power bill to me. I have a 4 day cache and that should get me through all but the most severe WU drought. If people cant wait 4 days for me to crunch, then bad luck for them. About 70% of my WU's seem to go into pending for a day or so anyway, so in real terms a few people will have to wait the extra day for me to crunch, but most wont even be slightly affected at all. ![]() |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Look. You can all do what you like, but I'm saying there is no need to be so anally retentive over workunits. I ran out too, but did abc for a few hours and now have new seti WUs, it's no big deal! I see Andy's point -- if the average "major" outage is a couple of days, then carrying ten days work (or more) is overkill. I agree that "enough" generally is enough. At the same time, there is no reason to criticize someone for carrying around a huge cache because there is no real harm in doing so. Some work will be returned later as a result, but as long as it is returned, why worry. There is an issue with carrying a really large cache if you run more than one project -- there is a case where the current BOINC versions can't meet deadlines and honor resource share. In that case, a one-day cache solves many problems. On deadlines: if the deadlines are too short, slower computers can't crunch them in time -- and there are people out there participating on "dated" systems. I won't argue to exclude slower systems if the owners want to participate. |
Blu Dude Send message Joined: 28 Dec 07 Posts: 83 Credit: 34,940 RAC: 0 ![]() |
You seemed to miss many peoples point...We are on the Seti board because a lot of us feel loyal to Seti and do not run other projects...When Seti goes away unless some new project comes along I am as passionate about I will probably just turn things off again like I did when Boinc took over. I agree with the pending stuff - who really cares if 1 or 2 out of 20 wu's has to wait an extra day. No one's going to throw a temper tantrum over it. Sure it loads the database, but all the board views and posts do too. I'm a Prefectionist ;) |
![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 23 Oct 02 Posts: 5862 Credit: 10,957,677 RAC: 18 ![]() ![]() |
Look. You can all do what you like, but I'm saying there is no need to be so anally retentive over workunits. I ran out too, but did abc for a few hours and now have new seti WUs, But I choose not to run any other projects. The machines are 24/7 SETI and that's my choice, as is the 10 day cache. If it were a problem the setting wouldn't be there or would be changed in the next revision. If it is, I'll obviously accept that because if I choose to participate in the project I choose to play by their rules. it's no big deal! Glad you think so, so we agree on something then :) |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 28 Jan 06 Posts: 1410 Credit: 934,158 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Look. You can all do what you like, but I'm saying there is no need to be so anally retentive over workunits. I ran out too, but did abc for a few hours and now have new seti WUs, The longest outage I can remember was 9 days. In those days, I kept a 4 day cache, so I ran out of WU's. Big deal! It was my choice to run Einstein as a backup project, so they benefitted. I would not criticise anyone for turning their PCs off if they run out of work... it's their choice what to do with their equipment. (AND power bill!) I run a 10 day cache, as I have a pretty fast machine. It hurts no-one, as the results are returned pretty darn fast. However, my own pending folder is now worth over 2,000 creds. If I was that way inclined, it would concern me, but it doesn't, because the WU's will get returned eventually. It's not as if I had $2,000 stuck where I couldn't get at them, is it? Respectfully, lgm ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 8 Dec 05 Posts: 630 Credit: 59,973,836 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Ned, Americans aren't used to English debate - they see a strong point of view as a criticism, when it isn't! I am merely stating my seasoned opinion as a highly qualified system administrator. Last year's 9 day outage was an extreme event, with delays caused by negotiations, physical ordering and transportation and reconfiguring a server that is the core of the whole system. It has now proved itself to be more resilient and as older machines are being updated the systems' reliability are improving. Outages now should be much less than two days. The real problem with large caches is that all those WUs are tied up and have to be tracked and stored while in circulation and is 'unfriendly' to server resources. Those with maximum caches probably have low pending credit because everyone else is waiting for them! They also run the risk that if their machine crashes, then all those numbers of WUs disappear and hold up workflow for many weeks and they linger in the database so requiring longer back up times and more storage. So, I stand by my opinion: If a person wants to be a good citizen, respect system resources and their fellow crunchers, then they should have a minimum cache necessary to get over normal outages of a day or two max. If they live on an island and can only row to shore once a week to connect to the net, then a 10 day or more cache is perfectly appropriate. That is what the cache is *really* for! Andy. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 8 Dec 05 Posts: 630 Credit: 59,973,836 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I run a 10 day cache, as I have a pretty fast machine. It hurts no-one, as the results are returned pretty darn fast. The cache is a First In Last Out queue (under normal conditions). You may think you are processing them quickly, but all you are doing is processing WUs that have been already waiting for 10 days on your machine for their number to come up. You still return your WUs 10 days later than you got them, and your machine's speed is totally irrelevant. Faster machine = more WUs in the cache. Slower machine = less WUs in the cache. Still taking 10 days waiting for their turn. Now, does anyone see the logic of why *unnecessarily* large caches are not good? |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 25 May 99 Posts: 944 Credit: 52,956,491 RAC: 67 ![]() ![]() |
Now, does anyone see the logic of why *unnecessarily* large caches are not good? Please forgive me when I am on holiday next week. I intend to disconnect from the Internet but leave the machine slowly crunching away. I shall need about 8 days of cache. If I was away for 2 weeks then I should want to have 14 days' worth. I suspect there may be a fair amount of that during the summer days and not just people trying to avoid S@H downtime. ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 19 May 99 Posts: 411 Credit: 1,426,457 RAC: 0 ![]() |
If a person wants to be a good citizen, respect system resources and their fellow crunchers, then they should have a minimum cache necessary to get over normal outages of a day or two max. Yep I agree - get them through a normal outage with room (or WU's) to spare. I had a 3 day cache, and after the last outage of < 2 days I had only a few WU's left (less than 6 hrs) on each PC, so that was good. I bumped the cache up by a day so I have a little more breathing room for future outages, but at the moment I have not resorted to a 10 day cache, but if outages end up long enough then I might have to lol ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 27 Aug 06 Posts: 835 Credit: 2,129,006 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Andy Lee, what exactly is the reason behind the old woman style moaning? If it doesn't bother you, why bring the subject matter up? ![]() |
©2025 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.