Message boards :
Technical News :
School (Feb 22 2011)
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2
Author | Message |
---|---|
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 20 Dec 05 Posts: 3187 Credit: 57,163,290 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Umm, isn't it time to consider cutting down the mandatory wait time after a scheduler update? (to something less than 5 minutes...) . ![]() Hello, from Albany, CA!... |
rob smith ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22676 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 ![]() ![]() |
Hmm, someone must be calling into the lab over the weekend and loading new tapes as there are both MB and AP units available, and a few more of each to be split from loaded tapes. May I thank that person for going "above and beyond". Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 6 Dec 99 Posts: 27 Credit: 10,121,469 RAC: 2 ![]() |
Umm, isn't it time to consider cutting down the mandatory wait time after a scheduler update? (to something less than 5 minutes...) I'm not sure, but I suspect the mandatory wait time is there for limiting bandwidth issues. Regardless, it's something I can live with. (Don't want to hammer the servers too much while things are running as smoothly as they are now, after all.) |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 21 Apr 04 Posts: 3252 Credit: 31,903,643 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Umm, isn't it time to consider cutting down the mandatory wait time after a scheduler update? (to something less than 5 minutes...) Well you just hit the nail on the head, changing the 11 seconds(?), in 5 minutes,I think, was one reason to decrease the IN and OUTput of the Up- & DownLoad SERVERS! A 100,000 or more hosts hammering every few seconds on these servers, was of the reasons to change this, these short 11 seconds, also changed to report direct in some older BOINC versions, is somekind of DDOS-Attack, IMHO! And with the, still growing CUDA/CAL/OpenCL GPU processing, this certainly will be reviewed, sometime in the (near) future.... I'm not a ICT specialist, but with the ever increasing (Moore's Law), demand for faster and more efficient hard and software, it's matter of time when the new SERVERS can't keep up, with the demand for new work, anymore and another expansion, is needed! ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 20 Dec 05 Posts: 3187 Credit: 57,163,290 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I was not suggesting a return to the 11 second delay - just somethin' shorter than 5 minutes! (like 2-3 minutes...) IIRC, the 5 minute delay was implemented when the project was taking 3 day outages, to (yes) decrease the number of simultaneous connections after the restoration of downloading... but now that the three day outage weeks are over, (we hope!) it should be time to cut back that delay. . ![]() Hello, from Albany, CA!... |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 6 Dec 99 Posts: 27 Credit: 10,121,469 RAC: 2 ![]() |
The procedure to increase the delay was kind of successful in that it decreased the entropy on the machinery as well as allowed for bandwidth to be opened up. Newer machines have been added to the mix in the lab, but the bandwidth is, if I'm not mistaken, the same. The planned three day outages may be a thing of the past, but occasional outages will still occur for various reasons. Don't forget that not all the servers were changed out, and plenty of stuff is happening in the background. It's not a good idea to fix something that isn't broken anyway. I consider the delay a real non-issue. If you really want to connect sooner you can always force the issue manually with the update button. |
Cosmic_Ocean ![]() Send message Joined: 23 Dec 00 Posts: 3027 Credit: 13,516,867 RAC: 13 ![]() ![]() |
The 5-minute delay was to reduce the load on jocelyn when we were waiting for the new servers to be spec'ed, ordered, and installed. Linux laptop: record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up) |
Richard Haselgrove ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14688 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 ![]() ![]() |
The 5-minute delay was to reduce the load on jocelyn when we were waiting for the new servers to be spec'ed, ordered, and installed. But given the load we're putting in the system at the moment - with the cricket graph maxxed out for seven of the last eight hours - I'd suggest that it would be wise to keep things tamped down for the time being. Remember that the problem was scheduler request files fighting their way through the upload and download traffic, and the result - at that time - was ghost WUs, which certainly caused more problems than they were worth. Now, with the more powerful servers proving themselves capable of handling the limited number of 'resend lost results', things are running a lot smoother - but I see no benefit in increasing the number of lost results needing to be resent. And I haven't seen any sign myself, or heard any complaints from the boards, suggesting that a five-minute delay is too long. Most regular posters will be running caches measured in days, not even hours - having to re-request two or three times isn't going to make any noticable difference to them. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 37386 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 ![]() ![]() |
No complaints from me about a lousy 5mins. Cheers. |
B-Man Send message Joined: 11 Feb 01 Posts: 253 Credit: 147,366 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I say leave be on the 5 Min delay for another 3-4 weeks to get a better feel on how things work when we have no problems. We have no need to rush into things. I say we take it slow before making changes. |
Blake Bonkofsky ![]() Send message Joined: 29 Dec 99 Posts: 617 Credit: 46,383,149 RAC: 0 ![]() |
The 5-minute delay was to reduce the load on jocelyn when we were waiting for the new servers to be spec'ed, ordered, and installed. This is my feeling as well. The 5 minute delays certainly haven't hurt me. My 5 machines have a combined RAC of over 80,000, putting me at over 1000 WU's a day on average. I'm having no problem at all keeping their caches full. Even Todd with his 600,000+ RAC (Easily over 7500 WU's a day) never has complained about keeping the cache topped off, even with the 5 min delays. The only thing limited by that 5 minutes is requesting new work. ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 14 Aug 08 Posts: 90 Credit: 162,139 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I say leave be on the 5 Min delay for another 3-4 weeks to get a better feel on how things work when we have no problems. We have no need to rush into things. I say we take it slow before making changes. I agree. I don't have any problems, however, I'm only running one little computer. I don't know about the people that are running several machines. I get enough work to keep me going for about 5 days, and so far, it's running nice and smooth. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 30 Aug 08 Posts: 15401 Credit: 7,423,413 RAC: 1 ![]() |
Another here running only a little computer and things couldn't be better. Before boinc would try to connect to the server what seemed like once a minute for HOURS at a time with no success, now if it can't connect to the server it will try again five minutes later and I get another task. Woo and yay. |
Josef W. Segur Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 4504 Credit: 1,414,761 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Kibble (KB7TIB) wrote: ... Yes, but a request for work forced that way will get a "Not sending work - last request too recent: xxx sec" message if there is work available. A few of the top computers are able to do several tasks in 5 minutes, but not more than they are likely to get from successful requests at that interval. As hardware improves there will indeed come a time when top computers won't be able to be fully productive without a reduction of that setting. But IMO the time to consider reducing it will be after the available download bandwidth is increased, even with the 5 minute interval the 100 Mbps download link we have now is often saturated. Joe |
tbret ![]() Send message Joined: 28 May 99 Posts: 3380 Credit: 296,162,071 RAC: 40 ![]() ![]() |
My 5 machines have a combined RAC of over 80,000, putting me at over 1000 WU's a day on average. I'm having no problem at all keeping their caches full. Even Todd with his 600,000+ RAC (Easily over 7500 WU's a day) never has complained about keeping the cache topped off, even with the 5 min delays. The only thing limited by that 5 minutes is requesting new work. I notice that you are running a number of GTX 460s. Are you happy with them, generally? Looks like you are clocking-in at about 20k RAC, which is higher than I thought that card's production would be. ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 21 Apr 04 Posts: 3252 Credit: 31,903,643 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I'm very happy with the 470 & 480 FERMIs, you can run more then 1 WU at a time, depending on # of usable 'cores', I run 3 on the 480, whithout it getting too hot or producing errors. And 2 on the 470, even 3 are possible, but it's getting quite hot, doing so. Some 'other Projects', like GPUgrid, can (only?) be ran on FERMIs. (When looking at some results, unfortunatly, most of the 200 series cards, are producing a lot errors!) Took my GTS250 off GPUgrid, as I did not get any work. Even when running SETI MB, using the LUNATICs V0.37 Installer, is gets very hot and needs an additional fan and one side off it's case. And about the extended, or 5 minutes delay, I haven't noticed, getting less WUs or other problems and there is always the UPDate Button, but BOINC 6.10.56 & 58 (XP64), is perfectly capable of doing it's job. (If you just let it run, which is just 1 of it's many functions) Also haven't noticed any problems, reporting, or UP- and Down-Loading. And haven't been out of work, still using a 4 day cache and only displaying active tasks since this can take some extra load on the CPU, sometimes 5% or more, depending on the amount of WU's. (A CPDN WU, FAMOUS or otherwise, takes, after zipping 4 minutes to UPload, @ 5 or 6Kbit/sec! and therefore also suited for Dial-Up Connections, my LT, still has a 'Old style' MODEM, which can be very usefull, ofc. also Ethernet and WLAN) ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 20 Dec 05 Posts: 3187 Credit: 57,163,290 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Here's my situation, and why I'd like that 5 min delay reduced to 2 (or less ;-) ) I only connect to SETI once a day, with three (soon to be 4...) computers in my morning. (which happens to be the same as morning at the SETI labs...) If I get the dreaded "no work sent" when I request work that mean that I'm twiddling my thumbs waiting out the 5 minutes when I could be doing somethin' productive, in a BOINC sense... This occasionally has made my computer(s) miss getting any WU's on Tuesdays. (yes, I run that close to 9 AM Pacific time... and sometimes the lab starts the outage early, like this week!) This whole Method of Operations started 5 years ago, when I was connecting to the web (and SETI...) with a dial-up. . ![]() Hello, from Albany, CA!... |
Blake Bonkofsky ![]() Send message Joined: 29 Dec 99 Posts: 617 Credit: 46,383,149 RAC: 0 ![]() |
My 5 machines have a combined RAC of over 80,000, putting me at over 1000 WU's a day on average. I'm having no problem at all keeping their caches full. Even Todd with his 600,000+ RAC (Easily over 7500 WU's a day) never has complained about keeping the cache topped off, even with the 5 min delays. The only thing limited by that 5 minutes is requesting new work. For the money, I don't think they can be beat. Maybe once we see FERMI specific opt apps come out it'll will spread the field, but for now I'm very please. The cards seem to be good for about 16-20k each. My triple machine was up over 50k and climbing before the outage a few weeks ago, still trying to get back to that point. My single machine (Q8300) has been stable around 22k for awhile, I believe about 4k of that coming from the CPU. I'd expect my triple machine to peak around the upper 50k's. ![]() |
David S ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Oct 99 Posts: 18352 Credit: 27,761,924 RAC: 12 ![]() ![]() |
Here's my situation, and why I'd like that 5 min delay reduced to 2 (or less ;-) ) Surely you're not still on dial-up, are you??? Do you have some reason, other than habit, for not allowing your computers to connect to SETI whenever they feel the need? (I know some people don't like to leave their internet connection on when they're not actively using it. My modem and router are in the basement, stuck up in the floor joists, because it's the most convenient place for connections to power, the outside feed, and internal network cables, but it means they're on 24/7... which is fine for the machine running BOINC and my Radio Reference feed.) My only suggestion, and I'm sure I don't need to make it to you, would be to increase your cache size so that if you miss a day, you'll still have enough work to carry you through for another day. David David Sitting on my butt while others boldly go, Waiting for a message from a small furry creature from Alpha Centauri. |
©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.