Shorties estimate up from three minutes to six hours after today's outage!

Message boards : Number crunching : Shorties estimate up from three minutes to six hours after today's outage!
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · Next

AuthorMessage
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13351
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 1152687 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 9:42:36 UTC - in response to Message 1152681.  
Last modified: 16 Sep 2011, 9:43:42 UTC

The longterm fix is really about a statistical problem - whether or not you include outlying datapoints into your calculations.

They call them that for a reason. Which is why they are usually discarded when analysing data.
Of course you first have to make sure that they are actually outliers & not actually significant data themselves.


Statistics can be wonderfully manipulated by careful selection of outliers...

Massage the data enough & you will always get the result you want.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1152687 · Report as offensive
Iona
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 07
Posts: 790
Credit: 22,438,118
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1152760 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 14:25:17 UTC - in response to Message 1152681.  

The conditions you describe, regarding 'early exit', are exactly what happened with my ATI GPU WUs, last month....approximately half of the first ten WUs exited early (overflow results). Hence, these error values were, as I later suspected, being regarded as a very rapid 'full time completion', with the end result being that my GPU MB APR is in the order of almost 1400! Subsequent completion times for down-loaded WUs for the GPU (according to BOINC) were roughly as follows.... 2 mins for a 'shortie' and 6 mins for a 'normal' WU! Thats pretty impressive for any GPU, let alone a two-year-old ATI 4890; of course, any subsequent GPU WUs that I got, 'errored out' (-177). I then did a detatch and did a re-install of Lunatics 0.38, but without the MB app. It has only been in the last two or three days that I've run GPU WUs again, as I'd spotted the rather inflated timings on new CPU WUs - there was some chance to balance things, without resorting to 'rescheduling' and I've completed several WUs without error. For me, this may work out, but I won't be holding my breath for too long!

Question. Probably a silly one, but, why is an approximate WU completion time needed?



Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive!
ID: 1152760 · Report as offensive
Profile HAL9000
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 99
Posts: 6533
Credit: 196,805,888
RAC: 57
United States
Message 1152766 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 14:39:36 UTC - in response to Message 1152760.  
Last modified: 16 Sep 2011, 14:39:57 UTC

The conditions you describe, regarding 'early exit', are exactly what happened with my ATI GPU WUs, last month....approximately half of the first ten WUs exited early (overflow results). Hence, these error values were, as I later suspected, being regarded as a very rapid 'full time completion', with the end result being that my GPU MB APR is in the order of almost 1400! Subsequent completion times for down-loaded WUs for the GPU (according to BOINC) were roughly as follows.... 2 mins for a 'shortie' and 6 mins for a 'normal' WU! Thats pretty impressive for any GPU, let alone a two-year-old ATI 4890; of course, any subsequent GPU WUs that I got, 'errored out' (-177). I then did a detatch and did a re-install of Lunatics 0.38, but without the MB app. It has only been in the last two or three days that I've run GPU WUs again, as I'd spotted the rather inflated timings on new CPU WUs - there was some chance to balance things, without resorting to 'rescheduling' and I've completed several WUs without error. For me, this may work out, but I won't be holding my breath for too long!

Question. Probably a silly one, but, why is an approximate WU completion time needed?

To maintain a queue of work. If there was no estimated there would be no way determine how much work to ask for or how much to keep on to keep N days worth of work. My slowest machine has an estimated time of 72 hours. Which is about 3 days. So it keep 3-4 tasks on hand at a time for a 10 day queue.
SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!
ID: 1152766 · Report as offensive
Iona
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 07
Posts: 790
Credit: 22,438,118
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1152806 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 16:20:21 UTC - in response to Message 1152766.  

Yes, true. Perhaps I believe that a tad more info, should be kept on the 'client side' of things. Is this not a case of 'the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing'?



Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive!
ID: 1152806 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17617
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1152811 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 16:29:39 UTC - in response to Message 1152760.  

Question. Probably a silly one, but, why is an approximate WU completion time needed?

If the benchmarks were accurate.
If the estimated ops for each BOINC task was known.
Then the estimated completion time could be calculated fairly accurately.

But they are not so they use averages of every task that validates, which as we know is a flawed, because it includes premature exits. That causes the DCF to fluctuate wildly, because wrongly, there is only one DCF per project and not one per application. But that assumes the DCF needs to be there at all, which it probably isn't, because the estimates are now server side calculations.

Scores out of 10 for;
Design............ _______
Implementation....._______
Testing............_______
Fixing bugs........_______

(negative scores will not be rejected)
ID: 1152811 · Report as offensive
Profile Floyd
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 May 11
Posts: 524
Credit: 1,870,625
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1152814 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 16:42:11 UTC - in response to Message 1152811.  

Question. Probably a silly one, but, why is an approximate WU completion time needed?

If the benchmarks were accurate.
If the estimated ops for each BOINC task was known.
Then the estimated completion time could be calculated fairly accurately.

But they are not so they use averages of every task that validates, which as we know is a flawed, because it includes premature exits. That causes the DCF to fluctuate wildly, because wrongly, there is only one DCF per project and not one per application. But that assumes the DCF needs to be there at all, which it probably isn't, because the estimates are now server side calculations.

Scores out of 10 for;
Design............ _______
Implementation....._______
Testing............_______
Fixing bugs........_______

(negative scores will not be rejected)


Could they not get a pretty close estimate based on type of GPU and CPU and then err on the side of caution ?

That would ( it seems ) give us a pretty regular amount of work in our cache...
Maybe not as much as some want each time , but enough to at least keep the system stable. ???
ID: 1152814 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51448
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1152816 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 16:44:35 UTC - in response to Message 1152814.  


Could they not get a pretty close estimate based on type of GPU and CPU and then err on the side of caution ?

That would ( it seems ) give us a pretty regular amount of work in our cache...
Maybe not as much as some want each time , but enough to at least keep the system stable. ???

I doubt it....
Too much variation even on identical resources depending on computer configuration, level of overclocking, the app being used, etc., etc., etc..
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1152816 · Report as offensive
Profile HAL9000
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 99
Posts: 6533
Credit: 196,805,888
RAC: 57
United States
Message 1152817 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 16:50:04 UTC - in response to Message 1152814.  

Question. Probably a silly one, but, why is an approximate WU completion time needed?

If the benchmarks were accurate.
If the estimated ops for each BOINC task was known.
Then the estimated completion time could be calculated fairly accurately.

But they are not so they use averages of every task that validates, which as we know is a flawed, because it includes premature exits. That causes the DCF to fluctuate wildly, because wrongly, there is only one DCF per project and not one per application. But that assumes the DCF needs to be there at all, which it probably isn't, because the estimates are now server side calculations.

Scores out of 10 for;
Design............ _______
Implementation....._______
Testing............_______
Fixing bugs........_______

(negative scores will not be rejected)


Could they not get a pretty close estimate based on type of GPU and CPU and then err on the side of caution ?

That would ( it seems ) give us a pretty regular amount of work in our cache...
Maybe not as much as some want each time , but enough to at least keep the system stable. ???

Maybe that is what the Top GPU models list is going to help them with.
SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!
ID: 1152817 · Report as offensive
Profile Floyd
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 May 11
Posts: 524
Credit: 1,870,625
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1152819 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 16:50:40 UTC - in response to Message 1152816.  


Could they not get a pretty close estimate based on type of GPU and CPU and then err on the side of caution ?

That would ( it seems ) give us a pretty regular amount of work in our cache...
Maybe not as much as some want each time , but enough to at least keep the system stable. ???

I doubt it....
Too much variation even on identical resources depending on computer configuration, level of overclocking, the app being used, etc., etc., etc..


Ok... I understand... Even if we had a general Baseline WU time , and The ( I guess ) app info file was adjusted to let each one increase the work to a higher amount by say 10 % incraments at a time untill they got something that works for their own machine ???

I'm no way a programmer by any means... I have no Idea what it would take...
These are just Ideas to run by those that have that kind of Knowledge in the field...
ID: 1152819 · Report as offensive
Profile jason_gee
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 7489
Credit: 91,093,184
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 1152820 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 16:50:51 UTC - in response to Message 1152816.  

I doubt it....
Too much variation even on identical resources depending on computer configuration, level of overclocking, the app being used, etc., etc., etc..


LoL. Engineering worked out principles that led to 'Control Systems Theory' hundreds of years ago. Apparently Berkeley's library doesn't contain technical papers that old.

Jason
"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.
ID: 1152820 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14487
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 1152821 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 16:53:10 UTC - in response to Message 1152811.  

But that assumes the DCF needs to be there at all, which it probably isn't, because the estimates are now server side calculations.

On this project, yes. But not every BOINC project uses the server-side 'CreditNew' code yet. Updating BOINC is a voluntary activity for project admins, too: any time there is a suggestion that projects have to upgrade their servers to support a particular feature 'because David says so', there is a howl of protest from users.

DCF can only be removed from BOINC clients when the last active project server has upgraded to CreditNew. Predictions for when that will happen, anyone?

But it gives me an idea for a feature suggestion for David: if a project is running server-side DCF, it sends a flag to (compatible) clients to say "lock your DCF to 1.0000: we're handling it at this end". Suggestions on a postcard to the usual place?
ID: 1152821 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51448
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1152822 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 16:53:56 UTC - in response to Message 1152817.  


Maybe that is what the Top GPU models list is going to help them with.

Fat chance, that.
The #6 rig on the project, my Frozen 920, has 2 GTX295s.
And that GPU isn't even on the silly list.
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1152822 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14487
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 1152823 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 16:56:12 UTC - in response to Message 1152820.  

Apparently Berkeley's library doesn't contain technical papers that old.

They don't call America the "New World" for nothing.
ID: 1152823 · Report as offensive
Profile HAL9000
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 99
Posts: 6533
Credit: 196,805,888
RAC: 57
United States
Message 1152828 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 17:01:25 UTC - in response to Message 1152822.  


Maybe that is what the Top GPU models list is going to help them with.

Fat chance, that.
The #6 rig on the project, my Frozen 920, has 2 GTX295s.
And that GPU isn't even on the silly list.

IIRC from the discussion about it earlier it only uses data from the stock app(s) & your machine is #5 now anyway.
SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!
ID: 1152828 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51448
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1152830 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 17:03:15 UTC - in response to Message 1152828.  


Maybe that is what the Top GPU models list is going to help them with.

Fat chance, that.
The #6 rig on the project, my Frozen 920, has 2 GTX295s.
And that GPU isn't even on the silly list.

IIRC from the discussion about it earlier it only uses data from the stock app(s) & your machine is #5 now anyway.

Ahhh.....ignoring the anonymous platforms again...LOL.
And, thanks for the update.
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1152830 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17617
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1152840 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 17:24:30 UTC - in response to Message 1152821.  
Last modified: 16 Sep 2011, 17:25:08 UTC

But that assumes the DCF needs to be there at all, which it probably isn't, because the estimates are now server side calculations.

On this project, yes. But not every BOINC project uses the server-side 'CreditNew' code yet. Updating BOINC is a voluntary activity for project admins, too: any time there is a suggestion that projects have to upgrade their servers to support a particular feature 'because David says so', there is a howl of protest from users.

DCF can only be removed from BOINC clients when the last active project server has upgraded to CreditNew. Predictions for when that will happen, anyone?

But it gives me an idea for a feature suggestion for David: if a project is running server-side DCF, it sends a flag to (compatible) clients to say "lock your DCF to 1.0000: we're handling it at this end". Suggestions on a postcard to the usual place?

It could be good idea, when these glitchs are resolved, to call the next release BOINC2, and with some good marketing.
The general public always knows that the new all dancing version 2 has to be better than version 1, so therefore they will demand it is used.
ID: 1152840 · Report as offensive
Dave Stegner
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Oct 04
Posts: 540
Credit: 65,583,328
RAC: 27
United States
Message 1152919 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 22:25:32 UTC

Can one of the guru's tell me if the below is another anomaly of the recent changes.?

Notice the machine asks for 700K seconds of work, it only has 5 days of a 10 day cache, and the next request it asks for 0 seconds. Then 700K then 0.
Also the responses are different, sometimes it simply says you got nothing and sometimes it responds about nothing for AP, etc.

Aside from the fact that it is not receiving work, even though the Cricket graph is not maxed and work is available something else appears to be going on.

Note nothing has changed on the machine for over 1 year.

slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 10:41:54 AM Sending scheduler request: To fetch work. Requesting 754964 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 10:41:59 AM Scheduler request succeeded: got 0 new tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 10:41:59 AM Message from server: No tasks sent
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 10:41:59 AM Message from server: No tasks are available for Astropulse v5
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 10:41:59 AM Message from server: No tasks are available for Astropulse v505
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 10:41:59 AM Message from server: No tasks are available for the applications you have selected.
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 11:00:35 AM Sending scheduler request: Requested by user. Requesting 0 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 11:00:40 AM Scheduler request succeeded: got 0 new tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 11:02:01 AM Sending scheduler request: Requested by user. Requesting 756989 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 11:02:06 AM Scheduler request succeeded: got 0 new tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 11:02:06 AM Message from server: Project has no tasks available
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 11:03:15 AM Sending scheduler request: Requested by user. Requesting 0 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 11:03:20 AM Scheduler request succeeded: got 0 new tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 11:06:35 AM Sending scheduler request: Requested by user. Requesting 0 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 11:06:40 AM Scheduler request succeeded: got 0 new tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 11:11:45 AM Sending scheduler request: To fetch work. Requesting 758268 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 11:11:50 AM Scheduler request succeeded: got 0 new tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 11:11:50 AM Message from server: No tasks sent
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 11:11:50 AM Message from server: No tasks are available for Astropulse v5
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 11:11:50 AM Message from server: No tasks are available for Astropulse v505
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 11:11:50 AM Message from server: No tasks are available for the applications you have selected.

Dave

ID: 1152919 · Report as offensive
Dave Stegner
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Oct 04
Posts: 540
Credit: 65,583,328
RAC: 27
United States
Message 1152928 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 22:42:48 UTC

Not to beat a dead horse but, the previous posting was 11 am and it is currently (still) acting that way.

Host Project Date Message
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:23:57 PM Sending scheduler request: To fetch work. Requesting 788142 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:24:02 PM Scheduler request succeeded: got 0 new tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:24:02 PM Message from server: No tasks sent
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:24:02 PM Message from server: No tasks are available for Astropulse v5
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:24:02 PM Message from server: No tasks are available for Astropulse v505
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:24:02 PM Message from server: No tasks are available for the applications you have selected.
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:29:07 PM Sending scheduler request: To fetch work. Requesting 788747 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:29:12 PM Scheduler request succeeded: got 0 new tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:29:12 PM Message from server: No tasks sent
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:29:12 PM Message from server: No tasks are available for Astropulse v5
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:29:12 PM Message from server: No tasks are available for Astropulse v505
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:29:12 PM Message from server: No tasks are available for the applications you have selected.
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:30:55 PM Sending scheduler request: Requested by user. Requesting 0 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:31:00 PM Scheduler request succeeded: got 0 new tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:36:08 PM Sending scheduler request: To fetch work. Requesting 788242 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:36:13 PM Scheduler request succeeded: got 0 new tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:36:13 PM Message from server: No tasks sent
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:36:13 PM Message from server: No tasks are available for Astropulse v5
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:36:13 PM Message from server: No tasks are available for Astropulse v505
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:36:13 PM Message from server: No tasks are available for the applications you have selected.
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:39:07 PM Sending scheduler request: Requested by user. Requesting 0 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
slws007.Staufferslandscape.com SETI@home 9/16/2011 3:39:12 PM Scheduler request succeeded: got 0 new tasks

Dave

ID: 1152928 · Report as offensive
Wembley
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Sep 09
Posts: 429
Credit: 1,844,293
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1152949 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 23:37:45 UTC - in response to Message 1152821.  

But it gives me an idea for a feature suggestion for David: if a project is running server-side DCF, it sends a flag to (compatible) clients to say "lock your DCF to 1.0000: we're handling it at this end". Suggestions on a postcard to the usual place?


Write your suggestions on a piece of toilet paper and flush it with the rest of them, has just as much a chance of David listening as any other way.

ID: 1152949 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51448
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1152956 - Posted: 17 Sep 2011, 0:03:51 UTC - in response to Message 1152949.  
Last modified: 17 Sep 2011, 0:05:06 UTC

But it gives me an idea for a feature suggestion for David: if a project is running server-side DCF, it sends a flag to (compatible) clients to say "lock your DCF to 1.0000: we're handling it at this end". Suggestions on a postcard to the usual place?


Write your suggestions on a piece of toilet paper and flush it with the rest of them, has just as much a chance of David listening as any other way.

Now, that's not completely true.
Granted, Dr. Anderson does have his way of going ahead with his agenda without notifying anybody...as I guess is his right.
But he has also taken bug reports and suggestions and put in fixes for them on occasion as well.

Please don't take this as meaning that I agree with everything he does....the current thread topic would be a definite disagreement.

I just think the comment made was a bit harsh.

Meow.
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1152956 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Shorties estimate up from three minutes to six hours after today's outage!


 
©2022 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.