Message boards :
Number crunching :
Panic Mode On (98) Server Problems?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 29 · 30 · 31 · 32
Author | Message |
---|---|
Richard Haselgrove ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14456 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 ![]() ![]() |
So it appears that we're getting closer to another new milestone of sorts. 2^32 tasks. The standard BOINC database schema (schema.sql) 221 create table workunit ( 222 id integer not null auto_increment, 258 create table result ( 259 id integer not null auto_increment, still uses type "integer" (which I think means 32 bits) for both workunit and result (=task) IDs. The most recent task I've been issued, a couple of minutes ago, is 4278193638. Allow for another 333,889 tasks already generated and ready to send, that means that we're within 16,500,000 of reaching 2^32 tasks and not being able to split any more work (because they can't be inserted into the table). With a turnover of ~72,500 per hour, we would reach that point in 226 hours - or almost exactly the end of July. I hope we're already non-standard. |
Richard Haselgrove ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14456 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 ![]() ![]() |
Reading Matt's Funny story from November 2011, I'm not exactly reassured. He hasn't typed the figures '6' and '4' in that order since then, so they may be in for a surprise. I think I feel an email coming on... |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 ![]() |
They appear to be informix SERIAL8 types on the seti db code. If I'm interpreting the IBM documentation correctly, then it should be allowed up to 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 Serial8 int8 "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. |
Richard Haselgrove ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14456 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 ![]() ![]() |
They appear to be informix SERIAL8 types on the seti db code. If I'm interpreting the IBM documentation correctly, then it should be allowed up to 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 Matt said they'd been using 8-byte longs in the Informix (science) database We've been bitten by this long ago in informix, and have since been storing larger numbers there as int8's (8 byte integers) or doubles. 'long ago' in 2011. But they were still caught out by the limits of the MySQL (BOINC) database. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 ![]() |
They appear to be informix SERIAL8 types on the seti db code. If I'm interpreting the IBM documentation correctly, then it should be allowed up to 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 ah. Yeah I wonder if there's another schema file for that hiding... [Edit:] I see, probably some limits in the code that uses the databases. Could indeed amount to a cross-fingers and see what happens situation. "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. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 11 Sep 99 Posts: 6533 Credit: 196,805,888 RAC: 57 ![]() ![]() |
Reading Matt's Funny story from November 2011, I'm not exactly reassured. He hasn't typed the figures '6' and '4' in that order since then, so they may be in for a surprise. I think I feel an email coming on... It's only been about 4 years. I'm sure it's in the "to do" pile. SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours |
©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.