Questions and Answers :
Windows :
Best way to control flow of new tasks?
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Garry Send message Joined: 7 Jul 02 Posts: 40 Credit: 535,102 RAC: 1 |
Win10 1909, up-to-date, last checked 20 min ago; Intel i5-8250u BOINC 7.14.2 (x64); no later version available participate in: SETI@Home, Einstein, and Rosetta. So far. BOINC runs only when I'm at the computer or downloading. My computer usage can be variable. Some weeks, I might use the computer twice as much as others. All too frequently, my computer fails to complete tasks before their deadline. This seems a condition for getting a reasonable minimum of tasks.
|
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13854 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
Swap around your cache settings, so it becomes Store at least 0.04 days of work. Store up to an additional 0.01 days of work. Once you make the changes & save them, click on Update on the Manager for it to get those new settings. It will still take some time as the Manager determines how long it takes to complete a WU, how many hours a day the system is running, and how much time when the system is running is available for BOINC to use, but swapping those settings values around should help things to sort themselves out. Grant Darwin NT |
Garry Send message Joined: 7 Jul 02 Posts: 40 Credit: 535,102 RAC: 1 |
😠Oh! Another of those, "Why didn't I think of that?" moments. Or another of those, "Fifty-fifty chance, and what'd I get?!" moments. 🙠Thanks for the quick reply. I'll monitor for several weeks to see it adjust the estimates. Much appreciated. . . . Garry PS. Stay warm! 🤣 In other words: Enjoy the indoors! 😊 |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13854 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
PS. Stay warm! 🤣 In other words: Enjoy the indoors! 😊Here, this time of the year, it's cooler indoors thanks to the aircon (27°c). Outside it' been around 36°c most days with the humidity between 50%-75%, and only getting down to 27°c or so over night. Grant Darwin NT |
Garry Send message Joined: 7 Jul 02 Posts: 40 Credit: 535,102 RAC: 1 |
As to SETI: Swap around your cache settings, so it becomes Did that. Also drained down the tasks on this computer. Then allowed more tasks to come in. Watched for a while. My perception: Probably improved, as you say. However, it seems to want to have eight active tasks at a time (the number of threads on the computer, perhaps not a coincidence) and perhaps five or six more waiting. Accordingly, there remains quite a high probability of missing deadlines. Sigh. I haven't seen the computer hit 100% CPU with either one or two tasks running, but it always has 100% with three tasks running. If I could keep only one or two tasks in inventory per project, I could keep all projects busy and balanced while greatly reducing the chance of being late. Any other way to accomplish the goal? Thanks in advance. As to geography: Dooh! 🤣 I was horribly geographically mistaken. This time of year, most folks in the Northern Hemisphere envy your weather. Your flag should have prevented the error, but I placed you well north of me. My mistake entirely. Enjoy your weather! I went out tonight with high winds and blowing snow on the roads. I doubt you envy that! |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13854 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
Any other way to accomplish the goal?Nothing comes to mind, other than waiting a while longer. Have all the other projects number of WUs also declined in accordance with the changed cache settings? The less time a system is running, and BOINC is able to process work when the system is on, then the longer it will take for changes to become effective. And there have been some Seti server issues recently, which could cause some odd behaviour as it tries to balance out resource share with other projects. Grant Darwin NT |
Garry Send message Joined: 7 Jul 02 Posts: 40 Credit: 535,102 RAC: 1 |
Have all the other projects number of WUs also declined in accordance with the changed cache settings? I don't know that I'm giving the system a chance to fully adapt. I just adjusted the computing options to "at least 15 min; at most 15 min more". So maybe it has to start over. I'm still vulnerable to late tasks. For instance, perhaps three to six days ago, I received a task from Rosetta that has accumulated 6 hours and needs 18 hours more in the next 24 hours. It'll be late. Rosetta has only one more task here. It needs 7 hours in the next 3 days. It'll probably make it. Einstein has two tasks here, both due in 14 days, requiring 20 hours between them. Should make it. SETI has six tasks here, four due in 3 1/2 weeks and two due in 5 weeks, requiring less than 14 hours between them. Easy. During the time I downloaded these tasks, I probably aborted six or eight tasks on arrival. Some of those probably wouldn't have come in had all tasks here been available to run at download time. A download process I'll try: 1) Stop network activity. 2) Resume all tasks in inventory. 3) Put all projects in "allow new tasks". 4) Resume network activity. Allow downloading to complete. 5) If too many tasks come in, put all projects in "no new tasks". Abort appropriate new tasks. Suspend last-due tasks to give the first-due tasks a better chance. Then manage resuming additional tasks so that the first-due tasks complete on time. Perhaps maintain balance by typically running two tasks for each project at a time. When low on tasks, return to step 1. Maybe after a time, I'll see more improvement. |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13854 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
I don't know that I'm giving the system a chance to fully adapt.That is definitely the case, During the time I downloaded these tasks, I probably aborted six or eight tasks on arrival.What you are doing is stopping the manager from determining what your system can & can't do. Hence it keeps doing the wrong thing. Don't abort tasks, don't suspend tasks to let others process, don't select & deselect No New Tasks. Everything you're doing there changes things, and so the Manager has to re-work everything each time you do those things. Set it back to Store at least 0.04 days of work. Store up to an additional 0.01 days of work. This will provide a very low upper limit on the amount of work it will get. Don't abort tasks. Don't pause some to let others process. Don't set & then un-set No New Tasks. Just let it do it's thing. If WUs miss the deadline that's good, it allows the manger to determine just how long it takes for it to process work once it downloads it. It wouldn't surprise me if it takes close to a month for things to fully settle down, but if you go back to the 0.04 days of work/ additional 0.01 days of work cache, and just let it be I would expect it should come pretty close to sorting things out within 2-3 weeks- as long as you don't abort tasks, suspend & re-enable tasks, disallow & re-allow new work. Just let it do it's thing. Micro-managing work processing almost always results in anything but the desired result. Grant Darwin NT |
Garry Send message Joined: 7 Jul 02 Posts: 40 Credit: 535,102 RAC: 1 |
🤣 (blush) I'm the guy being tactfully told, "You're saying you don't have time to help drain the swamp because you're fighting alligators?" (Pick the scary water critter where you are!) 🙂 Well done, sir! .04 and .01. No task suspended. All projects allowed new tasks. I'll hold myself back until at least Jan 21. Happy New Year! (And I'll note that since I'm a bit over two hours away, the vast majority of the world has already celebrated. And Australia is among the earliest!) |
Garry Send message Joined: 7 Jul 02 Posts: 40 Credit: 535,102 RAC: 1 |
I'll hold myself back until at least Jan 21.It's a little earlier than I said, but I'll report. My system has settled down nicely, despite an unusual period of three or four days with the computer off. (And maybe because of it!) Steady-state seems to be keeping one task in progress per thread, plus up to two waiting (and often none or one). Task lengths vary but seem appropriate to due dates. At this minute, three tasks have the earliest of the due dates in five days. Two other tasks are due a week later. One other task is due one day later yet. All times remaining are reasonable for the time I expect the computer to be on. From the BOINC perspective, I can accept this steady-state as "getting a reasonable minimum of tasks" (my goal). FYI, the scheduler probably settled within roughly 36 hours of operation, roughly 1.5 times the longest tasks I'm getting. If that's typical, it seems likely it'll seldom cause a late task, unless daily usage varies a great deal. Perhaps my usage was varying more than I was aware. Or perhaps that period of off time was helpful in getting on track. |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13854 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
Glad it's behaving as desired. Grant Darwin NT |
Garry Send message Joined: 7 Jul 02 Posts: 40 Credit: 535,102 RAC: 1 |
Well, I was too hasty in becoming satisfied with the scheduler. In the last day or so, it accepted three tasks from Rosetta. Each needs 24 hours of processing. All are due tomorrow. That seems improvable! . . . Garry |
rob smith Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22527 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 |
Have you done any Rosetta work previously? If not it is the usual poor initial estimate.... Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
Darrell Wilcox Send message Joined: 11 Nov 99 Posts: 303 Credit: 180,954,940 RAC: 118 |
@Garry I suggest you visit your Rosetta preferences and set the desired processing time to one (1) hour. If this is met, increase it by an hour or two after a week or so. Rosetta is able to complete short WUs. Einstein, however, is terrible at giving a reasonable amount of work. |
Garry Send message Joined: 7 Jul 02 Posts: 40 Credit: 535,102 RAC: 1 |
@RobSmith I've been doing Rosetta for quite some time, since Jan 1 without changing any computing preferences. @DarrelWilcox Ah! Would but that all projects had such controls. Thanks tons. This'll go a long way to solving my problems. Have a great day! . . . Garry |
©2024 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.