| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Support
Forum: Suggestions / Feedback
Thread: 46% progress and 121 hours cpu :( |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 6
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I´m worried because i have 46% task execution progress, and a task run time of 121 hours...........
I have got an Amd k7-4 1000mhz 256mb ram. I´m not running any other program that consumes resources. I think this is not normal..... |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Antonio,
You should be OK as you have 336 hours + 1 second to complete a WU. This is 2 weeks solid crunching. For more information, please look here With regards to being normal, it is not abnormal  Sometimes, you get allocated what is termed a monster WU. This just means that it takes longer to crunch but you will pretty much get the same number of points as if you had done multiple WUs each day. Have a look at this thread for more information on monster WUs and this one for information on how points are calculated. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
thanks for answering me so quickcly and well. I was thinking about reinstalling the program.
Thanks |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I am very concerned that these programs run over 10 hours much less the 100+ hours that I am seeing. I am worried about losing 100+ hours of computing if I should have a software problem or virus. I recently upgraded to Service Pack 2 on Windows XP and it took my whole system down. Everything was lost. Why not break these down into smaller units like Seti@HOME does. If anything is lost in the future it is not big deal. Here you always stand to lose 100+ hours of computing.
|
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi Robert Here is the official answer from: Rick Alther World Community Grid Application Developer Rosetta checkpoints at the end of each computed structure. This is indicated by an increment in the the total progress. It's best seen on the graphics screen since we increment in fractions of a percent while the main screen simply shows whole percent. Shutting the computer down shouldn't make the task reset. It'll restart at its last checkpoint. However, if you just hit the power button, there is the possibility of a corrupt checkpoint file. If the Agent detects a corrupt checkpoint (or other files), it will restart from the beginning. Finally, killing Rosetta via the Task Manager will cause the Agent to report an error. It'll immediately send an error back to the server and you'll download a new workunit. However, you'll get no credit for the computation time if the Agent reports an error. Due to the fact that the length of a work unit is Non Deterministic due to the nature by which it folds and also the fact that there are parts within certain Work Units that are very difficult to converge, this makes it very difficult to predict the length of time it will take to complete One point to remember is that Rosetta.exe produces incrimental save points as seen on the Graphic, so generally speaking if your computer got turned off due to a power outage or crashed due to a lock up it would continue where it left off in 95% of cases once you reboot I hope this helps Regards [Edit 3 times, last edit by Former Member at Feb 2, 2005 5:52:10 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Robert --
----------------------------------------In addition to the points that Graham has made, you might want to read what Victors, another WCG Tech, has said in the "Start Here: Community-maintained FAQs [read only]" forum at the thread entitled "Run times for work units - what to expect": http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=928 [Edit 4 times, last edit by Former Member at Feb 2, 2005 5:34:35 PM] |
||
|
|
|