| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Support
Forum: BOINC Agent Support
Thread: WCG projects get much less CPU than the others on BOINC client |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 14
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
So... why i'm supposed to trust more IBM than say Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (proteins@home)? Also... do you know about the security measures BOINC projects can use? PKI, Digital signatures.... I don't believe running WCG projects is safer than running "well-known" boinc projects (rosetta@home, proteins@home, boincsimap, etc.) Can use... but they don't use all the security features available. Nor do they have security audits. Anyone can start a BOINC project - and they do! I have nothing against the other projects, they do a great job. And who you trust is up to you. But large organisations like the guarantees World Community Grid and IBM can provide. |
||
|
|
knreed
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: Nov 8, 2004 Post Count: 4504 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Again, why can't WCG make its projects available separately to make everyone's life simpler? andresgr, The BOINC software (server or client) does not provide a mechanism to allocate resource share to sub-projects. The only way I know of doing what you suggest would be to create a separate BOINC installation for each of the projects that we are running. This would allow account management systems to easily weight our projects. However, this would significantly increase the complexity of our environment to the point where we would not be able to make progress in many other areas. For example, we have spent a lot of time over the past month working with BOINC and libCurl to enable support for NTLM proxies (an issue that effects some users of all BOINC projects - not just WCG). This time would not have been available if I had been supporting multiple BOINC installations. Kevin [Edit 1 times, last edit by knreed at Feb 5, 2008 6:49:07 PM] |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Thought about this for a while. Because for reasons as security (e.g.) BAM and GR are not allowed to write to the WCG website profiles. GR could though be configured to write to the account_xxxxxxxx.xml files where the weight value <resource_share>100</resource_share> is stored for each of the venues. Each BOINC project attached to a client has it's own account.....xml file. Long as no change is made on the website the BAM or GR account manager value send to the client would prevail. In that case, 5 projects could set WCG to 500. Possibly this is not doable or causes havoc, but here's were the value is stored.
----------------------------------------Both priority e.g. people wanting work in order of e.g. FAAH - 1 HCC - 2 DDDT - 3 HFP2 - 4 ACAH - 5 and weight per sub-project have been wish-listed in the past. We already can choose to select the prime project(s) and give work of others if none of the prime are available. There's as knreed indicates a limited set of hands and time in a day. The wish-list sorting is a kind of "dance de macabre" because doing one feature will disappoint the wisher of another on who's agenda it was not.
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
knreed
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: Nov 8, 2004 Post Count: 4504 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
At last years BOINC conference, we discussed the need to shift from the current scheduler. The current scheduler basically sticks a bunch of work units from each of our projects (interleaved according to their 'weight') into a array and then when a request comes in it starts at a random spot on the array and starts checking if the workunits can be assigned to the machine (based on user project preferences, etc). Once enough workunits have been assigned to satisfy the work request, then it stops. There are some problems with this because it means that we need to do a one size fits all approach to workunits (for example - sizing).
----------------------------------------David Anderson is working on modifying this so that there will be a scoring system to determine the best workunit to assign to a given host. This will initially just work the same as the existing system. However, once this is working and stable, work will begin to add additional features. Some of the features would be to allow differently sized workunits to exist and then assign them as best as possible to a computer (i.e powerful machines would get longer workunits and less powerful machines would get shorter workunits). Additionally, it might be possible to see what files are already present on a users computer and give preference to workunits that would re-use those files. Finally, it also opens the door to things like user preferences for weighting the work by sub-project. I want to emphasize though that this is all work that will not be completed for quite awhile (read 12 months or longer). It will also need to be run through some simulations to make sure the scoring system doesn't suddenly assign everyone nothing but Help Conquer Cancer work because it has smallest file size. - Kevin [Edit 1 times, last edit by knreed at Feb 6, 2008 3:33:14 PM] |
||
|
|
|