| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: Nutritious Rice for the World
Thread: The Initial Rice Technical Questions Thread |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 159
|
|
| Author |
|
|
knreed
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: Nov 8, 2004 Post Count: 4504 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Bad news: finally the file size which is considered for the test is before compression. So I have just wasted 8 hours of CPU time with a final file size of 2,741,182 bytes (for about 640 computations). Since this processor is running at 2.88 GHz only I am afraid that your new limit will still be too low in too many cases. By the way, why are you trying to adjust that size so close? This is artificially erroring work which went fine beside this. Move up the limit consistently (at least 5 MB). If there is a risk of some WUs getting out of control they will reach the limit anyway. The limit of of 1.5MB was chosen based upon the output of the beta test. This limit should have been much greater then what was required. However, I did notice that on my personal computers the first workunits that went out were predicting structures at nearly twice the rate as the structures from the beta test. There is variation among the structures. More structures means a larger file. We are adjusting further upwards. We will also be looking at the early results to ensure things are running correctly. And also why wait the end of the job to declare it in error? As said earlier it was visible four hours ago that the limit was reached. If there must be a limit check it in the application and leave when it is reached. This is in the BOINC code, we will talk to them about it. [Edit 1 times, last edit by knreed at May 13, 2008 1:26:52 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I wonder, windows has options, 'optimization hacks' are a better words maybe, that allows the unloading of DLL's from memory. I pertinently won't do that. Just a teeny weeny thought. (so far 5 of the new issue crawled through at a boringly flat 8.00 hours and of the few that already show in the Result Status detail listing by others, none have erred.) PS: There is a good chance I'll be showing off the 'ear' of rice before any of the alter ego's ;>) I haven't changed anything from standard Windows settings so it can't be that.........its not really a problem as such as they still appear to complete correctly - its just the 'size limit' ones that are erroring. As I said I have never had any of these DLL reports in Boinc before on any other project. PS: I still have around 17 days worth awaiting validation  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I'm claiming about 185 per unit, what is everyone else getting?
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
The limit of of 1.5MB was chosen based upon the output of the beta test. This limit should have been much greater then what was required. However, I did notice that on my personal computers the first workunits that went out were predicting structures at nearly twice the rate as the structures from the beta test. There is variation among the structures. More structures means a larger file. We are adjusting further upwards. We will also be looking at the early results to ensure things are running correctly. Kevin - I have a large cache of the old 1.5MB limit wu's on my machines - I take it if I abort them to get the new 3MB ones I will then get restricted in allocation....if thats the case can you re-set my limit for me afterwards? |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Not sure it repair jobs go through a 'remake' and get the adjusted parms. It's something of interest.
----------------------------------------
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Well I'm still getting size errors saying they have exceeded the old 1.5MB limit despite the adjustment, so like Lawrence said above they perhaps have the limit set within the WU's themselves and I need new ones?
Hopefully Kevin will be able to confirm. |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
I'm claiming about 185 per unit, what is everyone else getting? It would suggest that you run a power cruncher and process allot of Units of Data in those 8 hours. My un-OCed quad claims about 120. Also it can be the difference of a 64bit client versus a 32 bit client. With 14 in the initial quorum computation, it's what comes out as grant. Here's a sample of the2 hour beta version to demonstrate the variety of credit. A post in the Start Here forum explains the credit logic. BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 3-- Valid 05/03/2008 00:07:04 05/03/2008 03:18:34 2.00 8.7 / 10.1 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 9-- Valid 05/03/2008 00:06:01 05/03/2008 04:52:56 2.00 44.4 / 50.5 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 17-- Valid 05/03/2008 00:05:23 05/03/2008 10:31:58 2.00 49.5 / 55.4 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 7-- Valid 05/03/2008 00:03:54 05/03/2008 11:25:47 2.00 32.2 / 35.8 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 1-- Valid 05/03/2008 00:03:52 05/03/2008 04:08:49 2.00 35.2 / 42.7 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 13-- Valid 05/03/2008 00:03:37 05/03/2008 15:56:21 2.00 25.5 / 22.3 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 5-- Valid 05/03/2008 00:03:07 05/03/2008 13:48:47 2.01 15.7 / 13.9 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 21-- Valid 05/03/2008 00:03:07 05/03/2008 03:19:48 2.00 32.1 / 32.2 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 15-- Valid 05/03/2008 00:03:05 05/03/2008 16:18:15 2.00 32.4 / 29.6 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 11-- Error 05/03/2008 00:02:43 05/11/2008 16:59:32 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 19-- Valid 05/03/2008 00:02:07 05/03/2008 07:26:49 2.00 37.4 / 31.1 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 0-- Valid 05/02/2008 23:54:27 05/04/2008 01:11:48 2.00 38.9 / 42.0 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 4-- Valid 05/02/2008 23:54:27 05/03/2008 09:05:19 2.00 32.1 / 26.4 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 2-- Valid 05/02/2008 23:54:19 05/03/2008 19:33:57 2.00 33.0 / 40.9 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 10-- Valid 05/02/2008 23:54:18 05/03/2008 21:49:40 2.00 19.1 / 19.5 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 8-- Valid 05/02/2008 23:54:01 05/05/2008 17:55:30 2.01 13.9 / 12.1 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 12-- Valid 05/02/2008 23:54:00 05/03/2008 02:07:11 2.01 7.1 / 10.4 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 16-- Valid 05/02/2008 23:53:55 05/04/2008 00:35:56 2.00 16.8 / 15.7 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 20-- Valid 05/02/2008 23:53:52 05/04/2008 13:49:39 2.00 17.4 / 21.6 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 6-- Valid 05/02/2008 23:53:48 05/03/2008 10:22:30 2.00 12.5 / 13.7 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 14-- Valid 05/02/2008 23:53:32 05/03/2008 09:39:01 2.00 22.1 / 22.4 BETA_ oryza_ sativa_ indica_ 9311_ all_ 0000012952_ 18-- Valid 05/02/2008 23:53:26 05/03/2008 13:47:51 2.00 29.2 / 21.8
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I'm claiming about 185 per unit, what is everyone else getting? I'm claiming 180 on an Q6600 @ 3.4GHz using a 32 Bit XP - others at 3GHz are claiming around 158. With Vista 64Bit, a Q6600 @ 3.4GHz is claiming 214 - but I'll no doubt get nowhere near that as granted. Sek - are you able to give Kevin a prod in the back room to get an answer as to whether I should be aborting my older WU's if they are stuck at the lower 1.5MB size?  Having wasted 300 hours of computer time on these I'd rather not waste any more if its going to keep happening. [Edit 2 times, last edit by Former Member at May 13, 2008 1:58:43 PM] |
||
|
|
knreed
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: Nov 8, 2004 Post Count: 4504 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Not sure it repair jobs go through a 'remake' and get the adjusted parms. It's something of interest. 'Repair' jobs will get the new file limit size |
||
|
|
knreed
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: Nov 8, 2004 Post Count: 4504 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Well I'm still getting size errors saying they have exceeded the old 1.5MB limit despite the adjustment, so like Lawrence said above they perhaps have the limit set within the WU's themselves and I need new ones? Hopefully Kevin will be able to confirm. If you want to abort them, go ahead. Post here when you are done. NOTE TO OTHERS: Only the above average computers are going to be impacted by this issue. If you haven't seen this issue yet, it is not likely that you are going to. Only abort if you know that you have seen this. Also - results that allow greater file sizes (now set at 6MB) are already going out. |
||
|
|
|