| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Beta Testing
Forum: Beta Test Support Forum
Thread: Requiring 100% CPU to get beta work |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 26
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
This is not an error. Yet again, a meaningless, useless response. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
We gave the detailed explanation already. However, you insist on thinking this is an error, and on trying to assign blame.
No error, no blame. Everything working as designed. Please leave this topic alone now, I think it is dead. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
We gave the detailed explanation already. No "we" about it. Some others have given interesting responses. You've said nothing of use so far. However, you insist on thinking this is an error, and on trying to assign blame. Thanks for the passive aggressive angle again. You're the one who's been blaming me from the start. No error, no blame. Everything working as designed. I'd be prepared to believe that if some evidence were provided to support it. Please leave this topic alone now, I think it is dead. As nothing else you've said has been useful, I don't care what your opinion is on whether the topic is dead. I'm still curious as to what's was wrong. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Okay, you claim something is wrong?
What? Is something not working? Have you run out of work? Do you have a worrying error message? Is something crashing? All you have reported is an informational message saying that you weren't sent beta work because the scheduler determined it wouldn't complete in time. That's perfectly normal. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Let me restate this. I made a short post. I'm interested in relevant comments.
Vague mention of DCF isn't an answer. If the DCF has an effect on the calculation of duration for scheduling of a job that takes exactly the same amount of time regardless of CPU power, DCF, etc, than that in itself sounds like a bug. Any responses such as the following are not relevant or useful: "You misunderstood the message." "There is nothing more that needs to be said." "If you want to interpret what you see correctly, then feel free to research it." "This is not an error." "Everything working as designed." "Please leave this topic alone now, I think it is dead." Are there any moderators here who can remove posts with the above irrelevant/unhelpful sentiments which pollute an otherwise potentially interesting thread? |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
DCF means "Duration Correction Factor". Yes, it's important in determining the estimated duration of a task!
You said: Disallowing machines that will take an extra 6 mins to process them seems an unnecessary restriction to me. It was that false assumption that threw this thread off, since I have been attempting to correct your misapprehension, and you have been insisting on retaining it. This isn't the first time you have done this, either. You are getting something of a reputation on this forum. Just let it go, please. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
DCF means "Duration Correction Factor". Yes, it's important in determining the estimated duration of a task! An 8-hour rice unit takes how long to run? 8 hours. A 1-hour beta takes how long to run? 1 hour! And the DCF matters how exactly? |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Work units do not include a time estimate.
This is advanced stuff. If you are genuinely interested, then I (again) strongly encourage you to look it up yourself. If you are not interested, and are just trying to catch me out or prove yourself right - then, again, look it up. Usually, I enjoy explaining advanced BOINC features in detail, and how things work under the hood. All you had to do was ask politely. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
It was that false assumption that threw this thread off, since I have been attempting to correct your misapprehension No, you haven't been attempting to correct my misapprehension. You've been basically telling me to shut up without giving any reason and without giving any answers to any of my questions and without being in the slightest bit helpful. Yet again, if you don't have anything useful to say, why say anything? and you have been insisting on retaining it No, I'm not. I'm just waiting for an alternative hypothesis that makes any sense. You have not presented one. This isn't the first time you have done this, either. You are getting something of a reputation on this forum. Oh, geez. The "all my friends agree with me too" argument. Well, good for you. Maybe one of them will be able to actually provide some useful input, unlike you. Just let it go, please. Look, why don't you take your own advice? If you were to delete all of your own comments in this thread, it would not reduce the information value at all. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
You have your answer. I'm recommending a lock for this thread.
|
||
|
|
|