| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: FightAIDS@Home
Thread: New Series of Tasks Taking 50% Longer? |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 6
|
|
| Author |
|
|
dandaman07
Cruncher Joined: Apr 19, 2007 Post Count: 16 Status: Offline |
Just curious to know if this is just affecting my machine or not? Most Faah tasks complete in about 11-13 hours on my old core duo but these tasks currently running are sitting at 19.5 & 13.5 hours elapsed with another 4 and 9.5 hours to go respectively. I also noticed that usually the tasks are running with an increased 50mb memory usage... http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj313/dowdydc/Tasks.jpg
----------------------------------------I'll see how the next wu goes and hope its just a hiccup.  [Edit 1 times, last edit by dandaman07 at May 28, 2008 2:31:14 PM] |
||
|
|
Rickjb
Veteran Cruncher Australia Joined: Sep 17, 2006 Post Count: 666 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Answer: Yes. It's not just your machine that's taking longer to crunch the current FAAH WUs. I've noticed that times have just about doubled in the last few days, after a rare period where crunch times were fairly even.
----------------------------------------If you take a look at the names of the WUs as they come though, you may find that when the style or first part of the name changes, the average times change too. Some of "last week's" names/times/machines were: faah4242_NSC45621_a_MIN_xmd08880_03_1 3:27 Q9450@3.5GHz faah4243_NSC45621_b_MIN_xmd03640_03_0 3:29 Q9450@3.5GHz faah4242_NSC45621_a_MIN_xmd00980_00_0 6:49 A64X2@2.7GHz faah4243_NSC45621_b_MIN_xmd05420_00_0 6:38 A64X2@2.7GHz Current WUs are running around 6/12hrs on my Intel/AMD machines respectively: faah4244_ NSC79594_ 1CF3_ MIN_ xmd17020_ 03_ 0 5.82 Q9450@3.6GHz faah4244_ NSC79594_ 1CF3_ MIN_ xmd17760_ 01_ 1 6.06 Q9450@3.6GHz faah4245_ NSC79594_ 2CF3s_ MIN_ xmd01520_ 02_ 0 11.92 A64X2@2.8GHz faah4245_ NSC79594_ 2CF3s_ MIN_ xmd01830_ 02_ 0 9h12m@76% A64X2@2.8GHz You can compare your crunch times to that of The Herd by going to your "Results" pages in the My Grid section on wcgrid.org, and examining the entries for Valid WUs. You'll have to average the times over a number of WUs (say 10) to get an estimate of your relative speed, since you'll be comparing your machine to the average of a random sample of the motley collection of rigs out here. --- (Slightly off-topic) The latest version of Autodock seems to run particularly slowly on my Athlon64. Previously, its WU times were faster than about 80% of the other guy/girl's, while now this is around 20% (guestimates). Also, the 2:1 ratio in times in the list above is way over the 1.3:1 ratio of the clock speeds. [Edit 2 times, last edit by Rickjb at May 28, 2008 4:40:12 PM] |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
This is experiment 20 (must have come just on-stream)
----------------------------------------http://fightaidsathome.scripps.edu/status 2 things been reported this morning to technicians: 1. The file size exceeded in other thread 2. This where the swapfile size seems inordinate large (pic in previous post) The 50k memory use i don't understand. It's always been in the 128-150mb range for FA@H. I see 142mb in the screenshot.
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
dandaman07
Cruncher Joined: Apr 19, 2007 Post Count: 16 Status: Offline |
Ha! I guess there are two things I should be concerned about when posting, do not post while intoxicated or in my case while tired.
----------------------------------------My machine usually runs faah jobs in the real low 100 mb range, but this new series increased it to the 140+mb. Which isn't really a big deal. Thanks for the heads up play, Sek. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I have a unit from this series, and I think it is using less memory than previous series, on average. It is just the peak memory use that is higher.
|
||
|
|
dandaman07
Cruncher Joined: Apr 19, 2007 Post Count: 16 Status: Offline |
After watching it for a while, I think that the wu's I received with this job title:
----------------------------------------faah4245_ NSC79594_ 2CF3s_ MIN Have been having "soft" errors, I noticed numerous times that it would hit maybe 5% and then back down to 2% and try again and this would happen during the entire wu. I know this is normal to do it sometimes within the wu, but for it too add this much time to the wu. I think is excessive. Either way, like I mentioned before the wu complete's successfully so no harm no foul. Dan |
||
|
|
|