| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Beta Testing
Forum: Beta Test Support Forum
Thread: Beta Test Clean Energy Type A / B version 6.29 |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 170
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Great use of the new quorum partner log view feature. To me, layman, only the middle was probably valid and an additional copy should have been send out. The middle used the recommended client, the 3rd used a very Alpha test version of BOINC and the first is rather ancient release certainly not able to handle the graphical part, which is made to work with BOINC release 6. So, first and last, if you read this, get 6.2.28 (all windows). Much easier for support too. The update / downgrade takes but a minute. 6.4.2 is one of my machines. I will revert it on Monday. Unfortunately I can't do anything about the 5.4.11 :) (seems people are still running Debian etch?). I'm curious to know why this WU validated though. Surely the two machines would've returned very different results? That and the client's logs show an error... |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Actually, I'm not in doubt that all three results were processed on Windows (Homogeneous Redundancy).
----------------------------------------
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
martianmoons
Cruncher USA Joined: Nov 29, 2006 Post Count: 49 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Great use of the new quorum partner log view feature. To me, layman, only the middle was probably valid and an additional copy should have been send out. The middle used the recommended client, the 3rd used a very Alpha test version of BOINC and the first is rather ancient release certainly not able to handle the graphical part, which is made to work with BOINC release 6. So, first and last, if you read this, get 6.2.28 (all windows). Much easier for support too. The update / downgrade takes but a minute. BOINC really has nothing to do with how a work unit is processed, imho, it merely shepherds the results of the true client, which is the scientific client doing the work.... |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
The processing, absolutely nothing and absolutely everything. It's a poor shepherd and some have a dog that has 3 legs, which is why some sheep escape, off the cliff.
----------------------------------------Anyway, opinion is opinion. Enough case fact is in place to show that the core client mangles results all too often, particular those lovely alpha versions.
WCG
----------------------------------------Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sekerob at Mar 14, 2009 2:07:16 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I picked up another repair WU with a deadline it may or may not make, 31 hrs, 40 mins. Expected completion is currently 34 hrs. (The same machine has done one in 28 hrs and one in 35 hrs.)
How much leeway is there on these betas? How far over-time can we go before the result is not used and/or credited? |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Fist rule: Return before the "No Reply" causing extra Task Result comes back, else it's "Too Late".
----------------------------------------edit: sentence made cleared.
WCG
----------------------------------------Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sekerob at Mar 16, 2009 7:48:33 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Given how these WUs are, I'll probably have to let it run 10-15 hours before I get a decent idea of whether it'll make it or not. The deadlines being so close to likely minimum possible time to complete are really silly, if running 10 mins over will mean a Too Late.
|
||
|
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3716 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Given how these WUs are, I'll probably have to let it run 10-15 hours before I get a decent idea of whether it'll make it or not. As soon as the percentage starts ticking you can make a realistic estimate of the total duration. For a type A multiply the ticking period by 3240, and for a type B multiply by 3500. You should be less than 10 % off the final runtime. Since the ticking period tends to increase slightly the error margin will be below or above the final runtime depending on when you make this estimate. Since it happens that 3240 is also the number of seconds in 0.9 hours you can also do a quick estimate of type A WUs on the basis of 9 hours of runtime per 10 s of ticking period. Cheers. Jean. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
You should be less than 10 % off the final runtime. Ah, but the deadline and the expected time are within 10% anyhow. However, I had another beta that was marked No Reply and was completed within 1-2 hours after the deadline and still got validated, not junked in the Too Late pile. So, it's not as bad as Sekerob suggested. |
||
|
|
BKraayev
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Mar 23, 2005 Post Count: 51 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
With the crunchers being awarded points even if the Beta errors out, everyone really needs to let all the Betas run and hope that by our beta testing, the Techs and Scientists can figure out how to prevent the errors from reoccurring. Well, I've got a few that errored out for some of us - no points, and no time credit ... same happened when CEP first started BETA with those 30-40 hour jobs - I lost just over 4 days worth of credit time ... makes it kind of difficult to get to the gold for beta .... ;-) I do agree we need all the Betas - good and bad - to help figure out the problems - just wanted to clear up any misconception about errors being handled any differently during Beta testing. I'll happily continue Beta testing - points or no points  BETA_ E000338_ 907A_ 00251l00f_ 5-- Valid 14/03/09 07:32:23 15/03/09 02:06:50 13.44 226.4 / 258.4 BETA_ E000338_ 907A_ 00251l00f_ 4-- Error 14/03/09 01:38:41 14/03/09 07:31:56 5.53 104.9 / 0.0 BETA_ E000338_ 907A_ 00251l00f_ 3-- Error 13/03/09 02:06:44 14/03/09 01:38:11 10.30 107.4 / 0.0 BETA_ E000338_ 907A_ 00251l00f_ 2-- Error 12/03/09 16:33:44 13/03/09 02:06:21 8.95 115.1 / 0.0 BETA_ E000338_ 907A_ 00251l00f_ 1-- Valid 10/03/09 18:43:34 12/03/09 16:33:24 24.19 290.5 / 258.4 BETA_ E000338_ 907A_ 00251l00f_ 0-- Error 10/03/09 18:43:32 11/03/09 06:11:03 10.28 142.6 / 0.0  [Edit 2 times, last edit by BKraayev at Mar 15, 2009 7:33:58 AM] |
||
|
|
|