| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: Help Cure Muscular Dystrophy - Phase 2 Forum
Thread: PV tasks held while Waiting to be Sent to Wingman |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 24
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
When I run with 0.15 day of extra work buffer I have more or less one day of work in PV, which is more or less what I have always had with other projects. Because of the server maintenance I had raised the buffer to 0.5 day and within one day the number of PVs decreased by 25-30 %, which tends to show that these WUs are returning quite fast in general. Cheers. Jean. Gosh Jean, I wish my PV queue was only about 1 day deep. But since I only get a new WU between 3-7 minutes before the running WU is about to end, my PV queue is rather deep. At this point in time, I'm once again over 50+ WU's and by the end of this evening, I'll likely be again on my way towards the 60 pending in PV purgatory. As it is, sometimes I get the 0-- version, sometimes I get the 1-- version and I've even had a few 2-- versions of the WU (children / aunts / uncles / grandparents / siblings ... whatever they are) and the WU's I get tend to be returned before the others almost without exception. I sure wish there were some counters on the results status page that presented total hours of CPU time completed awaiting it's validation WU to complete as well as the total # of WU's in PV Jail by project. Might be some interesting metric for those at WCG to observe and perhaps do something to reduce or eliminate the long / deep WU buffering some systems seem to think they need in this day and age. The other thing I'm waiting for is for everyone to process all the WU's I have in PV purgatory and return them all within the same day just for reporting purposes and see what that does!  Oh Well... I seem to recall something about, "If wishes were fishes..." [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Jul 11, 2009 12:44:44 AM] |
||
|
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3716 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
At this point in time, I'm once again over 50+ WU's and by the end of this evening, I'll likely be again on my way towards the 60 pending in PV purgatory. So, according to your latest daily results, Barney, this is less than two days of work, which is close to the average, I think. Allow your WUs to spend half a day in your client's queue and your PV jail will be down to less than 1.5 day of work, simply because half a day will have been spent "In Progress" instead of "Pending Validation", or maybe even lower if you better match crunching habits of the majority. Frankly I have no problem with your chosing the settings you are using, but I really do not see which benefit you are expecting. If you like to always be the first one to return a WU it's fine with me, but be not surprised if your WUs have to wait longer for others before being validated. Personally I run with what I already consider a short buffer (0.15 day) simply because I want to be able to change my project choices quickly if I need, AND because I can react quickly in case of feeding problems. If I were leaving my clients do their work alone in the background as most members do I would then use a larger buffer. When I have been absent several days recently I have raised this setting to one day. Cheers. Jean. ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by JmBoullier at Jul 11, 2009 2:14:30 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Jean,
----------------------------------------You have an interesting perspective. For example; here's my PV queue; I'll repost it tomorrow about the same time so we can see what it looks like then.
From what I've continually observed, it appears there is a fairly high incidence where the WU's are for whatever reason, not returned by their "Due Time". A reasonable (although not the only) explanation for this is someone requests say some high buffer value of WU's and for any number of reasons not capable of returning the WU's within the allotted period of time. Power failure; system maintenance; extended periods of time using the machine for other activities just to speculate on a few possible contributors. There are a number of ways to address this; one was a queue for fast responders. Perhaps a better resolution is for WCG to significantly reduce the amount of additional work buffer anyone can have to 24 hours or less, period. We can be collaborators and agree to disagree, that's not an issue. We're still getting the job done. But there are likely better ways for the additional buffer to be managed rather than letting the users attempt to tweak these parameters. Surely, WCG knows when they are likely going to be doing scheduled service. So they could load up your WU task queue with sufficient data to continue on without the need to communicate to the server during that period of time. Unscheduled downtime, again, having more than a 24 hour buffer appears to be simply absurd. Just because it's "Always been this way" isn't a good enough reason not to consider changing it. Where would we be with air flight if we had stuck with the Wright Brothers / Louis Bleriot / Henri Farman or even Clarence "Kelly" Johnson's ( SR-71 Blackbird ) accomplishments, where would we be now? [Edit 3 times, last edit by Former Member at Jul 11, 2009 4:04:05 AM] |
||
|
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3716 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Barney,
----------------------------------------Looking for the detailed post that knreed has taken time to write in answer to your concerns I realize that it is not in this thread but in yours, the well named "Let's discuss this one more time" where many people have spend time to explain why one more day in PV has no meaningful incidence on WCG's global efficiency. That means that you are currently hijacking another thread for reactivating an older discussion, which some might consider as trolling. If you have really new elements (not based on speculation) to bring to your discussion, please go back to your thread and stop it here. I really have nothing against academic discussions but when the same wrong assumptions are pushed again and again I tend to feel a little bored. Thank you for understanding. Jean. |
||
|
|
|