| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: Help Fight Childhood Cancer Project Forum
Thread: "Monster" Wus ? |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 50
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Looks like some work units last two or three times the ordinary lap of time they usually need.
No particular problem about this, just curiosity... |
||
|
|
Movieman
Veteran Cruncher Joined: Sep 9, 2006 Post Count: 1042 Status: Offline |
I noticed the same..Thought maybe my machine was slowing down for a minute!
----------------------------------------  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Interesting that I had a 60hr WU on one of my slower machines that validated immediately when acknowledged.
|
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7846 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Yeah, I noticed these on a couple of my machines. 35 hour jobs on a P4 1.5gz and 31 hours on a P4 3.4 gz. No complaints, just observations.
----------------------------------------Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
breathesgelatin
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Aug 5, 2006 Post Count: 117 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I have definitely noticed this too.
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
Trotador
Senior Cruncher Joined: Mar 26, 2009 Post Count: 154 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Me too, 16.68 hours in a Q6600@3GHz, the longest WCG WU ever for me, pending validation.
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
uplinger
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: May 23, 2005 Post Count: 3952 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
We are looking into these larger work units to see what may be causing the estimations on them them to be off. We are hoping to find a common feature in the work units. But the work units are validating and running normally as they should.
-Uplinger |
||
|
|
adrianxw
Senior Cruncher Denmark Joined: Apr 13, 2008 Post Count: 196 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Maybe add HFCC_s1_00131913_s1_0000 to the investigation as well.
----------------------------------------[edit] Job finished and validated as others have reported. Ran for a shade under 15 hours, 3-4 hours normal for that machine. [/edit] [Edit 1 times, last edit by adrianxw at Nov 17, 2009 8:45:06 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I also noticed this increased time to completion tendency for HFCC Wu's for the past month or so, especially on one client. The most notable client is an AMD Phenom 9600 x4 2.3 GHz that is also running CMD2. The CMD2 WU's have been running "normal times" but HFCC WU's have been increasing in time to completion from the usual 4 to 5 hours per WU up to as high as 25 hours. My other clients have also noticed an increase in TTC but not as dramatic as this device.
Out of curiosity, I watched a new HFCC WU start on this machine and it ran to 6.8% putting it at a rate to complete in the usual 4-5 hours. When the WU reached 6.8% complete, it suddenly went back to 3.6% complete and progressed back to 6.8% again. This "loop" continued about half a dozen times when it finally got past 6.8% and continued on. I did not observe this this "looping" later through the WU progress but I am sure it did as the crunch rate was 4-5 hours and this WU ended up taking about 15 hours to complete. All of these longer HFCC WU's have validated fine but just seem to be taking too much time to complete. I wrote it off a a client/WU incompatibility issue and profiled it to run only CMD2 and Rice which are running fine. |
||
|
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3716 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
STARBASEn,
----------------------------------------There are three different "problems" in your post and in this thread and I agree that they may be slightly confusing for users. The original problem of this thread is about some HFCC WUs which are actually bigger than usual. Regarding these WUs when uplinger writes "We are looking into these larger work units to see what may be causing the estimations on them them to be off" "estimations" relates to how they are estimating the work to do for chopping WUs at the desired average size. When you talk about time to completion being far too big for HFCC units in your machine which runs both HCMD2 and HFCC you are describing the problem created by the very diverse durations of HCMD2 WUs which can make BOINC unable to estimate correctly how long a HFCC WU will last, but finally your HFCC WUs have taken the usual time if I read you correctly, i.e. you have not received one of the monster WUs mentioned in the first problem. Last, HFCC WUs "looping" at the beginning of their process. Although you had not noticed it yet, this is normal for all projects using the Autodock program like HFCC and FAAH for example. The program is looking for some particular condition thru several iterations and then goes on normally to the end. In conclusion, there is nothing to worry about, although it may be slightly inconvenient to have those exaggerated TTCs in case 2. Cheers. Jean. |
||
|
|
|