Index  | Recent Threads  | Unanswered Threads  | Who's Active  | Guidelines  | Search
 

Quick Go »
No member browsing this thread
Thread Status: Active
Thread Type: Sticky Thread
Total posts in this thread: 109
Posts: 109   Pages: 11   [ Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next Page ]
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread
Author
Previous Thread This topic has been viewed 175179 times and has 108 replies Next Thread
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 technical project details

Nothing has changed FAIAA and same as for you the 34 hrs sprung up in this [a first to me to be seen with > 12:00 hrs]. Mix and match, that's at seconds level and since both actually finished the jobs in full, this eyeballs as a pure halving of the total as credit award.

CEP2 hourly credits, overall, in my charts for CEP2 seem to be running along the normal variation in the range of 17.25, not hinting at a tweak of some kind and per last word the application changes quite a bit off into the future.

--//--

PS: Does the wingman log at end of job 15 mention the seconds at which it was restored? What's that value like? Oh and what platform, as Linux claims on 64 bit seem to ''rich-er''. Certainly my device since about a week back on Ubuntu is getting 200-250 credit day more [same CEP2/CW crunching].
[Jun 22, 2011 4:49:38 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
sk..
Master Cruncher
http://s17.rimg.info/ccb5d62bd3e856cc0d1df9b0ee2f7f6a.gif
Joined: Mar 22, 2007
Post Count: 2324
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 technical project details

Perhaps Rickjb's wingman was a new system, went into low power mode or was restarted frequently, but it would still need to have been using an old client; with runtime instead of CPU time being reported, assuming the 12h cut-off exclusively goes by cpu time and does not read run time.

3.22h was the shortest valid I have seen on a SB (HT on) and 8.22 the longest. i7-920 (HT on) is 5.41 to 9.77h.
These complete all 16 sub-jobs.

Only one i7-920 PV listed with 12h time:

<stderr_txt>
INFO: No state to restore. Start from the beginning.
[22:31:07] Number of jobs = 16
[22:31:07] Starting job 0,CPU time has been restored to 0.000000.
[22:33:46] Finished Job #0
...
[05:08:30] Finished Job #13
[05:08:30] Starting job 14,CPU time has been restored to 23543.234375.
[06:46:08] Finished Job #14
[06:46:08] Starting job 15,CPU time has been restored to 29379.062500.
Killing job because cpu time has been exceeded. Subjob start time = 0, Subjob current time = 1088204996
[10:37:23] Finished Job #15
10:37:33 (3096): called boinc_finish

The last sub-job was pushing 4h, but still got cut off.
Unless it was the case that this last sub-job was allowed to run to completion, and this was recently changed. But doubt it, this was also sent on the 20th and returned on 21st.
I can see 4 pages of CEP2 tasks and nothing similar. Pity we can't see some Boinc and system info with the tasks at WCG. It would put pay to a lot of guesswork.
[Jun 22, 2011 6:13:09 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 technical project details

There is no BOINC client that ever reported Runtime / aka Elapsed as the reportable hours. The criterion has always been true CPU time [Ingleside could probably confirm that], where the incidental CEP2 wingman task I see still at times suffers from ''lost'' CPU time. Saw one yesterday, that had after 8 hours of wallclock, incremental Restore times that barely exceeded 90 seconds per job, at the 15th checkpoint 976 seconds, then somehow managed to loose hardly anything on the 16th and clocking in 2.23 hours. The wingman log of Rickjb might be revealing.

--//--
[Jun 22, 2011 7:08:20 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
sk..
Master Cruncher
http://s17.rimg.info/ccb5d62bd3e856cc0d1df9b0ee2f7f6a.gif
Joined: Mar 22, 2007
Post Count: 2324
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 technical project details

Was not sure about CPU time or runtime being only used by Boinc in the past; it’s been a while since I used such an old version.
Sounds like Use CPU, While computer is in use was set to Off. Still don’t understand how it went past the first job though?

[OT Winge]
I think these sort of problems stem from one of the fundamental problems with Boinc - Boinc cannot distinguish between different task types from the same Project. Therefore you cannot have independent default settings on a project-by-project basis.
As a result, if I want to run 4 CEP2 tasks, I cannot. If I want to have CEP2 use the CPU when system is in use but not HCC, I cannot. I cannot configure Boinc to crunch one project but not another when the system is in use. When the system is using more than 25% of the CPU, or at different times of the day (office hours), I can’t continue running one project, but stop using cores for another project, not even after say after 2h (to reduce power usage), or run different numbers of tasks, or to allow a GPU task to continue but not CPU tasks (at peak power times, when a specific program starts, or time of day), or continue to completion if completion will be within x minutes…

The more cores/threads and GPU's and the more applications (HCC, HPF…) from the one Project (WCG) there are, the more users will want to explicitly configure individual projects (apps). Boinc as is, has too many problems for multiple application Projects, doesn’t cater well for mixed Project crunchers, and when it comes to GPU crunchers, well that was just an afterthought. So these problems are not just limited to WCG, it affects dozens of projects, including GPU projects, and projects that use CPU’s, ATI GPU’s and Nvidia GPU’s.

If WCG started using their own seperate Boinc version it would be useful, so long as the Berkeley one could run along side (for other projects).
[/OT Winge]
[Jun 22, 2011 10:56:07 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Ingleside
Veteran Cruncher
Norway
Joined: Nov 19, 2005
Post Count: 974
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 technical project details

There is no BOINC client that ever reported Runtime / aka Elapsed as the reportable hours. The criterion has always been true CPU time [Ingleside could probably confirm that], where the incidental CEP2 wingman task I see still at times suffers from ''lost'' CPU time.

BOINC-client reports both cpu-time and run-time, and has done so probably since v6.4.x-clients, and both types of times is also shown on the web-pages, except if runs very old server-software or uses customized web-pages like WCG is doing.

With older clients only cpu-time is reported.

The exception is the various win9x/Me-variants that has always reported only run-times regardless of clients, since win9x has no idea there is anything like CPU-time at all.
----------------------------------------


"I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might."
[Jun 23, 2011 1:03:29 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 technical project details

Sorry, yes, forgot about the Runtime added in need for GPU tasks.

Quick look, Win98 still contributes 1346 RAC and ME 366... amazing.

Thanks

--//--
[Jun 23, 2011 1:16:55 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Rickjb
Veteran Cruncher
Australia
Joined: Sep 17, 2006
Post Count: 666
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 technical project details

@Sekerob: "Does the wingman log at end of job 15 mention the seconds at which it was restored? What's that value like? Oh and what platform ..."

Last few lines of the result log files:
Mine: <core_client_version>6.2.19</core_client_version> ...
[22:21:44] Finished Job #14
[22:21:44] Starting job 15,CPU time has been restored to 13717.281250.
[23:27:06] Finished Job #15
23:27:15 (2604): called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>
---
Wingman: <core_client_version>6.10.58</core_client_version> ...
[20:24:26] Starting job 15,CPU time has been restored to 30031.206506.
Application exited with RC = 0x24
[22:37:01] Finished Job #15
22:37:11 (2336): called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>
---
The extra line with "exited with RC = 0x24" is a little strange, and the codes in () on the "called boinc_finish" lines are different, but both say "Finished Job #15".
No other irregularities in log files, though both WUs were exited once, probably both upon user-requested system shutdowns (mine to avoid peak electricity charge period, 2pm-8pm M-F).
As I said in previous post, my device is on XP-64. Wingman's setup unknown, since that is not shown in logfiles.

CPU times at start of job 15 are not in proportion to total CPU times on the WU:
Total times 34.25h : 4.89h = 7.0 but at start of #15, 30031s (8.34h) : 13717s (3.81h) = 2.18
Maybe the wingman's task went loopy in job #15, but was not cut off until very much after 12 hrs.
The looping might have taken out the cut-off mechanism. Perhaps the techs can work it out.

My original query re credit-awarding system still stands - yes, seems like a simple average when both crunchers complete the same no of subjobs. No override of an outrageous claim.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 2 times, last edit by Rickjb at Jun 23, 2011 3:48:11 PM]
[Jun 23, 2011 3:41:32 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 technical project details

Thanks, Rickjb,

The snip you posted, also showing the wallclock time suggests there was like 2.25 hours at most since the restore at 30.031 seconds, so it's odd how 10.6 hours at most slipped in as 34.25 hours.

I wrote platform, but meant client version which is printed at top of log.

Anyway, I've polled the techs on this oddball and hope they'll get to it before the task is assimilated out of the live db.

cheers

--//--
[Jun 23, 2011 3:53:29 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
sk..
Master Cruncher
http://s17.rimg.info/ccb5d62bd3e856cc0d1df9b0ee2f7f6a.gif
Joined: Mar 22, 2007
Post Count: 2324
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 technical project details

Just a heads up about using Sleep or Hibernation with Boinc 6.10.26 - 6.10.33, DON'T:
There have been recent reports of Windows not resuming computation after returning from sleep/hibernation. This would be a pain to any Boinc project but more so for this one. LAIM is recommended for CEP2, but it would not work alongside hibernation under these Boinc versions. So you would be going back to the last checkpoint. Another reason to avoid these Berkeley only recommended versions.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 2 times, last edit by skgiven at Jul 3, 2011 6:09:33 PM]
[Jul 3, 2011 5:47:35 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 technical project details

Just a heads up about using Hibernation with Boinc 6.10.26 - 6.10.33, DON'T:
There have been recent reports of Windows not resuming computation after returning from hibernation. This would be a pain to any Boinc project but more so for this one. LAIM is recommended for CEP2, but it would not work alongside hibernation under these Boinc versions. So you would be going back to the last checkpoint. Another reason to avoid these Berkeley only recommended versions.

Thanks for sharing that. Been following the reports and discussion on the Alpha mail list since start. So far unable to reproduce with .26 or .33, both quad and duo [Laptop] on W7[SP1] or Linux [quad] 11.04. Whilst running CEP2, mostly 3 concurrent on quad, I'd recommend to give it real serious time before unplugging power. At any rate, powering up properly resumes BOINC, again it needing serious time to fetch the state-image from disk.

BTW, Did not know .33 had advanced to ''recommended'' and to this moment showing (MAY BE UNSTABLE - USE ONLY FOR TESTING) . Though there's pushing, it'd be [fill in the blanks] to promote this version via a message in the clients, knowing this [to me] serious issue is loitering. They can do the aggressive developing all they like, but it's time for them to not interrupt production grids until there's a solid, proven release.

--//--
[Jul 3, 2011 6:11:02 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Posts: 109   Pages: 11   [ Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next Page ]
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread