| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: Computing for Clean Water Forum
Thread: [RESOLVED]Missing points |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 7
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
A long time lurker announces his presence...
----------------------------------------I've so far crunched mostly FAaH, whose WUs granted me sometimes more, sometimes less points than the client claimed. On the average, the system seemed to work and the deviations weren't that large. I've just switched to CfCW and a few things seem to be a bit off. First of all, the client consistently claims about 10 points more than I am granted. This would indicate to me that the WUs are somehow running slower than they should, which would make my client overstate their value. The second problem are those occasional WUs that take much longer to complete than is (apparently) expected. Right now I've got two "big" WUs listed in my results that took 6.97 and 8.16 hours to complete. They are still worth exactly the same as those "normal" units that only take about 4.2h to complete. Now, I'm not that interested on those pesky points, I crunch for the science and for the benefit of mankind, but seeing how obsessed some people are about their pretty badges and about their ranking, I sense trouble. As it stands, it seems beneficial to drop those units that take too long to finish, and replace them with a new one. 1/2 hour wasted work + 4 more hours to finish the new WU would still be much faster than the 8.2hour monster. The long WUs in question (I'm sure they are not the only ones) were c4cw_target02_006683362 c4cw_target02_006999273 I'm running windows 7, 64bit [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Sep 21, 2010 3:29:57 PM] |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Hi long time lurking Memto,
----------------------------------------You'd have to watch the client constantly to do that long/short selecting, but my guess is that if you use the system, less cycles actually go towards computing. I've seen when real busy on CW jobs 3.5 hours and when the system is idle just continuous 2.5 hours. But to clarify, they are all of the same target02 and it's the time shown on the Result Status page you're describing here and not the Elapsed/Wallclock time that you see in client version 6.4 and up? --SekeRob
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I was talking about the cpu time listed on the web page and I am aware of the "elapsed time vs cpu time" issue in the client. Obviously those units are different, but all of them are target02 and afaik they should need about the same amount of cpu time.
That long/short selecting probably would produce less cycles and that is why I wouldn't do it, I was merely suggesting that for a more "points oriented" cruncher, there is an incentive to do that. |
||
|
|
Jack007
Master Cruncher CANADA Joined: Feb 25, 2005 Post Count: 1604 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
well even point oriented crunchers (most)
----------------------------------------might just grumble a bit, to actually abort WUs, (shiver)  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
This is getting a bit sidetracked... I'd really like to know that there is nothing wrong with my system and the WUs are running correctly, even though the client somehow overestimates their value, pretty much every time.
|
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
If I were you I'd not further worry. Some hosts/clients are just good at having an optimistic benchmark. This is a very general test. The actual science application are not all the same and might be using different functions of the CPU than others or the client benchmark is tuned to. When the jobs validated, that's enough of a seal of approval.
----------------------------------------edit: A sample set of jobs, claim and grant. My duo always gets a good bonus and the quad a discount. c4cw_ target02_ 011548164_ 0-- 1292373 Valid 9/20/10 08:45:42 9/20/10 22:32:10 2.60 46.8 / 43.0 c4cw_ target02_ 011411714_ 1-- 1292373 Valid 9/20/10 05:45:43 9/20/10 21:20:14 2.63 47.2 / 43.2 c4cw_ target02_ 011464465_ 0-- 1292373 Valid 9/20/10 05:54:37 9/20/10 21:17:07 2.60 46.8 / 43.2 c4cw_ target02_ 011442169_ 0-- 1292373 Valid 9/20/10 05:12:02 9/20/10 21:01:56 2.61 46.9 / 42.6 c4cw_ target02_ 011451745_ 0-- 95711 Valid 9/20/10 05:19:56 9/20/10 20:19:25 6.12 60.4 / 73.3 c4cw_ target02_ 011441745_ 0-- 1292373 Valid 9/20/10 05:11:43 9/20/10 19:48:27 2.61 46.9 / 42.5 c4cw_ target02_ 011442415_ 0-- 1292373 Valid 9/20/10 05:11:25 9/20/10 18:35:53 2.60 46.8 / 42.6 c4cw_ target02_ 011431406_ 0-- 1292373 Valid 9/20/10 05:11:25 9/20/10 18:35:09 2.61 46.9 / 42.6 c4cw_ target02_ 011443636_ 0-- 1292373 Valid 9/20/10 05:11:24 9/20/10 18:18:36 2.66 47.7 / 42.6 c4cw_ target02_ 011444767_ 0-- 1292373 Inconclusive 9/20/10 05:11:25 9/20/10 17:04:50 2.60 46.8 / 0.0 c4cw_ target02_ 011446421_ 0-- 1292373 Valid 9/20/10 05:11:25 9/20/10 15:47:53 2.66 47.7 / 43.0 c4cw_ target02_ 011446877_ 0-- 1292373 Valid 9/20/10 05:11:25 9/20/10 15:44:48 2.60 46.7 / 43.1 c4cw_ target02_ 011448267_ 0-- 1292373 Valid 9/20/10 05:11:25 9/20/10 15:21:43 2.59 46.6 / 43.0 c4cw_ target02_ 010725286_ 0-- 1292373 Valid 9/19/10 06:08:56 9/20/10 14:15:51 2.61 46.9 / 43.0 c4cw_ target02_ 010735081_ 0-- 1292373 Valid 9/19/10 06:08:35 9/20/10 13:04:51 2.59 46.5 / 43.3
WCG
----------------------------------------Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sekerob at Sep 20, 2010 11:09:26 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Ok, I'll just let it do it's job from now on :D . Thanks for the help.
|
||
|
|
|