| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 Forum
Thread: New Project Setting |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Thread Type: Sticky Thread Total posts in this thread: 124
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Finally, it was a proxy issue.
Sorry for noise. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Glad this sorted itself out :). Don't worry about the noise - that's what the forum is there for.
Best wishes Your Harvard CEP team |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
It is easy to forget that increasing complexity does not preclude simple failures.
(At least, that is what I tell myself when I overlook a point I should have started out by checking...sometimes it works, sometimes I have to smack myself in the head anyway.) |
||
|
|
eviltoad
Senior Cruncher Australia Joined: Nov 5, 2005 Post Count: 190 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I'm now getting these messages even with the number of workunits per host set to 6. This may have started during the recent scheduled downtime:
----------------------------------------12/03/2012 18:36:48 World Community Grid Message from server: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 requires 63.48 KB/sec download bandwidth. Your computer has been measured at 22.21 KB/sec. Is anyone experiencing the same thing?  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
The override that comes with setting CEP2 to greater than 1 per host has somehow gone lost during the server software upgrade [first reported some days ago]. Workaround would be to download a few HPF2 so the client has the chance to increase the measured bandwidth of a larger file [the small ones cause the degredation]. Alternate is to stop BOINC and hack the client_state.xml [with extreme caution], and set this value to 250000.000000 (6 decimals). Mine shows this atm <bwdown>323610.213241</bwdown> i.e. about 320kb download speed.
--//-- |
||
|
|
eviltoad
Senior Cruncher Australia Joined: Nov 5, 2005 Post Count: 190 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Thanks, SekeRob; I'll try that.
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
alver
Senior Cruncher Joined: Nov 30, 2007 Post Count: 245 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I'm seeing the same problem - "required 63.48 KB/sec, your computer has been measured at 50.13 KB/sec" - with 4 days to go before my Emerald, and 2 days' worth in buffer, this isn't what I wanted to see! Will try hacking the file, and/or downloading a few hpf2, and let you know what happens.
----------------------------------------EDIT: On second thoughts, I haven't got time - just selecting the three projects for which I still need Sapphire, and I'll crunch whatever I get sent. It all counts.  (previously known as 'proxima' on SETI, UD, distributed folding, FaD, and Rosetta) [Edit 2 times, last edit by alver at Mar 14, 2012 11:23:45 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
This download bandwidth issue just happened to me, too...and the problem with devoting multiple boxes to WCG is you (or I, at least) don't necessarily notice when the cached tasks are drained dry...so the system sits there idle - and then when you do start back up after editing the client_state.xml, every CEP2 task's disk I/O is practically synchronous, so efficiency takes a hit on top of the time wasted idle.
Arrrggggghhhhh....this time-waster, on top of one of my SVN repositories deciding there are two of me working on the same project (although that might just be electrons conforming to client desires for me to work twice as fast). |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Yes, that's why I do the staggered start... after 1st checkpoint start the next and then the next after that one made it's first checkpoint. In your case of only doing CEP2, the workaround would be to set the processor % and increase it so much each time that 1 core more goes to run. If they all start simultaneous it's murder through IO.
Notwithstanding I'll get this chalked up in red at top of the blackboard. --//-- |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi everybody,
thanks for bringing up this issue. The hacking solution is kind of a pain and many people will probably not want to be bothered with it. Maybe our friends at IBM can come up with a more user friendly solution. Best wishes from Your Harvard CEP team |
||
|
|
|