| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: GO Fight Against Malaria
Thread: GFAM: Monster run (as how it feels) |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 5
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Whilst my Linux-64 quad is happily churning them out, so far in the range of 2.75 to 5.74 hours CPU time, the first to hit me W-32 Centrino laptop is heading for... 15 hours at 96.2% efficiency. Nothing wrong with the job... it's checkpoint every few minutes.
And so far, would you believe... 100% validation for 100% of the results returned.  --//-- |
||
|
|
uplinger
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: May 23, 2005 Post Count: 3952 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Sek,
Do you know the workunit name? We have expanded our knowledge base of ligands from the first day of results by 2 fold. This means our build scripts will learn from this and help size the workunits better. Most of the jobs have been smaller than the default "unknown" job size estimate. Which causes some of the workunits to run near the 3 hour range. The "unknown" job size estimate is large to help prevent workunits from getting out of hand. But you may have encountered one that was larger than the unknown size which is possible. Hope this helps, let me know if you have any more questions. -Uplinger |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Keith,
The unit: 6.08 GO Fight Against Malaria GFAM_x1df7_TBdhfrDry_0000250_0405_2 09:25:15 (09:05:04) 96.43% 63.333 05:16:37 11/19/2011 7:20:34 AM Running [107] 00:07:45 Not looked at the quorum, but it's a _2 and shorter deadline, thus assuming it's a repair job. Efficiency climbed a bit, less checkpointing, last 7:45 minutes ago ;-), and it seems to have sped up a bit. At 63.3% it's showing 5:16 hours left... a 14.5 hour completion time now. --//-- |
||
|
|
nanoprobe
Master Cruncher Classified Joined: Aug 29, 2008 Post Count: 2998 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
FWIW I have only 3 of 45 validated WUs that ran less than 4 hours. Some up to 8 hours. I have PVs that ran up to 11 hours. Some of the longer ones (9+ hours) were on my fastest crunchers. (i7-2600k @ 4.5GHz.)
----------------------------------------The amounts of tasks within each WU seems to have no correlation as to how long the WU runs.
In 1969 I took an oath to defend and protect the U S Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and Domestic. There was no expiration date.
  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
The task in OP moved into the fast lane in latter part and finished in 13 hours:
GFAM_ x1df7_ TBdhfrDry_ 0000250_ 0405_ 2-- 95711 Valid 11/15/11 06:20:34 11/16/11 00:25:51 13.08 133.1 / 165.7 Very minor off topic gripe, same as for DSFL, but it helps the language consistency when talking about results/tasks/jobs/wu's: At start of the task, there's printed 84 tasks, then all the steps are referred to as jobs. Could "tasks" be changed to "jobs" in the next release... maybe it does not even need a new release, just a tweak of the task header. <core_client_version>6.12.41</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <stderr_txt> INFO: No state to restore. Start from the beginning. [10:12:10] Number of tasks = 84 [10:12:10] Starting job 0,CPU time is 0.000000. [10:12:10] ./ZINC16892139.pdbqt size = 22 10 ../../projects/www.worldcommunitygrid.org/gfam.x1df7_TBdhfrDry.pdbqt size = 1584 0 [11:51:36] Finished Job #0 cpu time used 662.406250 [11:51:36] Starting job 1,CPU time is 662.406250. [11:51:36] ./ZINC16892139.pdbqt size = 22 10 ../../projects/www.worldcommunitygrid.org/gfam.x1df7_TBdhfrDry.pdbqt size = 1584 0 [12:02:45] Finished Job #1 cpu time used 657.031250 [12:02:45] Starting job 2,CPU time is 1319.437500. [12:02:45] ./ZINC16892139.pdbqt size = 22 10 ../../projects/www.worldcommunitygrid.org/gfam.x1df7_TBdhfrDry.pdbqt size = 1584 0 Thanks, In advance ;O) --//-- P.S. Never seemed to worry me for DSFL at 99.2% efficiency, but if the 99.2% can be increased to 99.6% by the mere change of the WtD setting compliance (C4CW+HCC1 do 99.8% on this rig), that'd be icing on the cake. Any company would love to see their profitability go up by 40 basis points. At any rate, if GFAM does 98.2 and DSFL does 99.2, that's potentially 1 percent to gain. --//-- |
||
|
|
|