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

Quick Go »
No member browsing this thread
Thread Status: Active
Total posts in this thread: 24
Posts: 24   Pages: 3   [ 1 2 3 | Next Page ]
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread
Author
Previous Thread This topic has been viewed 10143 times and has 23 replies Next Thread
uplinger
Former World Community Grid Tech
Joined: May 23, 2005
Post Count: 3952
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
BETA Test for GFAM Nov 29 2011

http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread_thread,32165

Please reply any issues with this beta test here.

Thanks,
-Uplinger
[Nov 29, 2011 8:28:15 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: BETA Test for GFAM Nov 29 2011 v 6.10

Got 2 new and 2 old running concurrently. After 1 hour seeing 0.7% performance improvement over the old. Tested different Write to Disk settings [running an alpha client] and confirm the checkpoint write logging adapting for the new version.

Thumbs up.

Suppose you did not put in the extra logging as what you did for DSFL? There have been -195 reports for GFAM, albeit not many.

--//--
[Nov 29, 2011 9:55:53 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
uplinger
Former World Community Grid Tech
Joined: May 23, 2005
Post Count: 3952
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: BETA Test for GFAM Nov 29 2011 v 6.10

GFAM already had the additional logging which helped us find some work unit errors in BETA before the project was launched. This saved us from a greater number of errors and drove down the error rate on GFAM. These ligands that caused the problem helped us create a method of testing the ligands before they are sent out to the grid for running. So the main change for GFAM was just the check pointing modification.

Thanks,
-Uplinger
[Nov 29, 2011 10:16:27 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
BobCat13
Senior Cruncher
Joined: Oct 29, 2005
Post Count: 295
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: BETA Test for GFAM Nov 29 2011 v 6.10

Linux, Boinc v. 6.10.58 x64, checkpoint interval set to 600 seconds yet checkpoints are happening more frequently.

11-29-2011 5:02:21 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0424_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:07:57 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0424_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:13:35 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0424_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:19:02 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0424_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:21:26 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0424_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:23:50 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0424_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:26:15 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0424_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:28:46 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0424_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:31:26 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0424_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:34:05 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0424_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:36:43 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0424_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:39:22 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0424_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:42:09 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0424_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:44:57 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0424_0 checkpointed


11-29-2011 4:58:53 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0451_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:07:41 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0451_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:16:18 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0451_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:24:12 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0451_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:32:05 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0451_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:39:51 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0451_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:47:40 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0451_0 checkpointed


11-29-2011 4:58:08 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0337_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:07:14 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0337_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:17:14 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0337_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:27:45 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0337_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:38:03 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_GFAM_x1j3iWt_NDP_2WATs_0000756_0337_0 checkpointed


11-29-2011 5:00:03 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_DSFL_00000073_0000054_0642_1 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:07:05 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_DSFL_00000073_0000054_0642_1 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:14:09 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_DSFL_00000073_0000054_0642_1 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:21:21 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_DSFL_00000073_0000054_0642_1 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:28:38 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_DSFL_00000073_0000054_0642_1 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:36:03 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_DSFL_00000073_0000054_0642_1 checkpointed
11-29-2011 5:43:14 PM [checkpoint_debug] result BETA_DSFL_00000073_0000054_0642_1 checkpointed
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by BobCat13 at Nov 29, 2011 10:58:30 PM]
[Nov 29, 2011 10:57:10 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: BETA Test for GFAM Nov 29 2011 v 6.10

Was that set before the task loaded? The task only asks one time at start what the WtD limit is.

--//--
[Nov 29, 2011 11:04:53 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
BobCat13
Senior Cruncher
Joined: Oct 29, 2005
Post Count: 295
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: BETA Test for GFAM Nov 29 2011 v 6.10

Was that set before the task loaded? The task only asks one time at start what the WtD limit is.

It has been set that way for months.

Here is a log snippet of HFCC running before the Betas took over:

11-29-2011 2:55:27 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802870_target-7_0001_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 3:05:48 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802870_target-7_0001_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 3:16:06 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802870_target-7_0001_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 3:26:24 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802870_target-7_0001_0 checkpointed


11-29-2011 2:56:12 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802911_target-7_0000_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 3:06:49 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802911_target-7_0000_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 3:17:28 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802911_target-7_0000_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 3:28:05 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802911_target-7_0000_0 checkpointed


11-29-2011 2:56:17 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802834_target-7_0001_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 3:07:19 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802834_target-7_0001_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 3:18:21 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802834_target-7_0001_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 3:29:24 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802834_target-7_0001_0 checkpointed


11-29-2011 3:00:46 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802689_target-7_0001_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 3:10:49 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802689_target-7_0001_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 3:20:50 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802689_target-7_0001_0 checkpointed
11-29-2011 3:30:51 PM [checkpoint_debug] result HFCC_target-7_02802689_target-7_0001_0 checkpointed
[Nov 29, 2011 11:15:39 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: BETA Test for GFAM Nov 29 2011 v 6.10

Well, I'll be darned, set it to 6 minutes last night, restarted the Linux client and looked through the log this morning and see checkpointing in less that time. Was coincidence then that they had not too short jobs helping to improve the efficiency.

--//--

edit: The ones completed & reported with quorum are valid:

BETA_ GFAM_ x1j3iWt_ NDP_ 2WATs_ 0000755_ 0788_ 1-- 1767290 Valid 11/29/11 20:44:09 11/30/11 02:24:39 5.60
BETA_ GFAM_ x1j3iWt_ NDP_ 2WATs_ 0000755_ 0458_ 1-- 1767290 Valid 11/29/11 20:44:09 11/30/11 02:04:06 5.26
BETA_ DSFL_ 00000073_ 0000054_ 0432_ 1-- 1767290 Valid 11/29/11 20:44:09 11/30/11 00:00:45 3.23
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Nov 30, 2011 7:52:48 AM]
[Nov 30, 2011 7:43:19 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
pcwr
Ace Cruncher
England
Joined: Sep 17, 2005
Post Count: 10903
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: BETA Test for GFAM Nov 29 2011 v 6.10

Returned 5 of 9 Beta WUs.
4 Valid, 1 PV.
Crunching the other 4. Waiting for more. wink

Patrick

Update: All 10 Valid.
----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------
[Edit 2 times, last edit by pcwr at Nov 30, 2011 9:03:24 PM]
[Nov 30, 2011 8:00:31 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Crystal Pellet
Veteran Cruncher
Joined: May 21, 2008
Post Count: 1313
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: BETA Test for GFAM Nov 29 2011 v 6.10

No errors. Only Valids and Pendings. Efficiency 99.6% on i7 HT on.
----------------------------------------

[Nov 30, 2011 9:51:45 AM]   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: BETA Test for GFAM Nov 29 2011

Only got GFAM, no DSFL. Resource usage characteristics seem to be as before and I had no problems. Efficiency does seem to be higher on my slow machine.
[Nov 30, 2011 11:08:13 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Posts: 24   Pages: 3   [ 1 2 3 | Next Page ]
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread