| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Support
Forum: Website Support
Thread: curious about priority of ending projects |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Locked Total posts in this thread: 26
|
|
| Author |
|
|
nasher
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Dec 2, 2005 Post Count: 1423 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
P.S. nasher, where did you get the message that HCC1 is slowed down for HCC2 launch? It's been slowed down because there are technical issues at the scientists and still running at a pace of 200,000 WUs per day. That library [already twice extended] seems near inexhaustible. 225 million completed, in quorum 2, i.e. ballpark net 105 million or so. What we're waiting for is the early 2012 GPU beta port of HCC1, to run concurrent with CPU. it is not exactly that a specific heard its a put together and what i can see... looking at many forums here you see when some projects like c4cw were having problems how people complained about not getting any of the important work and having to run other projects... If that were only true, but unfortunately following the DSFL forum, there's a 195 error problem with this science that was hoped to get identified with the last beta. The project was slowed down to medium, so that those that don't see the issue can crunch on, whilst the general pool is not seeing very many. again here we go with yes they slowed DSFL down so people who crunch only DSFL would still have work while they fix the issue... but back to how in my mind they are slowing things dow for HCC1 to help wait till HCC2.... again this is my mind HCC people have posted that they are hoping to have beta for HCC2 out in jan-feb time-frame then HCC slows down so it will keep going till jan-feb time-frame so putting 2 and 2 together i get 5 and make my guess about what I see happening... people who are at all projects will get few HCC and people with only HCC selected will have work till about when beta is expected... yes they have mentioned also i am having vertigo this morning so i dont have the mental power to find the post where but they were mentioning in the past aug-oct i think time-frame that hcc gpu would wait till hcc-2 and that would be early 2012... maybe i miss read things but that's why your here SekeRob to make observances when we misspeak.  |
||
|
|
astrolabe.
Senior Cruncher Joined: May 9, 2011 Post Count: 496 Status: Offline |
So you start this thread with a question:
is there a reason we are slowing projects at the end like the scientists want it that way or is there just something that my lack of common sense preventing me from seeing then when you are asked to explain yourself:P.S. nasher, where did you get the message that HCC1 is slowed down for HCC2 launch? your reasoning for your accusation is:but back to how in my mind they are slowing things dow for HCC1 to help wait till HCC2 and in the end, you are still unwilling to listen to the expert:At over 120,000 results validated yesterday and 110,000 it's pretty normal to me so thanks for your question [RESOLVED] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
The only official reference that I can find is in the March update mentioning that HCC2 is in the proposal stage. http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~juris/WCG/UPDATE-MAR2011.pdf and a further Sept.1 mention that that proposal is in the finalizing stages. They have to propose this project to their own board and find the funding, before they can make a proposal of hosting to the WCG grid hosters. http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~juris/WCG/UPDATE-SEP2011.pdf. That same document mentions the GPU Beta, and what's done... a entirely separate thing from HCC2.
----------------------------------------The 120,000 refers to HCMD2, looking pretty normal to me, HCC1 does about 200,000 down from around 325-350 (later post in this thread). I'm trying to keep the charts as accurate as possible, but if it is felt that it should be questioned, than it's not me that has to produce the support. If it's wrong, than I stand corrected, but can't and won't on non-authoritative say so. --//-- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Dec 8, 2011 6:06:08 PM] |
||
|
|
nasher
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Dec 2, 2005 Post Count: 1423 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
i love the charts SekeRob...
----------------------------------------I just wish the people who run WCG could give more information but i am so glad for the amount of added info you manage to give us. I am lousy at explaining myself i always end up being too blunt |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
If I correctly understand what the OP's essential query is about, it is about wanting to know the policies regarding deployment of WCG projects (through a project's many phases: start/launch, accelerate/ramp-up, cruise/normal, wind-down/transition, and end/archive) -- an idea which I share with the OP.
In order for a cruncher to intelligently plan for and manage his/her participation in the crunching process, a cruncher would like to know the governing policies involved. To respond to this need, WCG may want to post information for the cruncher's guidance. The batch structure is one such kind of information (particularly useful during the launch phase). What prority a project gets when mixed with other projects is another such information (useful during the cruise/normal phase). The dashboard, charts, and the likes show a picture of the battlefield. It does not show how the 'WCG highCommand' wants to steer its forces, as it were, or its plans, or the policies on a project for project basis vis-a-vis on all the projects viewed and managed as one. ; |
||
|
|
TPCBF
Master Cruncher USA Joined: Jan 2, 2011 Post Count: 2173 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
But on the other side we have CEP2 that is weeping that their project progresses too slowly, means not enough crunching power here. In that specific case they have defined technical requirements that only match a small set of the available machines out there. WCG knows what the average machine type is and how capable it is. Wasn't it possible for the scientists to tailor the WU's adequately ? Well, I think you pretty gave yourself the answer already.CEP2 is more demanding on the hardware resources, so there is a smaller pool of available hosts to crunch those WUs. And it is unfortunately very cumbersome to adjust which projects are processed on which hosts. Across the hosts available to me, there are maybe 3 or 4 that could safely crunch for CEP2, out of roughly 20 hosts available. For the others, CEP2 simply would not be a safe choice, as those all are not dedicated crunching hosts but everyday officer workstations. That will likely be the very reason why a lot of folks simply do not select CEP2 into their mix of processed projects and hence you have a bit more of a slow going for this project. Hard to tell if there would be even an option to reduce the requirements, but my WAG is that if that would be the case, they would have already made adjustments in their application... Ralf  |
||
|
|||
|
Mysteron347
Senior Cruncher Australia Joined: Apr 28, 2007 Post Count: 179 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
If I correctly understand what the OP's essential query is about, it is about wanting to know the policies regarding deployment of WCG projects (through a project's many phases: start/launch, accelerate/ramp-up, cruise/normal, wind-down/transition, and end/archive) -- an idea which I share with the OP. ... The dashboard, charts, and the likes show a picture of the battlefield. It does not show how the 'WCG highCommand' wants to steer its forces, as it were, or its plans, or the policies on a project for project basis vis-a-vis on all the projects viewed and managed as one. ; 'Though I've abbreviated it, I have to agree with what you've said. By way of illustration, we may conceive of a smart politician - no, that's stretching things - a conniving politician (now I'm being tautological) who is approached by electors demanding that their taxes be used for A, B and C but not X, Y or Z. The politician will do nothing but vote for a payrise and claim to have complied with the electors' wishes. All the government does is to allot more from other taxpayers to X, Y and Z to make up the difference. No changes required - and the electors will swallow it... Same thing at WCG, unfortunately. We have a system where people can elect to receive work for a sub-set of projects. This mysterious unpublished 'tribal council' can then use the remainder of the crunch-power to restore a desired balance, nullifying any selection made. Some people have claimed that the power is donated to science and may thus be allotted at will, but that's simply avoiding the issue. If there are genuine technical issues which lead to decisions being made - the HCMD2 interruption for instance - that's one thing. I'd not look so kindly on political purposes however - like for instance boosting HCMD2 'to make up for the outage' or to make up for the disastrous political slogan issue on DDDT. Everyone has their own particular preferences - WCG personnel included. I believe that the powers that be must be scrupulously fair in making these decisions. I'm absolutely sure that they try - but it's superhuman to argue forcefully and with any conviction against something in which you truly believe. If these reasons were publicised and explained, it would be preferable. Unfortunately, another waffle-task for overloaded underpaid unappreciated WCG staff copping the flak for doing a tough job... And all of society struggles with what is 'fair.' It's only obvious to those who think the least. |
||
|
|
nanoprobe
Master Cruncher Classified Joined: Aug 29, 2008 Post Count: 2998 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I am lousy at explaining myself i always end up being too blunt You don't need to apologize for being who you are. Some people having nothing better to do than criticize.
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 |
If getting the facts straight is "criticizing", than that is what it is. If you have a problem with correction of information in err, then that's your problem.
--//-- |
||
|
|
astrolabe.
Senior Cruncher Joined: May 9, 2011 Post Count: 496 Status: Offline |
We have said it before and there are those who refuse to accept reality. This is not a democracy. The rules have been published. If you do not like the rules then don't participate. Don't call the staff and admins names and don't accuse them of treachery. Above all else, don't allow yourself to think you are too important. We are all just lowly crunchers. Do or don't do. That's all you get to decide
|
||
|
|
|