| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: Say No to Schistosoma Forum
Thread: SN2S: General discussion/problems |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 75
|
|
| Author |
|
|
eLPeCKo
Cruncher Joined: Feb 14, 2010 Post Count: 19 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
EDIT2: Cost of badges. Just looked at my PG&E bill that cut off at midnight: PG&E energy statement (e-Bills) information Amount Due: $652.42 Due Date: March 9, 2012  I just received mine too, in USD it is 620  My girl will kill me most probably  So lets crunch for last moments   |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
What a sweet project to run!! Quick downloads, efficient resource utilization, good checkpoints that work and 2 second uploads. What more could a cruncher want?  -- snip from Dataman [Feb 23, 2012 3:24:19 PM] post Also, memory usage (shown by Windows taskManager) for the (edit1 insert: A-series) worker thread: [Project] / Working Set / Private Working Set / Commit size [DSFL_v6.24] / 32-35M / 31-33M / 31-33M [SN2S_v6.13] / ~18.7M / ~17.2M / ~17.2M --------------------------------------------------- edit1_2012.02.25Sa.2302.utc Average delta across the range for DSFL_v6.24 versus SN2S_V6.13 = 33M-19M = roughly 14M, and so: 14/33 = roughly 42% reduction from DSFL_v6.24. That is a significant improvement ! As for the "What more could a cruncher want?" part, well, there is always the "I want a GPU-aware version" response waiting at the wings. ; [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Feb 25, 2012 11:02:35 PM] |
||
|
|
kashie
Cruncher Joined: Mar 7, 2007 Post Count: 46 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I think the longer running A type use that much memory, the shorter running AAA type use almost 3 times that. I'm not complaining, it's still a low amount and I much prefer tasks that run from 2 to 5 hours than ones that run from 5 to 11 hours.
----------------------------------------My computer is at 3.6 GHz, someone with a lower speed computer may take a fair while to do one of those 11 hour tasks. [Edit 1 times, last edit by kashie at Feb 24, 2012 5:48:53 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Well yes, display problems and then the results croaking with those codes -1073741510 and -1073741502 [See Start Here FAQ index where they're listed], is not a not to be expected consequence. If you have more than 1 computer, try to shut down the core client first through remote connection via BOINC Manager or BOINCTasks. Only then hit the power cycle button. Summary quick prelim conclude: Nothing to do with SN2S specifically. --//-- Recently I upgrade my Nvidia driver to the latest version. Immediately my Milky way and Collatz GPU tasks started to fail with Computational errors. I reverted to the old driver and the problem was fixed...... |
||
|
|
KWSN - A Shrubbery
Master Cruncher Joined: Jan 8, 2006 Post Count: 1585 Status: Offline |
Back to run times, I realize there are different sized units, but it appears the techs should have spent a little more time in beta stabilizing these run times. My results are running anywhere from 6 hours on a fast system to one that is at 1 day, 4 hours and has yet to reach 75%. This is an improvement over earlier in the unit as it was projected to last 60 hours (4 days 12 hours).
----------------------------------------Granted, this is on a slightly older system, but it's far from slow. Certainly not atom or celeron slow. By any measurement run times in excess of 24 hours on a slightly below average system shows the work unit was not properly sized to begin with.  Distributed computing volunteer since September 27, 2000 |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
60 hours (4 days 12 hours) Or even 2 days 12 hours  Doesn't alter your valid conclusion, of course. |
||
|
|
KWSN - A Shrubbery
Master Cruncher Joined: Jan 8, 2006 Post Count: 1585 Status: Offline |
Did I mention which planetary body these days were counted on? No, I didn't. I stand by my incorrect statement.
---------------------------------------- Distributed computing volunteer since September 27, 2000 [Edit 1 times, last edit by KWSN - A Shrubbery at Feb 25, 2012 9:51:46 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
By any measurement run times in excess of 24 hours on a slightly below average system shows the work unit was not properly sized to begin with. I'm confident that the WCG-Techs will get a handle on a WU's runtime enough to control the sizes of WUs with a view of coming up with a 'reasonable' runtime for a WU. One thing is though, the performance gap between cruncher machines can only go wider as we march on -- and this can only make the task of control, measure, and calibration of runtimes difficult. Down the road, there will surely be a need for matching the work to the machine; a one-size-WU-fits-all-machine will be increasingly difficult to support as we move along.-- snip from KWSN - A Shrubbery [Feb 25, 2012 9:29:53 PM] post I guess that leaves us crunchers for now to have to settle for a one-sized-WU with the it's-the-unpredictability-of-the-underlying-science-can't-you-understand? as the thing to say for one to wear a but-it's-too-large-a-WU-for-my-machine! T-shirt. ; |
||
|
|
KWSN - A Shrubbery
Master Cruncher Joined: Jan 8, 2006 Post Count: 1585 Status: Offline |
By any measurement run times in excess of 24 hours on a slightly below average system shows the work unit was not properly sized to begin with. I'm confident that the WCG-Techs will get a handle on a WU's runtime enough to control the sizes of WUs with a view of coming up with a 'reasonable' runtime for a WU. One thing is though, the performance gap between cruncher machines can only go wider as we march on -- and this can only make the task of control, measure, and calibration of runtimes difficult. Down the road, there will surely be a need for matching the work to the machine; a one-size-WU-fits-all-machine will be increasingly difficult to support as we move along.-- snip from KWSN - A Shrubbery [Feb 25, 2012 9:29:53 PM] post I guess that leaves us crunchers for now to have to settle for a one-sized-WU with the it's-the-unpredictability-of-the-underlying-science-can't-you-understand? as the thing to say for one to wear a but-it's-too-large-a-WU-for-my-machine! T-shirt. ; I agree totally, it's a really difficult thing to get a handle on. I was merely suggesting they should have spent more time in the beta phase with the sizing issues. One more small round would have probably done it. Distributed computing volunteer since September 27, 2000 |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
F.A.O. Techs & Webmaster:
The system requirement page v.v. one time download appears to be severely optimistic. Watching the initial SN2S downloads, saw quite a few 4MB tga files passing down in the transfer tab. Coupled with the discussion in the screensaver/graphics help items, this made me look them up. The tga's alone are 65MB uncompressed and with the best of the best, can not shrink them to compress in a single archive to below 9MB. That's just the images, thusly thinking that 2MB on the SR page is substantially optimistic. --//-- |
||
|
|
|