| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: Say No to Schistosoma Forum
Thread: Low priority compared to GFAM? |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 3
|
|
| Author |
|
|
alver
Senior Cruncher Joined: Nov 30, 2007 Post Count: 245 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I'm trying to run a mix of SN2S and GFAM - I have both project selected, and no others. I was expecting roughly a 50-50 mix, but I'm getting almost exclusively GFAMs and almost no SN2S at all.
----------------------------------------Is this deliberate? Will it iron itself out if I leave it alone? Or do I have to manage this myself by changing settings every day? EDIT: I think each of my machines has had a handful of SN2Ss, so I know it does work - it's just that I seem to get far fewer of them than GFAMs. *Far* fewer.  (previously known as 'proxima' on SETI, UD, distributed folding, FaD, and Rosetta) [Edit 2 times, last edit by alver at Mar 20, 2012 9:38:05 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi,
----------------------------------------I'm sure the sciences need rebalancing the get the fair share in the feeder, as a total of the "normal priority" running researches [see http://bit.ly/WCGSHR ]. It could be as early as this week it is being addressed again, since we're slowly moving back to the normal single distribution for the Zero Redundant sciences [FAAH/C4CW/CEP2/HFCC] and reliability ratings are being achieved again with the new server 700 BOINC software. The 'but' is, that even if the tot al is fair share, the exclusive crunchers vacuum harder at the SN2S feeder it being the newest to race for the ultimate sapphire badge, which leaves less for the mix pool crunchers, the cause of what you see now. Unfortunately the base design of BOINC does not account for things such as 50/50 on 2 of 11, soon 12 active [CPU only using sciences], so we'll have to live with just crunching what the hopper has [at the time of work requesting], or manage it more hands on. If having the disposal of multiple machines and there being no technical gain of mixing GFAM/SN2S/DSFL [same system loads and CPU feature use], the one machine processing A, the second machine processing B [assuming equal power], will balance. Think though it does not really matter in the long run. I'm running SN2S exclusively till it matches GFAM/DSFL in contribution and then I'll go back to free mix till whenever the first hits sapphire, and then one gets deselected until whenever the next hits sapphire or whatever the goal is, whilst this all manually mixing in CEP2 for the nightly exclusive section. Who said that crunching for badges was Set and Forget [if hungry for those forum sidebar tokens] ;>) --//-- edit: spell-check, as always [whats wrong with 'rebalancing' or 'spellcheck' contracted for that matter ;?] [Edit 2 times, last edit by Former Member at Mar 20, 2012 10:04:17 AM] |
||
|
|
alver
Senior Cruncher Joined: Nov 30, 2007 Post Count: 245 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Thanks for the great reply. Sounds like I need to either leave it alone and wait until the initial rush for SN2S dies down, or manually manage it - or a bit of each. I'm following a similar strategy as you, especially as the CPU requirements of both projects are similar.
----------------------------------------2 of 11, soon 12 active News to me - sounds good! (previously known as 'proxima' on SETI, UD, distributed folding, FaD, and Rosetta) |
||
|
|
|