| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
| World Community Grid Forums
|
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 14
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I am finding that some of the newer WUs have long CPU forecasts (20-28 hours vs a 'norm' of 7-9 hours on an Intel i3 2.4GHz system) - a few recent Betas also ran long (16-18 CPU hours) - is this normal? Will future batches be even longer running?
----------------------------------------[Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Mar 22, 2012 9:21:02 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi Raul,
----------------------------------------Unfortunately BOINC sees all WCG sciences as 1 pot, meaning if any task [Beta inclusive] runs for instance twice as long from estimate, BOINC assumes all other tasks to also run twice longer than estimate [your SN2S jobs in this case]. It will normalize again... we all need to allow for BOINC to give it time. That said, the high variability of WCG tasks, single sciences and across the board, does force to keep the task buffer low as else panic will break out. A 5 days cache suddenly can become 10 days cache by the estimations and then there's deadline trouble. Keep it no higher than 2 days and the issue will rarely crop up. cheers. --//-- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Mar 22, 2012 9:17:32 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Thanks SekeRob - I'm running with a 1 day cache across all my systems, and will stay like that.
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
To add, the servers do know the per-science actual averages, so in principle each science does have it's own FPOPS estimate. Unfortinately the client only keeps 1 duration correction factor [DCF], which you can see in the BOINC Projects view by selecting the WCG line and hitting the properties button on left. That's the multiplicator used to compute the Time To Completion [TTC]
----------------------------------------One day, very high on many a wish list, will BOINC get an app-level DCF or something similar. The developer continues to avoid this for unknown reason whilst there has been a trac ticket for years, AND we know a private fork did implement this i.e. it's is doable. Maybe knreed can take some influence and maybe I'll start a discussion at the right time. It's one of the most depressing parts of BOINC... poor time estimates across sciences on the multi-project grid that WCG is. --//-- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Mar 22, 2012 9:25:58 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
One day, very high on many a wish list, will BOINC get an app-level DCF or something similar. Taking measurements at the app-level for a DCF is what gives meaning to why there is a need for a DCF; app-level DCF is the raison d'etre of DCF. The current grid-level DCF renders the value/reading of DCF meaningless. This has to be changed: app-level DCF is what DCF is needed for. Without the app-level DCF, the motivation to control WU sizes (with a view of controlling runtimes) will be deflated.-- snip from SekeRob [Mar 22, 2012 9:24:12 AM] post (as edited Mar 22, 2012 9:25:58 AM by SekeRob) ; |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
? Both are completely divorced issues, andzgrid. WCG knows the app-level down to platform actual run times very well and uses these to cut work to size [were it not that those following the discussions, know all to well that non-deterministic calculations are very difficult to package and cut to a size, so the run times remain within reason for almost everyone.] DCF uses the estimates as were it a 1 science project and even then sciences such as HCMD2 were very hard to size due the enormous variability in computational effort needed even from position to position. Contribution of any smart algorithms to mitigate that are very much welcomed at the developers... open-source, all can contribute that have the skill.
--//-- |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
DCF uses the estimates as were it a 1 science project. This has to change. My idea of a DCF is per-app and not global. I imagine that there are uses for global-DCF, but for crunchers, I'd say DCF per-app is more meaningful.Put another way: I'm not interested in the temperature-reading at "Germany" although my friend's house is located in "Germany". What I'm interested in instead is the temperature-reading in "Munich, Germany" for it is there where a friend's house is located and I'm planning on giving my friend a visit there. ; |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
"My Idea"?
What did I say 3 posts up: "One day, very high on many a wish list, will BOINC get an app-level DCF or something similar." It's years and years old the general consensus that it needs addressing, even the developers thinks it's ugly, and as noted, there is a private build that does this. What the mortal side does not know is what's on the roadmap. For one, there's something on the server 700 side that could be deployed to mitigate. --//-- |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
For one, there's something on the server 700 side that could be deployed to mitigate. Good enough for me. ![]() ; |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
And so after the client benchmark, the DCF of the client is also ignored when assigning work:
2967 - client/server: add optional <dont_use_dcf/> to schedule reply. 2968 If set, client won't use DCF for this project. 2969 Make this the default in server code; 2970 we now do runtime estimation entirely on the server side, 2971 and the client-side mechanism is counterproductive. Trust this does carry your approval, andzgrid --//-- |
||
|
|
|