Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research Forum: Computing for Sustainable Water Forum Thread: Computing for Sustainable Water Problems Thread |
No member browsing this thread |
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 254
|
Author |
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I'm not sure knreed was talking about credits-claimed:crunch-time equity, so I'll post this anyway.
cfsw_ 3687_ 03687440_ 1-- 611 Valid 6/12/12 22:59:24 6/13/12 05:58:13 0.93 (3335 secs) 21.8 / 39.0 I recall seeing discussions on how the 'granted' split is done, before... I'm not questioning that; what I'm not getting is how/why the slower machine's claimed credit of 56.2 is 258% higher than the faster machine's 21.8 when their crunching times differ by only ~15%. How's that work, exactly? Thanks. :-) |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
On judgement call I've lowered the Dashboard indicator to Medium priority [if 250,000 results per day can be called medium]. In Runtime share that's what it's been doing over multiple days (could all be depending on a feeder share reshuffle, or to let the scientist get adjusted to the thought that things are running 4x faster and better pull out their experiment design stops to maintain the flow).
Making it up (from what we know) as I go --//-- |
||
|
alver
Senior Cruncher Joined: Nov 30, 2007 Post Count: 245 Status: Offline Project Badges: |
I'm having a problem understanding whether the points allocated for this project are now (roughly) in line with the other projects, per CPU hour, now. Can anyone shed any light on that?
----------------------------------------Thanks. (previously known as 'proxima' on SETI, UD, distributed folding, FaD, and Rosetta) |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Not even going to try to explain... knreed is too "looking at the dynamics" [Wont share the secrets... like how to play the stock market, but bears and bulls would be an excellent analogy ;>) ]
--//-- |
||
|
alver
Senior Cruncher Joined: Nov 30, 2007 Post Count: 245 Status: Offline Project Badges: |
Grin - OK, thanks! When I was running this project exclusively, my 'points' recent averages fell away a fair bit, so I'll keep this project active, but with a mix of others, for a while.
----------------------------------------(previously known as 'proxima' on SETI, UD, distributed folding, FaD, and Rosetta) |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Here's what I'm showing for points per day average on the last few tasks... (at least 2 years on each except for C4SW)
3769/day C4SW 3655/day GFAM 2708/day C4CW 2546/day DSfL Results per day is 3 to 5 times higher on C4SW than any other WCG tasks I've run. Probably due to the 0.5 to 2 hour work unit run times. |
||
|
EZ123
Cruncher USA Joined: Nov 23, 2007 Post Count: 10 Status: Offline Project Badges: |
New Problem: Stalled work units
Over the last week, among the thousand-plus work units that were successfully crunched, there were a few which seemed to stall out. The elapsed time kept increasing, but the % progress did not. I was able to restart these work units by first suspending, then resuming calculation [if I hadn't done this, I suspect that they would have remained stalled indefinitely]. The result log of one of these work units is shown below. It started at 08:20:01 and stalled at 09:18:18. After I suspended and resumed calculations at 18:17:55, it restarted from the last checkpoint and completed at 18:23:39. Overall, I was granted 0.93 hours of CPU time credit. This particular computer is an Intel i7 950 running @ 3.07 GHz under Windows 7 Service Pack 1. The CFSW application version number was 612. Has anyone else encountered this problem? Result Name: cfsw_ 5511_ 05511110_ 1-- <core_client_version>6.10.58</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <stderr_txt> [08:20:01] INFO:Beginning simulation: 1990:240:1181469433 [08:22:49] INFO: Finished tick number 4 [08:24:08] INFO: Finished tick number 9 [08:25:23] INFO: Finished tick number 14 [08:26:46] INFO: Finished tick number 19 [08:27:57] INFO: Finished tick number 24 [08:29:18] INFO: Finished tick number 29 [08:30:35] INFO: Finished tick number 34 [08:31:49] INFO: Finished tick number 39 [08:33:09] INFO: Finished tick number 44 [08:34:18] INFO: Finished tick number 49 [08:35:40] INFO: Finished tick number 54 [08:36:54] INFO: Finished tick number 59 [08:38:15] INFO: Finished tick number 64 [08:39:35] INFO: Finished tick number 69 [08:40:47] INFO: Finished tick number 74 [08:42:07] INFO: Finished tick number 79 [08:43:21] INFO: Finished tick number 84 [08:44:48] INFO: Finished tick number 89 [08:46:04] INFO: Finished tick number 94 [08:47:19] INFO: Finished tick number 99 [08:48:38] INFO: Finished tick number 104 [08:49:48] INFO: Finished tick number 109 [08:51:10] INFO: Finished tick number 114 [08:52:25] INFO: Finished tick number 119 [08:53:44] INFO: Finished tick number 124 [08:55:05] INFO: Finished tick number 129 [08:56:18] INFO: Finished tick number 134 [08:57:37] INFO: Finished tick number 139 [08:58:52] INFO: Finished tick number 144 [09:00:15] INFO: Finished tick number 149 [09:01:30] INFO: Finished tick number 154 [09:02:47] INFO: Finished tick number 159 [09:04:07] INFO: Finished tick number 164 [09:05:17] INFO: Finished tick number 169 [09:06:41] INFO: Finished tick number 174 [09:07:57] INFO: Finished tick number 179 [09:09:15] INFO: Finished tick number 184 [09:10:34] INFO: Finished tick number 189 [09:11:48] INFO: Finished tick number 194 [09:13:09] INFO: Finished tick number 199 [09:14:21] INFO: Finished tick number 204 [09:15:41] INFO: Finished tick number 209 [09:16:59] INFO: Finished tick number 214 [09:18:18] INFO: Finished tick number 219 [18:17:55] DEBUG: Restarting from checkpoint. [18:17:55]PctComplete = 0.929167 [18:17:55]ticks:currentTick:modules:currentModule:restart:seed240:223:6:0:0:19010 [18:19:54] INFO: Finished tick number 224 [18:21:04] INFO: Finished tick number 229 [18:22:23] INFO: Finished tick number 234 [18:23:39] INFO: Finished tick number 239 CPU TIME = 3343.756308 18:23:39 (2976): called boinc_finish </stderr_txt> ]]> |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Has anyone else encountered this problem? I had one such WU about five days ago. Had to exit and restart boinc to get it running again. It restarted from the last checkpoint and then completed successfully. |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Has anyone else encountered this problem? If you run BOINCTasks and check it once a day or so, the stalled work units are pretty-apparent. e.g. It seems to happen more often on Intel processors than AMD for me... on the linux machines I just run # /sbin/service boinc-client restart On windows machines I use File->Exit in the manager with the 'stop running' box checked in the confirmation dialog, then restart it (which restarts the service/client, too, in windows)... suspend doesn't fix it for me, usually. Maybe because I have 'suspend to memory' selected in Preferences? edit1: undocumented edit2: changed hosting location edit3: corrected edit count [Edit 3 times, last edit by Former Member at Aug 11, 2012 1:54:09 PM] |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
knock on wood. i have not had this happen yet...
|
||
|
|