| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Beta Testing
Forum: Beta Test Support Forum
Thread: Beta test for Computing for Sustainable Water (June 5, 2012) Issues Thread |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 48
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Got only a look at the very last seconds running: 275 k memory. Got some regular cfsw jobs running, they use the very same amount of memory.
CPU times (same machine, 8 each) 2.44 h - 2.46 h on Windows 7, 2.27 h - 2.28 h on Linux Mint. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Funny, but if you have set the "write to disk at most" at e.g. 600 seconds, then 17% of .66 hours would not have saved a checkpoint. They really do happen [see my post up in this thread] You're right. Sek. I forgot I had "write to disk at most" set to 10 minutes. 17% of 0.66 hours is only 6+ minutes. Oops.... |
||
|
|
uplinger
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: May 23, 2005 Post Count: 3952 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Sek,
Memory usage has not changed. Thanks, -Uplinger |
||
|
|
genes
Advanced Cruncher USA Joined: Jan 28, 2006 Post Count: 132 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I got 8 of these, 2 on an Atom 270 netbook, normally a slow machine taking 30 or so hours to finish a typical WU, did these in about 4-1/2 hours. Other machines took about an hour. I didn't even notice these running, since I was at work.
3 still in PV, all others validated. WinXP x86 (Atom 270): BETA_cfsw_0103_00103535_1 - valid BETA_cfsw_0103_00103859_1 - PV Win7 x86: BETA_cfsw_0103_00103127_1 - valid BETA_cfsw_0102_00102410_1 - valid BETA_cfsw_0101_00101039_1 - PV Win7 x64: BETA_cfsw_0101_00101013_0 - valid BETA_cfsw_0102_00102764_1 - valid BETA_cfsw_0102_00102368_1 - PV |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Sek, Memory usage has not changed. Thanks, -Uplinger Then the device profile for my old 512MB-RAM-only machines will have that box remains unchecked then  Will there be any optimization on memory usage too in the future? |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Well, I got one beta on a very old P4-1.5GHz (first generation) with Win2K and 512MB of RAM. It ran OK in just 3.35 hours! As a comparison, that machine crunches HCC WUs in 4.8+ hrs.
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
A repair job I received overnight was caused by this Invalid:
------------------------ Result Name: BETA_ cfsw_ 0100_ 00100956_ 0-- <core_client_version>6.10.58</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <stderr_txt> [01:00:40] INFO:Beginning simulation: 1990:240:55074467 [02:47:39] INFO: Finished tick number 4 [02:48:58] INFO: Finished tick number 9 [02:50:08] INFO: Finished tick number 14 [02:51:27] INFO: Finished tick number 19 [02:52:36] INFO: Finished tick number 24 [02:53:51] INFO: Finished tick number 29 [02:55:07] INFO: Finished tick number 34 [02:56:21] INFO: Finished tick number 39 [02:57:40] INFO: Finished tick number 44 [02:58:46] INFO: Finished tick number 49 [03:00:06] INFO: Finished tick number 54 [03:01:17] INFO: Finished tick number 59 [03:02:30] INFO: Finished tick number 64 </stderr_txt> ]]> ------------------------ The _1 and my _2 versions of it ran to the full 240 ticks and turned Valid. It's as if _0 gave up without an abort or error but still reported. |
||
|
|
Crystal Pellet
Veteran Cruncher Joined: May 21, 2008 Post Count: 1313 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
On an older laptop with Intel Celeron M processor 1500MHz and Microsoft Windows XP Home x86 Edition, Service Pack 3:
----------------------------------------Used cpu time: 1 hour 55 minutes. The 'old' cfsw tasks needed 16 hours and 22 minutes  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
That's packing the punch [with a horseshoe in the glove] :D
--//-- |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Interesting little quirk:
My primary cruncher got two sets of 12. All 24 units ran for almost exactly the same time, but for the first set, the claimed credit tightly averaged around 28.4. For the second set, the claimed credit tightly averaged around 20.9. I guess it was just learning a bit about their crunching difficulty. |
||
|
|
|