| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: GO Fight Against Malaria
Thread: Runtime increase for GO Fight Against Malaria by 90% |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 26
|
|
| Author |
|
|
grumpydaddy
Cruncher Joined: Aug 6, 2012 Post Count: 5 Status: Offline |
A quick question for any who would care to try to educate me because I have never really understood the system of points claimed that is in operation.
Where we now have run times extended "by 90%" why is it that the points claimed have not increased by a proportional amount? |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Your observation is *strongly* contradicted by what I know of the systems behavior and what the performance chart tells everyone what is happening in general on all work unit run time extended tasks: http://bit.ly/WCGHFC
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
To add, just updated the all projects credut per hour chart, which indicates that GFAM is the credit king presently, which by it's function of greatest extension is Spock logical: http://bit.ly/WCGCPH
|
||
|
|
grumpydaddy
Cruncher Joined: Aug 6, 2012 Post Count: 5 Status: Offline |
You are right of course.... Sorry I was comparing apples with oranges
The earlier shorter results were me not noticing that I had a wingman which generally pushes the numbers higher for me. Close attention to the claimed figure shows within a few points per hour of before |
||
|
|
Rickjb
Veteran Cruncher Australia Joined: Sep 17, 2006 Post Count: 666 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Thanks for your reply to my question about GFAM resuming normal feed priority, Dr P.
----------------------------------------[Edit]: Resolved? [/Edit] However, no-one seems to have picked up my observation that the built-in estimated CPU time for the new 90% longer GFAM WUs needs to be increased by a similar factor. With GFAM WUs exceeding their estimated run-times, my BOINC clients are "thinking" that my machines are slower than they actually are, ie the Duration Correction Factors (DCFs) have been adjusted wrongly. This corrects for the GFAM WUs OK, but it inflates the runtime estimates for the non-GFAM WUs so that my work queues contain much less work than their "additional work buffer" settings. Now with the current WCG server outage I will start to run out of work soon, unless ... [Edit]: GFAM WUs issued since the Great Server Outage of Aug12 seem to be about 15% shorter than the earlier "90% longer" ones, and the built-in runtime estimates have been bumped up relative to WUs for other projects. BOINC work cache behaviour is much improved. Issue seems fixed. Thanks. PS: The Server Outage ended about 1hr before my first CPU core would have run out of work - cache setting 1.5d. [/Edit] [Edit 1 times, last edit by Rickjb at Sep 3, 2012 3:42:31 AM] |
||
|
|
raybon
Cruncher Joined: Dec 2, 2005 Post Count: 29 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I'm having a hard time understanding why this is a good thing. If the work units were smaller, it is more likely the work unit will complete before it expires. I have a quad core that I run only a few hours a week that will never complete one of these work units.
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
Zigfried
Senior Cruncher Brazil Joined: Dec 12, 2005 Post Count: 368 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I agree with you Raybon.
----------------------------------------I used to crunch a CFSW WU in 55 mins and now i need 28h in a single GFAM WU. Dont you think that it is to much? See ya  |
||
|
|
rbotterb
Senior Cruncher United States Joined: Jul 21, 2005 Post Count: 401 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Zigfried, I'm in agreement too. Just finishing up my CFSW WUs today to close out my Gold Badge there, and now moving get my GFAM Glod Badge and all the GFAM WUs look like they will be running about 16 hrs each (actually more like 20 Hrs+ in true clock time). But with GFAM WUs this big, I'll only need about 10 of them finished over the next week to get the extra 6+ days of crunching done for my Gold Badge. Such is life as a cruncher.....
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I agree with you Raybon. I used to crunch a CFSW WU in 55 mins and now i need 28h in a single GFAM WU. Dont you think that it is to much? See ya Here's for you to consider if your machine is good at VINA jobs: Daily average hours per task first 12 hours of September 6. CFSW - 0.77 hours GFAM - 8.59 hours Processing Ratio: 11.15 times longer for GFAM Zigfrieds machines: 28 : 0.55 = 30.5 times longer for GFAM. In Italian: Non Ho Capiscono |
||
|
|
l_mckeon
Senior Cruncher Joined: Oct 20, 2007 Post Count: 439 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I can put up with long tasks, what interests me is do the damn things checkpoint?
During the recent WCG server screw up I went back to Rosetta and caught two 10+ hour tasks which didn't checkpoint at all, meaning I couldn't turn my machine off until they finished. Grr. |
||
|
|
|