| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Beta Testing
Forum: Beta Test Support Forum
Thread: FightAIDS@Home Beta Test Feb 13, 2013 (Issues Thread) |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 90
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
P.S. Apis, the initial TTC estimates are either hand-set by the techs for a new app or inherited from a previous test.
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi Rob,
Thanks for taking the trouble to respond.  Well, I think it's odd. I'm terrible at remembering the details, but from the behaviour that I've seen I understood that it normally takes the average of the first two to arrive, and then gives everyone that. Or if one of the two is way out, it takes the lower. Or if all three arrive close together it averages all three (again, ignoring any outlier(s)). But hey ho, no doubt I'm wrong!  It's getting less than the other two (and for more work) that bugs me (only a little, of course, since points aren't why I crunch).And yes, I am on 6.10.58. I saw no need to move up as my GPUs are too puny and I understood that that was still the WCG preferred level. Or have I got that wrong too?  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
The 2 new WUs I got seem to be running just as slow as the previous two. I can only think that there must be something about my machine that doesn't like the new code. Here is (I hope enough of) the startup log:
----------------------------------------13/02/2013 01:40:20 Processor: 2 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9500 @ 2.60GHz [Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] 13/02/2013 01:40:20 Processor: 6.00 MB cache 13/02/2013 01:40:20 Processor features: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss htt tm pni ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 nx lm vmx tm2 pbe 13/02/2013 01:40:20 OS: Microsoft Windows XP: Professional x86 Edition, Service Pack 3, (05.01.2600.00) 13/02/2013 01:40:20 Memory: 2.98 GB physical, 2.83 GB virtual Update: False alarm caused by over-temperature. See below. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Feb 15, 2013 1:15:06 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Way off the testing topic mark: The credit system science level rules of v600 and earlier were never adapted [that I can see] to how v700 credit system works [which is thoroughly ignoring the actual client claims in addition]. That's the last bit I'm going to say about the matter.[/WOT]
|
||
|
|
Dataman
Ace Cruncher Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 4865 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I am getting some new ones (_0, _1) as well as some retreads (_3) and one _4 that has been beat up.
---------------------------------------- About 25 in all.  |
||
|
|
Falconet
Master Cruncher Portugal Joined: Mar 9, 2009 Post Count: 3294 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
My BETA WU validated just fine. Uplinger did say that if the test went well more WU's would be released.
----------------------------------------AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF 6C/12T 3.2 GHz - 85W AMD Ryzen 5 2500U 4C/8T 2.0 GHz - 28W AMD Ryzen 7 7730U 8C/16T 3.0 GHz [Edit 1 times, last edit by Falconet at Feb 14, 2013 10:00:01 PM] |
||
|
|
rilian
Veteran Cruncher Ukraine - we rule! Joined: Jun 17, 2007 Post Count: 1452 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I have WU run times from 2.96h on very fast computer up to 17h on slow 2ghz HT xeon
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I knew something bunny was going on...
Last night I suspended my laptop to take it 60 miles nearer my weekend destination and plugged it in again on arrival. This morning those slow running beta WUs had sped up and finished. But other WUs seemed to be running slow. I checked my power settings and everything was normal -- turned up as high as it would go. But then I thought to check temperatures with speedfan and saw how high everything was. A few judicious blows into the correct orifices and the temperatures dropped by around 15 degrees. Now everything is flying again. So it was a false alarm caused by a few dust bunnies. *sigh* Why were there no alarms from the system software to warn a poor user that the CPU was being throttled down (assuming that that was what was happening)? (No need to answer: that was a rhetorical question.) Crunching on. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
[ot]You can run CoreTemp or TThrottle purely as a temp monitor to give alerts when it's too hot. CoreTemp is good enough for me, set to display the actual highest core temp, the CPU load and the Speed. Things are cool in the room so my lappy is now 100% load with 2.6Hz indicated. Since it's always in systray and an area I view frequently [because some app activation icons are there, it's always getting the subconscious eyeball check.[/ot]
This morning's average run time for 7,442 Beta results indicates 6.5 hours mean. Yesterday had 13,210 validated for 5.92 hours mean/task. By comparison, production showed 4.96 hours/task for 42,401 results, but as before, do not know how many dockings are packed in these 38221-38223 jobs compared to the 38150 and up batches running in production. See post by knreed in the FAAH forum experiment 41 thread, explaining the cut-over and the different parametrization that batches are being build with for the new version app. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
[some french inserted ;-], the second time a FAAH beta task escaped because it was not started soon enough. Distribution 3, quorum 2, the 3rd gets word to not bother. BOINCTasks history [pink background]
7.14 beta BETA_faah38223_ZINC04919667_xPR_wC6_11_1ref9_00_1 00:00:00 (00:00:00) 2/15/2013 7:16:54 AM 2/15/2013 7:18:59 AM 0,00 Aborted (202) (that's another 7 hours missed on the way to Emerald, ETA ca. 2033] |
||
|
|
|