Index  | Recent Threads  | Unanswered Threads  | Who's Active  | Guidelines  | Search
 

Quick Go »
No member browsing this thread
Thread Status: Active
Total posts in this thread: 16
Posts: 16   Pages: 2   [ Previous Page | 1 2 ]
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread
Author
Previous Thread This topic has been viewed 2121 times and has 15 replies Next Thread
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: OK, so now I'm in the dog house...

Could be a process that is not perpetually running, sort of in burst checks if conditions are met, where I've no doubt that the dog-house send-off process is always running. Certainly have seen a case where the switch was not flipped until 23-24 [documented and queried off-line also at the time when 5 was not 5 but effectively a higher number]. You're near I'm sure and have to simply accept... the kennel visits do end for most, all by themselves :D
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at May 26, 2013 1:02:41 PM]
[May 26, 2013 12:56:43 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Ingleside
Veteran Cruncher
Norway
Joined: Nov 19, 2005
Post Count: 974
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: OK, so now I'm in the dog house...

Could be a process that is not perpetually running, sort of in burst checks if conditions are met, where I've no doubt that the dog-house send-off process is always running.

Well, since the WCG-validators isn't running continuously, you're correct, it's not perpetually running... But, if it's not running you're not getting anything validated so...

The basic rules are fairly simple, where's a L = limit on how many validated you'll need to be eligible for zero-redundancy. A computer starting on N = 0 follow these rules for all app-version/plan-class-combinations:

1: If N < L, always needs wingman.
2: If a task validates with a wingman, N = N + 1
3: If a task validates but without a wingman, N is left unchanged.
4: If a task fails validation, N = 0
5: When asking for work, if N >= L, where's a 1 / N chance needs a wingman. If is choosen to need a wingman, all work for this app/plan-class in the same scheduler-request needs a wingman.
6: Tasks reported as errors can also influence N. Not sure if missing the deadline also can have an effect.
7: It's possible you're choosen as someone else's wingman even if not choosen in #5.

Since all work downloaded before enough validated needs a wingman, it's easy to overlook the exact point don't need a wingman any longer. Also, due to #5, even if don't normally need a wingman any longer, if you're unlucky it still looks like you do.

Since it's easy to get 10+ tasks in a single scheduler-request, if you "fails" #5 all 10+ needs a wingman if it's for the same app-version/plan-class.
----------------------------------------


"I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might."
[May 26, 2013 2:08:31 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: OK, so now I'm in the dog house...

So, when in the dog house and validators are off, don't fetch work, if you got enough buffered AND if you MM to minimize the wingman dependency.

Seriously, tracked it a few times and then stopped thinking about it. One warning: Do not abort tasks that have already started/are in waiting to run state or you will get that bone to chew on ;>)

On deadlines re #6, tasks either user or server aborted, not yet started, do not count against N. Tasks started and still aborted by server [bad batch]... pass, but how often does that happen ;D.
[May 26, 2013 2:26:47 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
cjslman
Master Cruncher
Mexico
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
Post Count: 2082
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: OK, so now I'm in the dog house...

Update: I guess I'm a little better... now the WUs I'm receiving are Minimum Quorum: 2, Replication: 2 (Pending Validation). So I seem to making points and being trusted a little more biggrin. From a crunching point of view, there is no difference (I crunch the same amount of WUs), it just takes a little longer to get the validation. No problem, I'm cool. I'm trying REALLY, REALLY hard to make it to emerald for GFAM (so far I have 309 days crunched). Gotta...keep...crunching...

CJSL

Crunching for a better future...
----------------------------------------
I follow the Gimli philosophy: "Keep breathing. That's the key. Breathe."
Join The Cahuamos Team


[May 26, 2013 10:12:35 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
asdavid
Veteran Cruncher
FRANCE
Joined: Nov 18, 2004
Post Count: 521
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: OK, so now I'm in the dog house...

Good luck, cjsl
I have this morning 317..
Not sure i will do it confused
----------------------------------------
Anne-Sophie

[May 27, 2013 10:53:58 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
cjslman
Master Cruncher
Mexico
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
Post Count: 2082
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: OK, so now I'm in the dog house...

Anne-Sophie, thank you very much... I wish you a lot of luck also. This morning I'm at 316 days... 365 is SO close, but also SO far biggrin. Gotta... keep... crunching...

CJSL

Crunching for a better world...
----------------------------------------
I follow the Gimli philosophy: "Keep breathing. That's the key. Breathe."
Join The Cahuamos Team


[May 27, 2013 2:12:20 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Posts: 16   Pages: 2   [ Previous Page | 1 2 ]
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread