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: 3
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread
Author
Previous Thread This topic has been viewed 1063 times and has 2 replies Next Thread
cowtipperbs
Advanced Cruncher
Joined: Aug 24, 2009
Post Count: 78
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Different in project time

Hello all,

I just built out two new boxes tonight and saw something kinda strange.

Server configuration:
OS: Microsoft Windows Server 2012: Datacenter x64 Edition, (06.02.9200.00)

Processor: 8 AuthenticAMD AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 4171 HE [Family 16 Model 8 Stepping 1]

Memory: 14.00 GB physical, 19.25 GB virtual

BOINC client version 7.0.64 for windows_x86_64

Max additionl work buffer -- 4 days

When box 1 download its work load the estimated work loads was close to the project estimated work load. Box 2 was twice as much. For example FAAH on box 1 is ~7 hours , box 2 ~14 hours. So as test I deleted the FAAH tasks and reloaded, now both boxes are in the same ball park; the ~7 hours.

Both boxes were built the saw way, only about 30 min difference in down load of tasks.

What gives?
----------------------------------------

[Jun 14, 2013 5:21:53 AM]   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: Different in project time

"What Gives"... is that it's completely unimportant. Your 2nd device may have hit on a result that came from a different batch. Either way, the first time the device runs with defaults, and the benchmark at that could have been one on power-save and the other on full throttle, few possibles of many. After 10-20 completions, the averages will settle. Major -but-, there've been reports at Berkeley that the Time to Completions adjusts with huge lag in... 7.0.64 and same continuing into the 7.1 development versions so they are aware it could be wrong. [Seeing same here, for example a task after 5 hours at 90% and projecting still 2 hours for the remaining 10%].

Separate "Max additional work buffer" (MaxAB) at 4 days is rather useless if crunching only at WCG. Here you only get a limited number of units per work fetch [don't remember what the current standing CPU WU number is]. As soon as the cache is over the MinB level (Minimum work buffer), fetching stops, never topping the buffer out by itself. Don't like it... put the "What Gives" question over at Berkeley ;>)
[Jun 14, 2013 7:14:55 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher
USA
Joined: Jul 4, 2006
Post Count: 7844
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Different in project time

For example FAAH on box 1 is ~7 hours , box 2 ~14 hours. So as test I deleted the FAAH tasks and reloaded, now both boxes are in the same ball park; the ~7 hours.

I would be interested to see what the average time to completion is after the boxes have been running for a while. If they are identical boxes, the times should approximately converge.
Cheers
----------------------------------------
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers*
[Jun 14, 2013 12:11:35 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread