| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
| World Community Grid Forums
|
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 957
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7844 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Do you know when the ovarian work units end and the next type of cancer begins? May / June 2022 is when the ovarian work units end? Sorry, I do not know that specific information. The May-June potential end date is my estimate for the entire project with the current number of estimated work units. Perhaps one of the techs or one of the scientists would chime in. Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
highwind
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Aug 22, 2009 Post Count: 56 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Joe, any new updates?
|
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7844 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I have recently learned the following information from WCG and still believe there is no calculable end date. However I will still attempt to track the progress as it occurs. A big thanks to Erika T. for making a new quote available.
----------------------------------------There is no projected end date for this project at this time. The progress bar on the Research Page is an estimate given the current number of work units available. More work units will be added over time, which will change the date and percentage shown on the progress bar.As has been discussed in various forum threads, we are looking to change these progress bars in the near future. Last 30 day average results:443,955Thank you for your support, ErikaT Percentage Complete:Currently listed on the Research page:58%. I have re-adjusted my figures to an estimated total of 72,500 batches currently.(Little tweak, down 2000 from the last update.) The average length of a WU is currently running about 4.24 hours, slightly shorter than the last time I posted, but continuing to trend steady at around the 4 to 4.3 hour mark consistently. The average length of a work unit this past week varied between 4.02 and 4.25 hours. This continues to be remarkably steady. Still have not seen any of the batches from 122278 to 122402. The ovarian units started with 122403 as the lowest number.My latest batch numbers have been all over the place, nowhere near as steady a progression as in the past, so I do not have a good figure for the number of batches done. Production decreased this past week going from about 3.05 million WU's to 3.04 million WU's completed. During this past week the time devoted to MCM1 was just slightly over an average of 204 years per day, up slightly from the past week's 201. Originally we had 17,500 batches. My current estimate for the number of batches is 72,000. I have virtually given up trying to track the changes as to when the researchers are adding them. As of today(May 13) we have done 842,479,591 units. This would be about 58% of the known work units. The percentage on the Research page (59%)has been fluctuating up and down, which probably reflects the injection of new batches by the scientists, or the slowdown in the amount done by the project. If I get too far out of whack I will re-assess my numbers, which I did this week. Based on the 30 day running average the current work units should last to about April-June of 2022. When looking this far into the future the crystal ball gets very hazy. This not an end of project projection, just a projection of a probable end of the current (maybe) known work units. I am trying to calculate a couple of different ways to try to get some figures which converge to about the same. At any rate, there should be about 4 years left to crunch on this project at the present rate. I have revised the second graph to reflect the change in total work units as of April 22, 2017. (I am leaving this until I can be more sure to make a revision.)This should be a better representation of the potential end of the project, given the present parameters. I took a couple of weeks off of updating the project, but I will try to keep it to a weekly update if I can. Thanks for your patience. Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
highwind
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Aug 22, 2009 Post Count: 56 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Seems like we are stuck at 60% for the last few months and can't crack above it
|
||
|
|
James Lee72
Cruncher Joined: Jan 26, 2015 Post Count: 8 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
We would be stuck less if there was GPU WU. I'm sick and tired of "owners" of this project saying that a "CUDA" WU would not help. THAT is because IBM (The major contributor - thank you, btw) only codes for CPUs, and so THAT makes NO sense. I have talked to others that are more familiar with CUDA, and the consensus is that this project could run 40 times faster on an average GPU. But what do I and my contacts know.. we only started in 1973. Yes, the old guys that listen to some of the new kids on the block. But, it has to be done properly - not implemented like Asteroids where a CPU is equal to a GPU. Get PrimeGrid or Collatz programmers. I would love to turn my coin mining GPUs to do this project. Instead of doing 60 days of WUs in one day, I could do "years" in one day. Stay on the "powers that be" - it would be worth their time.
|
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7844 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
We would be stuck less if there was GPU WU. I'm sick and tired of "owners" of this project saying that a "CUDA" WU would not help. THAT is because IBM (The major contributor - thank you, btw) only codes for CPUs, and so THAT makes NO sense. I have talked to others that are more familiar with CUDA, and the consensus is that this project could run 40 times faster on an average GPU. But what do I and my contacts know.. we only started in 1973. Yes, the old guys that listen to some of the new kids on the block. But, it has to be done properly - not implemented like Asteroids where a CPU is equal to a GPU. Get PrimeGrid or Collatz programmers. I would love to turn my coin mining GPUs to do this project. Instead of doing 60 days of WUs in one day, I could do "years" in one day. Stay on the "powers that be" - it would be worth their time. IBM does not code the application. The scientists of the project are the ones who decide how their project is coded. Not all projects can be coded to take advantage of the parallel processing provided by GPU's. If you have the knowledge to port MCM to to a GPU environment please contact the scientists of the project. I am pretty sure they will be more than happy to take advantage of your or your contacts knowledge and speed up their project. Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
Jim1348
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 13, 2009 Post Count: 1066 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
The predecessor project (Help Conquer Cancer) did have a GPU version, which was quite nice. And there was talk of possibly implementing one for MCM. But the fact that it hasn't been done probably indicates that it can't be, or it would have been by now.
|
||
|
|
highwind
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Aug 22, 2009 Post Count: 56 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I am actually a little surprised that given how we have 6 and 8 cores CPU are the standard these days, MCM should be have progress a bit fast. I am having i7-8086K, AMD 2700X, i7-8750H and i7-4710HQ CPU.
----------------------------------------Oh.. looks like we are now 61%... finally cracking that 60 mark. This MCM project is huge and there are still so many type of cancers that needs to be cured. I can just see this project will last a very long time. Serg Joe, you have any updates of MCM progress? [Edit 1 times, last edit by highwind at Jul 20, 2018 1:50:32 AM] |
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7844 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Serg Joe, you have any updates of MCM progress? I'll see if I can post in the near future. Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
KLiK
Master Cruncher Croatia Joined: Nov 13, 2006 Post Count: 3108 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
The predecessor project (Help Conquer Cancer) did have a GPU version, which was quite nice. And there was talk of possibly implementing one for MCM. But the fact that it hasn't been done probably indicates that it can't be, or it would have been by now. HCC1 was a picture comparison for finding cancers, while MCM1 is a gene coding research. Can you understand the difference in science approach from there or do we have to go to more details? Can we please stop comparing projects on their names here? Apple & pear are the same tribe of fruit, though they are completely different & taste different. ![]() |
||
|
|
|