| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Beta Testing
Forum: Beta Test Support Forum
Thread: New Beta Test for PC - September 18, 2015 [ Issues Thread ] |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 172
|
|
| Author |
|
|
nanoprobe
Master Cruncher Classified Joined: Aug 29, 2008 Post Count: 2998 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
What is not clear about 'suspending BOINC makes typing this message in Firefox and working in Office normal, no jittery mouse / cursor"? It was the reason to investigate with Process Explorer, that showing there are that many writes... 1,67 per second for 4 or 7.2 seconds interval for 1. BTW over the same period, there were 2500 reads, each Beta task. Swap file use is minimal, memory use just 1.6GB overall for the whole system of 8GB. Page faults is minimal, Delta zero. Oh yes, W7-64, but the Bedam apps are 32 bit, same as with previous test. I was just trying to help. Believe me that won't happen again. And just because you suspend BOINC and things work better doesn't mean something in the background, along with the extra load from BOINC isn't causing the problem. Have a nice day.
In 1969 I took an oath to defend and protect the U S Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and Domestic. There was no expiration date.
  |
||
|
|
keithhenry
Ace Cruncher Senile old farts of the world ....uh.....uh..... nevermind Joined: Nov 18, 2004 Post Count: 18665 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Just happened to catch a beta as it was finishing up and noticed a strange oddity watching it in BOINCMgr. It got to 99.999 percent but didn't go straight to 100 percent. It displayed sixty-something percent for no more than a second and then went to 100 percent. Not sure why it would do that or why that number? What would seem most likely is that was the previous checkpoint but I haven't seen the "usual" indications of rare checkpointing (ala CEP) so I'm guessing it could well be something else. FWIW, this was on a Vista Business box with BOINC 7.6.9.
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
SekeRob
Master Cruncher Joined: Jan 7, 2013 Post Count: 2741 Status: Offline |
What is not clear about 'suspending BOINC makes typing this message in Firefox and working in Office normal, no jittery mouse / cursor"? It was the reason to investigate with Process Explorer, that showing there are that many writes... 1,67 per second for 4 or 7.2 seconds interval for 1. BTW over the same period, there were 2500 reads, each Beta task. Swap file use is minimal, memory use just 1.6GB overall for the whole system of 8GB. Page faults is minimal, Delta zero. Oh yes, W7-64, but the Bedam apps are 32 bit, same as with previous test. I was just trying to help. Believe me that won't happen again. And just because you suspend BOINC and things work better doesn't mean something in the background, along with the extra load from BOINC isn't causing the problem. Have a nice day. How does Boinc getting 99 percnt of the cycles make something else running in the background be the true cause? AV has a permanent scan exclusion for anthing BOINC on top. Twice the same experience when 4 FAHB are running concurrent. |
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7545 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
What is not clear about 'suspending BOINC makes typing this message in Firefox and working in Office normal, no jittery mouse / cursor"? It was the reason to investigate with Process Explorer, that showing there are that many writes... 1,67 per second for 4 or 7.2 seconds interval for 1. BTW over the same period, there were 2500 reads, each Beta task. Swap file use is minimal, memory use just 1.6GB overall for the whole system of 8GB. Page faults is minimal, Delta zero. Oh yes, W7-64, but the Bedam apps are 32 bit, same as with previous test. I was just trying to help. Believe me that won't happen again. And just because you suspend BOINC and things work better doesn't mean something in the background, along with the extra load from BOINC isn't causing the problem. Have a nice day. How does Boinc getting 99 percnt of the cycles make something else running in the background be the true cause? AV has a permanent scan exclusion for anthing BOINC on top. Twice the same experience when 4 FAHB are running concurrent. I am going to take a stab at this. Excessive disk I/O could certainly be a contributing factor. Nailing down exactly what is contributing to disk I/O to push it over the edge may be difficult. Normally input from the keyboard and/or the mouse has the highest interrupt priority in the cpu, so if something is delaying that input either to or from the cpu, that could cause lag/jitteryiness. A possible solution, in addition to limiting the number of tasks, could be a faster hard drive (or solid state drive). Or using a second hard drive devoted strictly to BOINC. Another factor could be the difference in response time due to the way the mouse and keyboard are connected to your system. A PS2 connection (if available) is slightly faster than a USB connection. Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
SekeRob
Master Cruncher Joined: Jan 7, 2013 Post Count: 2741 Status: Offline |
It's a 8 core laptop normally running 1 CEP2, and whatever came it's way in MCM and OET and UGM. Mission complete on MCM, now OET and 1 CEP2. The FAHB were coincidental arrivals manually started. Private partition, there being an SSD type buffer device. Swap file contiguous and locked fix size. BOINC set to pause at 60 percent load, 'run based on prefs' in activity menu. No pausing is logged... no non-client loads to mention. Even unloaded FF but jitter/delay continued in Office. They should be finished now, so will see whats up when the standard mix run on all 8 threads.
----------------------------------------Edit: As before FAHB, after 'as if there is no BOINC running', the computer to myself again :O) [Edit 1 times, last edit by SekeRob* at Sep 29, 2015 7:31:23 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Is this a bug - an Invalid after both original and repair jobs received a message from server to exit after next major checkpoint?
Workunit Status Project Name: Beta Test Created: 09/25/2015 02:36:39 Name: BETA_FAHB_avx38783_000088_0005_003 Minimum Quorum: 1 Replication: 1 BETA_ FAHB_ avx38783_ 000088_ 0005_ 003_ 2-- 714 Invalid 28/09/15 04:11:20 28/09/15 14:05:18 9.48 313.6 / 313.6 BETA_ FAHB_ avx38783_ 000088_ 0005_ 003_ 1-- 714 Error 28/09/15 04:09:09 28/09/15 04:11:19 0.00 405.2 / 0.0 BETA_ FAHB_ avx38783_ 000088_ 0005_ 003_ 0-- 714 Valid 25/09/15 02:40:49 28/09/15 04:09:04 20.08 453.4 / 453.4 The Valid result log ended with [22:42:54] INFO: Checkpointed. Progress 97000 of 100000 steps complete CPU time 70218.452515 [23:11:35] INFO: received message from server to exit after next major checkpoint. [23:11:35] INFO: Checkpointed. Progress 98000 of 100000 steps complete CPU time 70910.207750 [23:40:23] INFO: Checkpointed. Progress 99000 of 100000 steps complete CPU time 71605.161004 [00:08:36] INFO: Exit:<current_step>100000</current_step> <total_steps>100000</total_steps> 00:08:36 (4912): called boinc_finish(0) </stderr_txt> The Invalid result log (mine) ended with: [14:58:27] INFO: Checkpointed. Progress 79000 of 100000 steps complete CPU time 33741.893093 [15:05:00] INFO: received message from server to exit after next major checkpoint. [15:05:00] INFO: Exit:<current_step>80000</current_step> <total_steps>100000</total_steps> 15:05:00 (9016): called boinc_finish(0) </stderr_txt> Otherwise, both result logs looked normal. The reason for the errored version was very different: app_version download error: couldn't get input files: <file_xfer_error> <file_name>wcgrid_beta21_bedam_7.14_windows_intelx86</file_name> <error_code>-108 (fopen() failed)</error_code> </file_xfer_error> |
||
|
|
KerSamson
Master Cruncher Switzerland Joined: Jan 29, 2007 Post Count: 1670 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Again an additional bundle of computed Beta WUs.
----------------------------------------So far, everything is going well without significant decreasing of "user experience" (no performance impact for the user). On Linux hosts, the WUs take each between 25 and 30 hours. On Win 7 x64, about 15 hours. On my side, the only observation for Linux hosts concerns the count of granted credits which was anyway low since the beginning of this beta, and it is now decreasing significantly (about 400 points for 30 hours, last week it was 600 points for 27 hours, for the specific hosts, based on OET1, it should be between 800 and 900 points for 30 hours computation). I don't have any idea about the way how the credits are calculated. I don't know if this poor credit efficiency does reflect a poor host efficiency or only a poor calculation of granted credits. However without any improvement, the new project will probably demotivate the major contributors. Cheers, Yves |
||
|
|
KLiK
Master Cruncher Croatia Joined: Nov 13, 2006 Post Count: 3108 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
some invalids:
----------------------------------------BETA_ FAHB_ avx38783_ 000071_ 0012_ 006_ 0-- MD1DF7CC Invalid 9/28/15 15:20:06 9/29/15 08:23:27 8.86 / 9.36 274.4 / 0.0 BETA_ FAHB_ avx17556_ 000094_ 0011_ 005_ 0-- MD1DF7CC Invalid 9/28/15 15:11:35 9/29/15 08:23:27 8.80 / 9.16 268.7 / 0.0 |
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7545 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I don't have any idea about the way how the credits are calculated. I don't know if this poor credit efficiency does reflect a poor host efficiency or only a poor calculation of granted credits. However without any improvement, the new project will probably demotivate the major contributors. Cheers, I don't recall exactly where I saw it, but I believe there was a discussion of this issue a long time ago concerning a cap on credit for long running WU's. After some indeterminate point the granting of credit was no longer linear, but became marginally less for each additional unit of time run, eventually reaching zero beyond a certain point. I have no idea if this process is in effect here or if there is some other factor involved. Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
rbotterb
Senior Cruncher United States Joined: Jul 21, 2005 Post Count: 401 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Got one beta complete on my dv7-3085dx laptop running win 7:
BETA_FAHB_avx38783_000073_0016_005 This WU ran to complete Ok - took 31.52 hrs to complete. I now have another beta WU running since yesterday. We'll see how it goes, but it looks like it will be running about as long..... |
||
|
|
|