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: 3
|
![]() |
Author |
|
NightBlade
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Jun 10, 2008 Post Count: 89 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I've opted in to all WCG projects, and automatically into new projects as they become available. On my two main rigs (I haven't checked the other PCs), I get mostly Mapping Cancer Marker WUs; in fact, the distribution is usually like this:
----------------------------------------- FAH2: 8 (11%) - MCM: 52 (70%) - OE: 5 (7%) - CE2: 1 (1%) - UGM: 8 (11%) This is so typical that I my user aggregation reports 12 CPU years for MCM, 12 CPU years for FAH1, and the next nearest project is about 3 CPU years. Is this normal/expected? Or, does it have something to do with my PCs? ![]() |
||
|
SekeRob
Master Cruncher Joined: Jan 7, 2013 Post Count: 2741 Status: Offline |
There's many technical, research pressures, and maybe political reasons, why the feeder weights are not balanced in such a way that at the end of the week, month or year, you'll be computing an uneven amount of time for each of the projects you've opted to participate in. One of several charts where you can see the overall present distribution is at https://bit.ly/WCGQLK1. Varying sub-project selections give substantially different distributions... for instance I've got FAHB+UGM on one machine, 8 cores, 1 day buffer. Not a single UGM is on there at this time [lower feeder weight due technical issues such as bandwidth limitations to the scientists in Brazil].
|
||
|
NightBlade
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Jun 10, 2008 Post Count: 89 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I took another look at your photobucket image posted. That's very, very interesting. What I'm seeing is almost a microcosm of the larger WCG-wide distribution, due to various causes you mentioned.
----------------------------------------Thanks for clarifying. ![]() |
||
|
|
![]() |