| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: Help Stop TB
Thread: Ridiculous low credit claim for longer running tasks |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 99
|
|
| Author |
|
|
vjahn1
Cruncher Joined: Apr 29, 2006 Post Count: 8 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Agreed,
However we need to get project management in on this.... Where are they? We just completed a number of tasks and the credit was 1/4 of what other projects earn and considerably off base from established norms. Moreover, management has known about this issue for many days now and has yet offered an explanation or prognosis. Thousands of crunchers that devote both their time and machines are waiting for an answer.  |
||
|
|
Eric_Kaiser
Veteran Cruncher Germany (Hessen) Joined: May 7, 2013 Post Count: 1047 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I'm getting more credit with hst than with ugm.
----------------------------------------Edit: I have to revise. Until now the wu were credited with ~500 points for ~17 hrs runtime. Now credit dropped to ~300 for the same.  [Edit 1 times, last edit by Eric_Kaiser at Mar 31, 2016 11:54:19 AM] |
||
|
|
SekeRob
Master Cruncher Joined: Jan 7, 2013 Post Count: 2741 Status: Offline |
Unfortunately the quorum distribution does not show the wingman Elapsed, only the CPU, but just got a #4 (_ 3) and 2 that errored out issue a 'claim' of 428 at zero CPU time (Probably the clock time could be made out from the result logs)
----------------------------------------HST1_ 000400_ 000032_ AC0018_ T325_ F00056_ S00001_ 3-- Microsoft Windows 8.1 Core x64 Edition, (06.03.9600.00) - In Progress 4/1/16 11:25:47 4/4/16 23:25:47 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 HST1_ 000400_ 000032_ AC0018_ T325_ F00056_ S00001_ 2-- Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Datacenter x64 Edition, Service Pack 1, (06.00.6001.00) 714 Error 4/1/16 06:13:34 4/1/16 11:25:44 0.00 428.3 / 0.0 HST1_ 000400_ 000032_ AC0018_ T325_ F00056_ S00001_ 0-- Microsoft Windows 7 Enterprise x64 Edition, Service Pack 1, (06.01.7601.00) 714 Error 4/1/16 06:03:22 4/1/16 06:13:33 0.00 427.7 / 0.0 HST1_ 000400_ 000032_ AC0018_ T325_ F00056_ S00001_ 1-- Microsoft Windows Server 2008 "R2" Standard x64 Edition, Service Pack 1, (06.01.7601.00) - In Progress 4/1/16 06:03:21 4/11/16 06:03:21 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 Got 4 T325 running on my very old Linux clunker, in W10-10240 mode at 1.6Ghz, heading for 36.5 hours, so at least will get some hours recorded on the project, whence a wingman checks in, that does match per the validator rules. Hoping in a way the time by those wingmen is off very fast hosts and see the credit award system break a sweat on what to dole out on such a combo... (Let's roll the loaded dice  ).edit: There was no Elapsed... both errors were from at-start crashers, one an old old error off a client I'd thought would have been abandoned by now. Result Name: HST1_ 000400_ 000032_ AC0018_ T325_ F00056_ S00001_ 2-- <core_client_version>6.10.58</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> - exit code -1073741795 (0xc000001d) </message> <stderr_txt> INFO: No state to restore. Start from the beginning. [04:07:27] INFO: Running initial simulation Unhandled Exception Detected... - Unhandled Exception Record - Reason: Illegal Instruction (0xc000001d) at address 0x00000001404FA581 Engaging BOINC Windows Runtime Debugger... [Edit 1 times, last edit by SekeRob* at Apr 1, 2016 11:45:06 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Why the lively music term 'scherzo' sprung to mind I don't know, but have always wondered why it got that description, when in Italian it means 'Joke'. We have the T300 and up that run steady 16 hours on my 4770K [not a pitiful machine] when on same the T000 shorts run in the range of 4 hours. In that knowledge, feast your eyes and then fold your brainpan around the claims... I'm to shallow to comprehend
HST1_ 000238_ 000068_ AC0001_ T350_ F00292_ S00001_ 2-- 3113135 Valid 4/1/16 23:16:52 4/2/16 14:35:59 15.18 / 15.30 176.1 / 176.1 HST1_ 000387_ 000041_ AC0005_ T325_ F00065_ S00001_ 1-- 2497409 Pending Validation 3/31/16 18:33:21 4/2/16 08:32:36 37.04 / 37.96 168.6 / 0.0 HST1_ 000387_ 000020_ AC0005_ T325_ F00044_ S00001_ 1-- 2497409 Pending Validation 3/31/16 18:33:21 4/2/16 08:25:58 36.94 / 37.85 168.6 / 0.0 HST1_ 000387_ 000064_ AC0005_ T325_ F00088_ S00001_ 0-- 2497409 Pending Validation 3/31/16 18:33:21 4/2/16 08:13:08 36.72 / 37.64 168.6 / 0.0 HST1_ 000387_ 000030_ AC0005_ T325_ F00054_ S00001_ 1-- 2497409 Pending Validation 3/31/16 18:33:21 4/2/16 08:03:14 36.57 / 37.47 168.6 / 0.0 HST1_ 000175_ 000014_ MC0025_ T300_ F00014_ S00001_ 2-- 3113135 Valid 4/1/16 15:19:07 4/2/16 07:45:12 16.25 / 16.41 122.0 / 230.3 HST1_ 000407_ 000053_ AC0025_ T325_ F00077_ S00001_ 0-- 3113135 Pending Validation 4/1/16 12:06:04 4/2/16 05:34:32 16.23 / 16.39 168.6 / 0.0 HST1_ 000407_ 000046_ AC0025_ T325_ F00070_ S00001_ 0-- 3113135 Pending Validation 4/1/16 12:06:04 4/2/16 05:24:16 16.05 / 16.22 168.6 / 0.0 HST1_ 000407_ 000013_ AC0025_ T325_ F00037_ S00001_ 1-- 3113135 Pending Validation 4/1/16 12:06:04 4/2/16 04:26:27 16.05 / 16.21 168.6 / 0.0 HST1_ 000407_ 000017_ AC0025_ T325_ F00041_ S00001_ 0-- 3113135 Pending Validation 4/1/16 12:06:04 4/2/16 04:26:27 16.05 / 16.22 168.6 / 0.0 HST1_ 000400_ 000032_ AC0018_ T325_ F00056_ S00001_ 3-- 3113135 Pending Validation 4/1/16 11:25:47 4/2/16 03:40:16 16.05 / 16.21 168.6 / 0.0 HST1_ 000299_ 000019_ AT0020_ T000_ F00096_ S00001_ 2-- 3113135 Valid 4/1/16 23:49:16 4/2/16 03:12:56 3.33 / 3.38 150.1 / 173.7 HST1_ 000373_ 000043_ MC0026_ T000_ F00027_ S00001_ 0-- 3113135 Pending Validation 3/30/16 20:40:56 3/31/16 19:06:39 3.58 / 3.61 147.4 / 0.0 HST1_ 000373_ 000041_ MC0026_ T000_ F00025_ S00001_ 0-- 3113135 Pending Validation 3/30/16 20:40:57 3/31/16 18:33:01 3.60 / 3.63 148.0 / 0.0 We had 122 and 176 from the loaded dice department at WCG, the Q6600 taking twice as long for the same T300+ gets 168.6 which appears the new magic number doled out. Think I go fishing... very clearly my computers are not fit for purpose. |
||
|
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3716 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
It seems that the staff either does not care to read what we write, or they like to see what guesses we are able to make...
---------------------------------------- So, here is mine: I suspect that the infamous and ridiculous claimed values are attributed when the time shown by a WU is too much higher than what was estimated. The last WUs I have got were more reasonably estimated and the credits they claimed and were granted were closer (in credits per hour) to what OET WUs get on the same machine. Sometimes it was even about 50 % more. The problem for us is that we have to live with estimated sizes whatever they are... I will see if the next few TB WUs I will compute confirm or contradict this guess. Anyway, I will stop this project once I have a bronze badge to show. I like to see things move and these monster WUs are definitely not my cup of tea. |
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7846 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
So, here is mine: I suspect that the infamous and ridiculous claimed values are attributed when the time shown by a WU is too much higher than what was estimated. I don't think that is correct based on a unit which is scored like this one. If it is as you surmise, they both would have been credited with 122. Suffice to say the scoring system is broken or at least damaged. Until the powers that be chime in, we remain speculating.  BTW the cpu to elapsed time is 32.77 to 35.74 or a 91.69 efficiency  Cheers
Sgt. Joe
----------------------------------------*Minnesota Crunchers* [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sgt.Joe at Apr 4, 2016 6:50:04 PM] |
||
|
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3716 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Don't forget that the estimate for a WU is expressed in fpops when it leaves the server.
----------------------------------------It is converted to time once in your machine, based on its benchmark. Most probably the wingman's machine was much slower than yours. For example, maybe the time to not exceed was 23 hours for you and 33 for the wingman. |
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7846 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Don't forget that the estimate for a WU is expressed in fpops when it leaves the server. It is converted to time once in your machine, based on its benchmark. Most probably the wingman's machine was much slower than yours. For example, maybe the time to not exceed was 23 hours for you and 33 for the wingman. Actually it was the other way around. Mine is the slow machine at 33 hours. Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3716 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Ah yes!
----------------------------------------I did not pay any attention to the blue background...  |
||
|
|
Crystal Pellet
Veteran Cruncher Joined: May 21, 2008 Post Count: 1407 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Alluring Rob with new figures
HST1_ 000435_ 000078_ AT0014_ T325_ F00002_ S00001_ 0-- AH1 Valid 4/2/16 12:32:33 4/6/16 06:22:40 17.24 / 17.67 168.6 / 242.4 HST1_ 000435_ 000069_ AT0013_ T325_ F00093_ S00001_ 0-- AH1 Valid 4/2/16 12:32:33 4/6/16 05:22:39 17.11 / 17.74 168.6 / 190.5 HST1_ 000435_ 000072_ AT0013_ T325_ F00096_ S00001_ 1-- AH1 Valid 4/2/16 12:32:33 4/6/16 05:25:13 17.08 / 17.66 168.6 / 295.7 HST1_ 000435_ 000066_ AT0013_ T325_ F00090_ S00001_ 0-- AH1 Valid 4/2/16 12:32:33 4/6/16 05:20:09 17.09 / 17.74 168.6 / 189.7 HST1_ 000435_ 000029_ AT0013_ T325_ F00053_ S00001_ 0-- AH1 Valid 4/2/16 12:32:33 4/6/16 05:35:11 17.05 / 17.77 168.6 / 258.8 HST1_ 000435_ 000008_ AT0013_ T325_ F00032_ S00001_ 0-- AH1 Valid 4/2/16 12:32:33 4/6/16 05:32:40 17.19 / 18.13 168.6 / 192.3 No, I didn't had a mixture of long and short running tasks on that machine. |
||
|
|
|