| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: Outsmart Ebola Together
Thread: Starting OET1 "OM" type workunits |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 126
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Speedy51
Veteran Cruncher New Zealand Joined: Nov 4, 2005 Post Count: 1326 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
The WU that you listed ends in _2, which means it is a resend, those always have a shorter deeadline than "regular" WUs (_0)... Ralf Ralf you make a very good point I forgot to mention it was a resend. I have completed the task it took 8.44 hours. Interestingly enough when the next one started the deadline didn't increase at all I am pleased to see the percentage on the research page has increased by 3 % now at 70 % it is nice to see you are making progress. I am aware there is possibly a high chance the progress indicator will go backwards again  [Edit 1 times, last edit by Speedy51 at Jun 22, 2018 6:05:20 AM] |
||
|
|
hchc
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Aug 15, 2006 Post Count: 865 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
hchc said:
----------------------------------------Couple questions: 1. Does anyone know what causes the 32-bit Vina to run instead of 64-bit Vina when computing OET1 work units? I'm running nothing but 64-bit systems -- as most of us are -- and quite often many of the work units will launch 32-bit Vina. Why? Anyone know what causes the 32-bit version of Vina to launch even on a 64-bit Windows host? I get a mix of 32-bit and 64-bit running.
|
||
|
|
Speedy51
Veteran Cruncher New Zealand Joined: Nov 4, 2005 Post Count: 1326 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
hchc said: Couple questions: 1. Does anyone know what causes the 32-bit Vina to run instead of 64-bit Vina when computing OET1 work units? I'm running nothing but 64-bit systems -- as most of us are -- and quite often many of the work units will launch 32-bit Vina. Why? Anyone know what causes the 32-bit version of Vina to launch even on a 64-bit Windows host? I get a mix of 32-bit and 64-bit running. If your task is the leasing with_1 through to _4 for example this means that you got a resend. If the return result was processed by the 32 bit application your machine has to process it with the same application to get a fair result. This is my understanding If your result is the_0 at the end of it you should be using the 64 bit application |
||
|
|
hchc
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Aug 15, 2006 Post Count: 865 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
hchc said: Couple questions: 1. Does anyone know what causes the 32-bit Vina to run instead of 64-bit Vina when computing OET1 work units? I'm running nothing but 64-bit systems -- as most of us are -- and quite often many of the work units will launch 32-bit Vina. Why? Anyone know what causes the 32-bit version of Vina to launch even on a 64-bit Windows host? I get a mix of 32-bit and 64-bit running. If your task is the leasing with_1 through to _4 for example this means that you got a resend. If the return result was processed by the 32 bit application your machine has to process it with the same application to get a fair result. This is my understanding If your result is the_0 at the end of it you should be using the 64 bit application Right, and 100% of my WUs are re-sends. But the thing is, in 99% of the cases, the original system was a 64-bit Win7 or newer system. Not that many WinXP boxes are operational. Yet right now, 4 of 4 of my Ebola WUs are 32-bit. Just odd. :) Kind of wish the WCG employees or Scripps Research Scientists were more active on this forum.
|
||
|
|
Speedy51
Veteran Cruncher New Zealand Joined: Nov 4, 2005 Post Count: 1326 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Interesting hchc. I am really unsure why that is the case. I hope somebody comes and answers this question for you
----------------------------------------it would also be nice if we could get a response as to why the average run time hasn't increased it is still just over an hour and a half on the community page Run Time Per Result (y:d:h:m:s) 0:000:01:35:06 Statistics Last Updated: 5/17/18 12:06:02 (UTC) [9 hour(s) ago] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
The cc-config.xml has a parameter that forces a system to only receive 'native' bit sized WU.
<no_alt_platform>0|1</no_alt_platform> If enabled, the client will run applications only for its primary platform. For example, a Win64 machine will run only Win64 apps, and not Win32. The downside is, once that's set there wont be work coming for MIP, which is only available in 32 bit. BOINC has measures to optimize, it even looks, when enabled, if a 64 system is faster running 32 bit versions of an application. Something hard to determine at WCG, since there is no project or test task that runs a fairly even amount of calculations across a test set of WU. |
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7846 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
itwould also be nice if we could get a response as to why the average run time hasn't increased it is still just over an hour and a half on the community page Run Time Per Result (y:d:h:m:s) 0:000:01:35:06 Statistics Last Updated: 5/17/18 12:06:02 (UTC) [9 hour(s) ago] The reason the average run time has not increased significantly is the sheer number of units processed when they were shorter. There has been 339,907,818 units total processed since the project has started as of today's noon update. Of that total, 3,883,796 units have been processed since the longer units started on March 27 2018. That is about 1.13 % of the total number of units, which is not enough units to have much of an effect. Just so you know, the average time per unit since March 27 is about 8.9 hours. Hope this helps. Cheers
Sgt. Joe
----------------------------------------*Minnesota Crunchers* [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sgt.Joe at May 18, 2018 6:21:57 PM] |
||
|
|
Speedy51
Veteran Cruncher New Zealand Joined: Nov 4, 2005 Post Count: 1326 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
The reason the average run time has not increased significantly is the sheer number of units processed when they were shorter. There has been 339,907,818 units total processed since the project has started as of today's noon update. Of that total, 3,883,796 units have been processed since the longer units started on March 27 2018. That is about 1.13 % of the total number of units, which is not enough units to have much of an effect. Just so you know, the average time per unit since March 27 is about 8.9 hours. Hope this helps. Cheers Thanks I have to agree with Joe 8.9 sounds sounds more reasonable. It will be interesting to see whether or not it will take till the end of the 1st quarter of 2020 to complete. This is going off the ECD topic thread. I hope it will be completed before then. |
||
|
|
KerSamson
Master Cruncher Switzerland Joined: Jan 29, 2007 Post Count: 1684 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
With the current ECD for OET1, I will maybe be able to reach 100 Years. Otherwise, if the project will be completed faster, I will not have much chance to reach this goal.
----------------------------------------Happy crunching, Yves |
||
|
|
Speedy51
Veteran Cruncher New Zealand Joined: Nov 4, 2005 Post Count: 1326 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I have noticed we have skipped to batch 1160
----------------------------------------OET1_0001160_xMBGP-OM_rig_57486 Previously we were working on batch 521 OET1_0000521_xSDGP-OM_rig_12161is this an indication we are nearing the end of the OM work? |
||
|
|
|