| 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 – May 29, 2019 [Issues Thread] |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 315
|
|
| Author |
|
|
KerSamson
Master Cruncher Switzerland Joined: Jan 29, 2007 Post Count: 1684 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Well, the credit system on this new Beta is certainly far off: Since I never looks at credits, I will have to take your word for it. But somewhere they state that the credits are low for the betas. My guess is that they are trying to eliminate the people who overclock their CPUs. The credit problem has nothing to do with OC. It seems to be related to inappropriate guess by the machine of a realistic computation duration, causing that every WUs taking longer than 15.00 hours claim and receive 31.7 points only. Cheers, Yves ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by KerSamson at Jun 9, 2019 8:50:06 AM] |
||
|
|
KerSamson
Master Cruncher Switzerland Joined: Jan 29, 2007 Post Count: 1684 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Follow-up of my previous post in this thread.
----------------------------------------First wave (last update on 2019-06-04 08:40 (UTC)) BETA_ARP1_0001826_000 H#2 5/29/19 18:09:39 5/30/19 20:57:40 25.35 / 25.39 31.7 / 31.71.25 points / hour !!! (H#2) resp. 2 points / hour !!! (H#3) 20.8 points / hour !!! (H#1) i.e about 30% of the daily average with Zika. Second wave (last update on 2019-06-15 19:07 (UTC)) BETA_ARP1_0001099_001 H#1 6/7/19 01:49:59 6/8/19 12:45:37 13.97 / 13.99 551.9 / 561.7Cheers, Yves ---------------------------------------- [Edit 2 times, last edit by KerSamson at Jun 15, 2019 7:08:29 PM] |
||
|
|
Jim1348
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 13, 2009 Post Count: 1066 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
The credit problem has nothing to do with OC. You seemed to have missed the point. The people who overclock on BOINC projects are probably trying to increase their points. Reducing the points discourages participation by overclocked machines. That is especially important on the beta projects, where they are trying to determine what the real problems are, not the artificial ones produced by overclocking. |
||
|
|
KerSamson
Master Cruncher Switzerland Joined: Jan 29, 2007 Post Count: 1684 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Hi Jim,
----------------------------------------I am not sure that reducing the granted credits for Beta WUs will discourage overclocking resp. overclockers to participate. From an energy saving point of view, OC is not really meaningful since OC increases the energy consumption faster than the credits are increasing. Cheers, Yves |
||
|
|
adriverhoef
Master Cruncher The Netherlands Joined: Apr 3, 2009 Post Count: 2346 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Well, the credit system on this new Beta is certainly far off: Since I never looks at credits, I will have to take your word for it. But somewhere they state that the credits are low for the betas. My guess is that they are trying to eliminate the people who overclock their CPUs. The credit problem has nothing to do with OC. It seems to be related to inappropriate guess by the machine of a realistic computation duration, causing that every WUs taking longer than 15.00 hours claim and receive 31.7 points only. Cheers, Yves Result Name Status Sent Time Due / Return Time CPUh/Spent Claimed/Granted In the meantime the first one, BETA_ARP1_0000140_001_0, validated and the wingman's task took over 33 hours and was awarded much more credits than mine got initially: Result Name OS AVN Status Sent Time Due / Return Time CPUh Claimed/Grant. UPDATE: The second one, BETA_ARP1_0000186_001_1, also validated together with the wingman's task that took over 23 hours; on the positive side: my initial credits were more than doubled: Result Name OS AVN Status Sent Time Due / Return Time CPUh Claimed/Grant. [Edit 2 times, last edit by adriverhoef at Jun 10, 2019 8:32:36 AM] |
||
|
|
Jean-David Beyer
Senior Cruncher USA Joined: Oct 2, 2007 Post Count: 339 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
My latest two are like this; my processor is 4-core 64-bit, but 1.8GHZ; 16GBytes RAM:
----------------------------------------Result Name Device Name Status Sent Time Time Due / Return Time CPU Time / Elapsed Time (hours) Claimed/ Granted BOINC Credit BETA_ ARP1_ 0001078_ 001_ 1-- DellT7600.local domain Valid 6/7/19 01:49:31 6/8/19 17:17:17 26.78 / 27.92 297.2 / 368.6 BETA_ ARP1_ 0001080_ 001_ 0-- DellT7600.local domain Valid 6/7/19 01:49:30 6/8/19 17:17:17 26.73 / 27.88 296.7 / 368.5  |
||
|
|
TPCBF
Master Cruncher USA Joined: Jan 2, 2011 Post Count: 2173 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Well, the credit system on this new Beta is certainly far off: Since I never looks at credits, I will have to take your word for it. Same machine, same batch, almost identical runtimes. The last of the three would be a "low" one, considering the runtime, the first two are definitively off... Ralf |
||
|
|
hchc
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Aug 15, 2006 Post Count: 865 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
uplinger said:
----------------------------------------Note: we are investigating an issue with the scheduler at the moment. It has assigned multiple members the 32 bit version to go against 64 bit version. This was not supposed to be the case. It will require more results to be sent out in a small window to increase the logging on the scheduler to find the root cause of this issue. I was hopeful the current logging was going to work, but it did not. This may not happen until Monday of next week. Thanks, -Uplinger I've actually noticed this a lot, even on other WCG projects in production such as HSTB. If it's a re-send, my machine will run the 32-bit version even if _0 and _1 were 64-bit. [Edit: Scratch that. Both examples below of ARP1 Betas are correctly running 64-bit on my machine. I have two HSTB _1 tasks running the x86_64 executable as a 32-bit process in Windows 10, and I noticed the _0 person was running client version 7.2.47 showing as "Windows 8.1" but is probably Windows 10. Maybe 7.2.47 is the root cause for ARP1 as well? 1st Example (64-bit executable in progress. All 3 devices are 64-bit machines. The _1 person aborted. BETA_ARP1_0000933_001_2-- Microsoft Windows 10 Professional x64 Edition, (10.00.17134.00) In Progress 6/7/19 15:48:11 6/14/19 15:48:11 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 BETA_ARP1_0000933_001_1-- Microsoft Windows 10 Core x64 Edition, (10.00.17134.00) 721 User Aborted 6/7/19 01:47:24 6/7/19 15:48:04 5.88 193.2 / 0.0 BETA_ARP1_0000933_001_0-- Microsoft Windows 10 Enterprise x64 Edition, (10.00.17134.00) 721 Pending Validation 6/7/19 01:47:23 6/8/19 02:44:36 16.74 167.7 / 0.0 2nd Example (64-bit executable in progress. This one is "Pending Verification" and might be OK since the _1 person is running 32-bit Windows 7.) BETA_ARP1_0001224_001_2-- Microsoft Windows 10 Professional x64 Edition, (10.00.17134.00) In Progress 6/8/19 19:08:18 6/15/19 19:08:18 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 BETA_ARP1_0001224_001_1-- Microsoft Windows 7 Professional x86 Edition, Service Pack 1, (06.01.7601.00) 721 Pending Verification 6/7/19 01:53:42 6/8/19 19:08:07 30.77 167.7 / 0.0 BETA_ARP1_0001224_001_0-- Microsoft Windows 10 Enterprise x64 Edition, (10.00.17134.00) 721 Pending Verification 6/7/19 01:53:39 6/7/19 23:30:23 14.10 526.5 / 0.0
[Edit 10 times, last edit by hchc at Jun 10, 2019 1:05:47 PM] |
||
|
|
armstrdj
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: Oct 21, 2004 Post Count: 695 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
It looks like every task done by my XP machine returns as invalid. Win7 and Linux machines are either valid, pending validation or in progress. nanoprobe, I looked at your invalids on xp and it looks like they are due to the issue with 32 bit being compared to 64 bit. We are testing a fix for this on future work so let me know if you see more. Thanks, armstrdj |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi devs,
I've had another (2 out of 2) WU go through triple-machine verification again, this one had others struggling to complete it and return on time I think, it predates the 2nd unit that triple-verified I reported earlier. This one granted 31.7 credit for 26 hours of work to each device. :( device ID: 5429224 work unit ID: 1142300482 screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/zgoGfXL.png 2 new units have been received on this device (In Progress all crunchers) to compare these results against later to see if the pattern continues. |
||
|
|
|