| 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: 20
|
|
| Author |
|
|
halldor.usa
Advanced Cruncher USA Joined: Nov 24, 2006 Post Count: 115 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Thanks for the explanation uplinger, I had noticed the claims/granted differences but I didn't think it was anything to do with a setting that I could effect.
|
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7844 Status: Recently Active Project Badges:
|
Today marks a milestone of sorts. It is the first day that the average time per work unit is less than one day. This could be the result of just a mix of faster machines which completed and reported tasks. However, the results from Nov. 27 show an average of .973 days per work unit, this is about 23 1/3 hours. The average credit per work unit for the day is about 743 BOINC points, a little less than the overall average of 807 at this point.
----------------------------------------Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7844 Status: Recently Active Project Badges:
|
Average credit for today about 744 BOINC. The average time of a work unit was just a shade over 24 hours - about 1.01 days. Since Uplinger fixed the glitch we are back to around 1900 work units done today.
----------------------------------------Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
hchc
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Aug 15, 2006 Post Count: 865 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Sgt Joe said:
----------------------------------------Since Uplinger fixed the glitch... My mind went to Office Space, and I laughed out loud. ![]()
[Edit 1 times, last edit by hchc at Nov 30, 2019 2:30:01 AM] |
||
|
|
Mike.Gibson
Ace Cruncher England Joined: Aug 23, 2007 Post Count: 12594 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Below are the details for both machines on one WU. The same operating system applied to each.
My machine claimed the more points despite using less CPU time. My points were roughly the same as other WUs I have crunched. I suspect the other machine is not claiming enough points. ARP1_ 0026693_ 000_ 0-- Microsoft Windows 7 Professional x64 Edition, Service Pack 1, (06.01.7601.00) 727 Valid 11/28/19 03:17:27 11/29/19 05:36:44 23.73 356.5 / 524.1 ARP1_ 0026693_ 000_ 1-- Microsoft Windows 7 Professional x64 Edition, Service Pack 1, (06.01.7601.00) 727 Valid 11/28/19 03:17:25 11/29/19 08:13:32 20.46 691.8 / 524.1 Mike |
||
|
|
DrMason
Senior Cruncher Joined: Mar 16, 2007 Post Count: 153 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Below are the details for both machines on one WU. The same operating system applied to each. My machine claimed the more points despite using less CPU time. My points were roughly the same as other WUs I have crunched. I suspect the other machine is not claiming enough points. ARP1_ 0026693_ 000_ 0-- Microsoft Windows 7 Professional x64 Edition, Service Pack 1, (06.01.7601.00) 727 Valid 11/28/19 03:17:27 11/29/19 05:36:44 23.73 356.5 / 524.1 ARP1_ 0026693_ 000_ 1-- Microsoft Windows 7 Professional x64 Edition, Service Pack 1, (06.01.7601.00) 727 Valid 11/28/19 03:17:25 11/29/19 08:13:32 20.46 691.8 / 524.1 Mike Hey Mike, could you provide more info on the machines that ran the units? Are they the same specs? Did one host stop and re-start several times? I noticed that even though one machine claims less time spent crunching, it was returned two and a half hours later (or was that the result of the machine's cache?)... Or at least tell us what each machine's CPU benchmarks are in terms of how many cobblestones they can compute per unit time. I mean, the OS helps, but there are so many other variables that could interfere. Windows 7 machines could include an atom processor or an i7-6950X. Those machines could use the fasted ssds, or an ancient 64 gb hdd. That apparently can affect the benchmarks too. (In theory this shouldn't affect the benchmark, but the cobblestone tests aren't perfect, and network transfer and disk storage are officially cited as variables potentially affecting cobblestone benchmarks...) Without knowing this sort of information, it's impossible to tell whether it was a perfect storm of variables outside WCG's control, or something they need to fix ![]() ![]() |
||
|
|
Mike.Gibson
Ace Cruncher England Joined: Aug 23, 2007 Post Count: 12594 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
DrMason
----------------------------------------I have no information on the first machine, but mine (the second) is an i7-3770 with 20 GB RAM with a 480 GB SSD. It was running 2 arp units, 5 mcm units and 1 mip unit plus an Einstein on GPU. My arp units are now all taking about 20 hours. Mike [Edit 2 times, last edit by Mike.Gibson at Dec 1, 2019 11:39:53 AM] |
||
|
|
DrMason
Senior Cruncher Joined: Mar 16, 2007 Post Count: 153 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Hey, sorry man, I misread your post; I thought you had two machines that were wingmen for each other haha. I was like "Whoa, how unusual!" But given reality, yeah, there's not a whole lot of information to go on, other than the OS. WCG will probably have to look into it then, since I think they have access to a lot more host information on their side.
----------------------------------------I also have a 3770k machine; it's not a bad little cruncher even considering its age! How much CPU does Einstein use for its GPU crunching? I remember back in the day I crunched for GPUGrid as well, but each unit ate about .7 threads. Made it hard to know how to allocate resources efficiently, but produced a lot more work overall. Considering getting back into the GPU game... ![]() |
||
|
|
Mike.Gibson
Ace Cruncher England Joined: Aug 23, 2007 Post Count: 12594 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
DrMason
The Einstein unit uses a nominal 0.5 CPU thread but I can't see any effect on the WCG units. I have 8 threads all crunching WCG but the Einstein unit is on slot 2 and WCG on slots 0,1,3,4,5,6,7,8. I assume that means slot 2 and slot 8 (or is it 0) are the same thread. As I haven't noticed any difference in running times between the WCG units, I have assumed that Einstein only uses its CPU slot occasionally. The Einstein project I am running is BRP4 (binary radio pulsar) but they keep sending me another project as well which I keep sending back because that requires 1.5 threads plus GPU, which restricts WCG to 7 threads. I am not techie enough to supply more information but have been using computers for over 50 years. Mike |
||
|
|
adriverhoef
Master Cruncher The Netherlands Joined: Apr 3, 2009 Post Count: 2346 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
One machine claiming zero (0.0) points, getting all it can eat for workunitId = 1382983903 ...
Result Name OS AVN Status Sent Time Due / Return Time CPUh Claimed/Granted[Generated by wcgformat] |
||
|
|
|