| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: Wouldn't it be nice if we could prioritize the projects we choose to run? |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 14
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
...If you set a high cache for your preferred project would enable you to continue that project after it has run out. Mike Which might not necessarily be in the project's best interest. Often a project's WUs depend on the results of the previous generation WUs, which, if cued up in your work cache, will delay that progress. A smaller work cache would contribute to a better flow and faster return of WUs issued. What's the point of holding back a project, just so one can hamster WUs? If there aren't WUs available, it means that work gets done as fast as possible, or the project has to wait for some numb nut with a several day long work cache full of WUs yet to be returned and delaying progress and new WUs for everybody else. A bit like hording toilet paper... |
||
|
|
CaffeinatedSloth
Advanced Cruncher United Kingdom Joined: Nov 12, 2014 Post Count: 80 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
...If you set a high cache for your preferred project would enable you to continue that project after it has run out. Mike Which might not necessarily be in the project's best interest. Often a project's WUs depend on the results of the previous generation WUs, which, if cued up in your work cache, will delay that progress. A smaller work cache would contribute to a better flow and faster return of WUs issued. What's the point of holding back a project, just so one can hamster WUs? If there aren't WUs available, it means that work gets done as fast as possible, or the project has to wait for some numb nut with a several day long work cache full of WUs yet to be returned and delaying progress and new WUs for everybody else. A bit like hording toilet paper... WCG cats out at a certain limit anyway - I always have my 4 core devices holding about 12 WUs minimum - 4 to work on, then 8 in their queue. I get through those in under a day, often closer to 12 hours to clear all of them. I keep this many (and often a few more) for a few reasons - the first being the one Mike pointed out - in case the project runs out of work. With the amount I have stored, I'll only ever have a backlog of about 2 days at the most, but the theory here is that the work shouldn't dry up if there are internet issues or WCG goes down for maintenance, etc and I should constantly have plenty of WUs to keep my machines happy. I do see your point about holding the projects up, but that's why the deadlines are only a week for OPN (and even less for other projects). If for whatever reason, I was unfortunate enough to miss the deadline and someone else had to pick the WU up, the deadline is often shortened for a resend and it's marked as higher priority to BM to keep the project moving along as quickly as possible. Chris    |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I hear you and keeping a limited cache of work units is the right thing to do. But I find very often "crunchers" are more concerned about making sure the points are flowing rather than what is in the best interest of the project. I think a days worth of WUs is a good thing, but if one was to crank it up to several days, in the end it's not doing the project much good. After all, there will be enough WUs, like there has always been enough toilet paper...
 |
||
|
|
|