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: 25
|
![]() |
Author |
|
Link64
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Feb 19, 2021 Post Count: 137 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I started this thread because a short unit was sent to my laptop which takes 4 days to crunch without considering queueing time. In my case at least the the time the computer is running per day was not considered. The WU went directly after download into high priority, still I wasn't able to return it in time, it wasn't sitting idle in my queue at all. Servers should have know that with all the information that is sent to them. In particular from all that info in <time_stats>, the servers know better than myself, how many seconds per day this computer is running. The <on_frac> from my last request was 0.404740, that's around 9 hours and 40 minutes a day, so sending a WU, which needs 40+ hours with a 3.5 days deadline is probably not the best idea. ![]() Anyway, the final state of this WU: ARP1_0019494_060_4-- Valid 4/30/21 04:07:08 5/1/21 02:07:46 14.88 540.2 / 851.7 In the same time those computers could have done two WUs, so maybe the current strategy to "speed up" patches, that are a bit behind the rest, needs to be revised. ![]() Slightly less aggressive speed up with a 4.5-5.0 days deadline and _0, _1 and _2 would have been enough, except for _4, all other valid results have been returned just few hours after the 3.5 days deadline, so it's not just my old computer (if it was, I wouldn't post here, just turn off ARP). ![]() |
||
|
Mike.Gibson
Ace Cruncher England Joined: Aug 23, 2007 Post Count: 12439 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Yet another 3.5 day unit sent to my old laptop which then took 88 hours of elapsed time so a 3rd copy was sent out unnecessarily.
Project Name: Africa Rainfall Project Created: 05/09/2021 19:25:39 Name: ARP1_0003578_063 Minimum Quorum: 2 Replication: 2 Result Name OS type OS version App Version Number Status Sent Time Time Due / Return Time CPU Time / Elapsed Time (hours) Claimed/ Granted BOINC Credit ARP1_ 0003578_ 063_ 2-- Microsoft Windows 10 Professional x64 Edition, (10.00.19042.00) - In Progress 5/13/21 07:31:00 5/16/21 19:31:00 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 ARP1_ 0003578_ 063_ 1-- Microsoft Windows 10 Core x64 Edition, (10.00.19042.00) 727 Valid 5/9/21 19:29:00 5/11/21 16:48:43 27.47 643.7 / 1,083.2 ARP1_ 0003578_ 063_ 0-- Microsoft Windows 7 Professional x64 Edition, Service Pack 1, (06.01.7601.00) 727 Valid 5/9/21 19:28:54 5/13/21 11:45:12 79.54 1,522.8 / 1,083.2 Close |
||
|
bidon
Cruncher Joined: Dec 9, 2005 Post Count: 26 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I have a machine which need 4 days to crunch an ARP WU (2 checkpoints per day) and also receive 3.5 days units.
Maybe a rounding in the deadline : 3.5 rounded to 4 ? No margin ? |
||
|
KerSamson
Master Cruncher Switzerland Joined: Jan 29, 2007 Post Count: 1679 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hi bidon,
----------------------------------------I would like recommend you to opt-out ARP1 for such slow machines and to privilege APN1 and MCM1 instead. Cheers, Yves |
||
|
bidon
Cruncher Joined: Dec 9, 2005 Post Count: 26 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Ha, Ha, very funny. If you think "there is no solution", say "there is no problem".
It take 4 days for a 7 days deadline so it's not so "slow". The trouble is only for a few WU. I see two solutions : - send it to the top 10% machines - send it to the machine with 90 percentile which is under 3.5 days |
||
|
Mike.Gibson
Ace Cruncher England Joined: Aug 23, 2007 Post Count: 12439 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
bidon
This problem can almost disappear with some adjustments to settings. How many cores/threads does the machine have? How large a cache of each project is set in the device profile? Do you use app_config.xml? If so, what are the limits set in it? Post the answers and I think I can help. Mike |
||
|
bidon
Cruncher Joined: Dec 9, 2005 Post Count: 26 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hi,
4 cores without hyper-threading. ARP parts are already limited to 4 WU at the server side and no other project selected. Hibernation is not possible. So the cache is always empty even if it's set to 0.5 days and i download WU only if there is the time to accomplish the checkpoint before the shutdown. No app_config on this machine. I dont need to limit concurrent WU. It's always ok with the 7 days deadline because it need about 44 hours for each WU. But with a 3.5 days deadline, i need sometime to run it more time than usual. There is only one or two hours of margin so i can be considered as "reliable" but it's only because i micro-manage it. |
||
|
Mike.Gibson
Ace Cruncher England Joined: Aug 23, 2007 Post Count: 12439 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
bidon
ARP is a very intense program. As such you should not use more than half your cores for it. Set your profile to only download 2 at any one time and use the other 2 for other projects. That way there will be no queueing time. Completed units will be replaced very rapidly so there will be little wasted time - none if your cache is 2 ARP and 3 others. That should speed up crunching of arp. You might then be able to finish within 3.5 days. Mike |
||
|
KerSamson
Master Cruncher Switzerland Joined: Jan 29, 2007 Post Count: 1679 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
bidon,
----------------------------------------on a Phenom II x6, an ARP1 WU needs about 25-27 hours, and, like Mike, I limit ARP1 to 50% of the available threads. On an i7-6700K, it takes about 16-17 hours. Cheers, Yves |
||
|
bidon
Cruncher Joined: Dec 9, 2005 Post Count: 26 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
ARP is a very intense program. As such you should not use more than half your cores for it. Set your profile to only download 2 at any one time and use the other 2 for other projects. Already tested. Using half of the core not making big difference on this machine (no logic core) That way there will be no queueing time. Completed units will be replaced very rapidly so there will be little wasted time - none if your cache is 2 ARP and 3 others. That should speed up crunching of arp. You might then be able to finish within 3.5 days. There is no waste time in queuing. It download WU only if a WU had finish and during the morning. I use "no new task" to forbid download which cant be reach a checkpoint before the daily shutdown. |
||
|
|
![]() |