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: 27
|
![]() |
Author |
|
Iceberg007
Cruncher Joined: Nov 12, 2017 Post Count: 27 Status: Offline |
Horray!!!
----------------------------------------![]() |
||
|
Robokapp
Senior Cruncher Joined: Feb 6, 2012 Post Count: 249 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
oh right. we need the autoclicker widget to click refresh. I remember.
|
||
|
TPCBF
Master Cruncher USA Joined: Jan 2, 2011 Post Count: 1950 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
True- the WU data is larger. We will see how it works out. I don't know the exact sizes for MCM1, but downloads of WUs as well as uploads are in the order of a couple of KB, while ARP is in the order of 10s of MB. That would be a factor of 1,000-10,000 between those two projects....Just a thought, and I could be wrong, since the ARP1 WUs take ~10x - 20x longer to run than a MCM WU, wouldn't users be contacting the servers more with MCM work and requests? I don't remember the exact size of the results from MCM off the top of my head versus ARP1 so I am actually asking a question here- over a given amount of time (let's say 24 hours), what would be the comparison on let's say a 20 thread system running one ARP1 WUs and 19 MCM? I am not disagreeing with what you said (ARP1 WU are larger) this is just curiosity on our end. Ralf ![]() |
||
|
Boca Raton Community HS
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Aug 27, 2021 Post Count: 125 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
True- the WU data is larger. We will see how it works out. I don't know the exact sizes for MCM1, but downloads of WUs as well as uploads are in the order of a couple of KB, while ARP is in the order of 10s of MB. That would be a factor of 1,000-10,000 between those two projects....Just a thought, and I could be wrong, since the ARP1 WUs take ~10x - 20x longer to run than a MCM WU, wouldn't users be contacting the servers more with MCM work and requests? I don't remember the exact size of the results from MCM off the top of my head versus ARP1 so I am actually asking a question here- over a given amount of time (let's say 24 hours), what would be the comparison on let's say a 20 thread system running one ARP1 WUs and 19 MCM? I am not disagreeing with what you said (ARP1 WU are larger) this is just curiosity on our end. Ralf Got it. Thanks! |
||
|
Mike.Gibson
Ace Cruncher England Joined: Aug 23, 2007 Post Count: 12359 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The rule of thumb used to be not to exceed 50% of threads with ARP or maybe a third.
However, RAM & ROM would also come into the equation. Mike |
||
|
Boca Raton Community HS
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Aug 27, 2021 Post Count: 125 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Over the generations of work, was there ever much variation in the "size" of the computation?
|
||
|
gb009761
Master Cruncher Scotland Joined: Apr 6, 2005 Post Count: 2982 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Over the generations of work, was there ever much variation in the "size" of the computation? I don't recall there being a huge difference - but, there again, it's been so long ago now (apart from the last 4 I've just returned late last night/today), that I can't recall. The only real difference being down to the power of the machine - quite naturally. ![]() |
||
|
Mike.Gibson
Ace Cruncher England Joined: Aug 23, 2007 Post Count: 12359 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Actually, there was, but only in respect of those which had to be re-done with a shorter time-step. Halving the time-step meant twice as many calculations so twice as long.
Mike |
||
|
TPCBF
Master Cruncher USA Joined: Jan 2, 2011 Post Count: 1950 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The rule of thumb used to be not to exceed 50% of threads with ARP or maybe a third. ROM? .However, RAM & ROM would also come into the equation. Mike Ralf ![]() ![]() |
||
|
Freewill
Cruncher United States Joined: Mar 28, 2006 Post Count: 39 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Getting lots of erroring out on ARP tasks. Appears due to download problems (not getting some of the files for a task in time?). I am seeing the return of download retrys and project backoffs, same as when we last had ARP tasks 2 years ago.
|
||
|
|
![]() |