Advanced search

Forums : Technical Support : Longer WUs
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile [B^S] thierry@home
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Jun 07
Posts: 9
Credit: 250,366
RAC: 0
Message 124 - Posted: 11 Jun 2007, 21:33:20 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jun 2007, 21:34:09 UTC

I have two WUs that are running since 100 minutes. Is it a normal lenght? BOINC foresee 2h30'.
They are running on a Pentium D 2.8
Thanks
ID: 124 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Scott
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 07
Posts: 662
Credit: 13,742
RAC: 0
Message 125 - Posted: 11 Jun 2007, 21:42:53 UTC - in response to Message 124.  

I have two WUs that are running since 100 minutes. Is it a normal lenght? BOINC foresee 2h30'.
They are running on a Pentium D 2.8
Thanks

No, actually I made a change to the input parameters which resulted in extremely long runs. I've changed that around so newer WUs should only run for 8 minutes or so.
Scott Kruger
Project Administrator, Cosmology@Home
ID: 125 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] thierry@home
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Jun 07
Posts: 9
Credit: 250,366
RAC: 0
Message 126 - Posted: 11 Jun 2007, 21:47:08 UTC

Yes, I read that. But what to do with those that are runnning? Do I let them run or do I abort them?
Thanks
ID: 126 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Scott
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 07
Posts: 662
Credit: 13,742
RAC: 0
Message 128 - Posted: 11 Jun 2007, 21:49:14 UTC

If you want credit for them, you'll want them to keep running. They're still test WUs though, so it's no big deal if you choose to abort them.
Scott Kruger
Project Administrator, Cosmology@Home
ID: 128 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] thierry@home
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Jun 07
Posts: 9
Credit: 250,366
RAC: 0
Message 129 - Posted: 11 Jun 2007, 21:51:56 UTC

OK. Thanks
ID: 129 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] Acmefrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Jun 07
Posts: 175
Credit: 446,074
RAC: 0
Message 134 - Posted: 11 Jun 2007, 22:44:47 UTC - in response to Message 125.  

I have two WUs that are running since 100 minutes. Is it a normal lenght? BOINC foresee 2h30'.
They are running on a Pentium D 2.8
Thanks

No, actually I made a change to the input parameters which resulted in extremely long runs. I've changed that around so newer WUs should only run for 8 minutes or so.


Is that based upon a Pentium D 2.8 or what are you basing it upon?
ID: 134 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Scott
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 07
Posts: 662
Credit: 13,742
RAC: 0
Message 135 - Posted: 12 Jun 2007, 2:34:06 UTC - in response to Message 134.  

I have two WUs that are running since 100 minutes. Is it a normal lenght? BOINC foresee 2h30'.
They are running on a Pentium D 2.8
Thanks

No, actually I made a change to the input parameters which resulted in extremely long runs. I've changed that around so newer WUs should only run for 8 minutes or so.


Is that based upon a Pentium D 2.8 or what are you basing it upon?

Well, I ran it on our web server which I think is a dual Xeon with about 6 Gb of RAM, so your results may vary =)
Scott Kruger
Project Administrator, Cosmology@Home
ID: 135 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 07
Posts: 150
Credit: 237,789
RAC: 0
Message 140 - Posted: 12 Jun 2007, 3:19:51 UTC - in response to Message 135.  

Is that based upon a Pentium D 2.8 or what are you basing it upon?

Well, I ran it on our web server which I think is a dual Xeon with about 6 Gb of RAM, so your results may vary =)

Oh for the days when my system was TOTL.
me@rescam.org
ID: 140 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
darkclown
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 8 Jun 07
Posts: 9
Credit: 127,330
RAC: 0
Message 147 - Posted: 12 Jun 2007, 5:56:03 UTC - in response to Message 140.  

Is that based upon a Pentium D 2.8 or what are you basing it upon?

Well, I ran it on our web server which I think is a dual Xeon with about 6 Gb of RAM, so your results may vary =)

Oh for the days when my system was TOTL.


So, when the epoch counter was 3...
ID: 147 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] Gamma^Ray
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 07
Posts: 47
Credit: 70,587
RAC: 0
Message 151 - Posted: 12 Jun 2007, 7:56:59 UTC

So far on my system, The average per work unit seems to be in the 15 minute area. Although there are a few that were in the 6 - 9 minute area also. So far all have run as successful.

G^R
Windows-XP-Pro, AMD 3800X2, 5.10.28
ID: 151 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile sysfried

Send message
Joined: 24 Jun 07
Posts: 114
Credit: 5,296,905
RAC: 0
Message 678 - Posted: 2 Jul 2007, 15:03:26 UTC - in response to Message 151.  

So far on my system, The average per work unit seems to be in the 15 minute area. Although there are a few that were in the 6 - 9 minute area also. So far all have run as successful.

G^R


I'd like to bump this topic up again. The runtime really is short.

Scott, would it make any sense to have longer running wus? Maybe 30 min or so?

I have 2 machines that I have to load with wus via my usb-stick and it's a bit of a pain to have the hosts run dry every few hours... (quad xeon there)

regards,

sysfried
Happy member of Team: Planet 3D Now!

ID: 678 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Scott
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 07
Posts: 662
Credit: 13,742
RAC: 0
Message 679 - Posted: 2 Jul 2007, 15:15:47 UTC - in response to Message 678.  
Last modified: 2 Jul 2007, 15:31:50 UTC

So far on my system, The average per work unit seems to be in the 15 minute area. Although there are a few that were in the 6 - 9 minute area also. So far all have run as successful.

G^R


I'd like to bump this topic up again. The runtime really is short.

Scott, would it make any sense to have longer running wus? Maybe 30 min or so?

I have 2 machines that I have to load with wus via my usb-stick and it's a bit of a pain to have the hosts run dry every few hours... (quad xeon there)

regards,

sysfried

Right now, I'm tweaking CAMB to see if I can increase the run-time to around half an hour. I'll probably have something within the hour.

EDIT: I'm going to have to wait until checkpointing is enabled so that I can be sure that longer WUs will work for everybody.
Scott Kruger
Project Administrator, Cosmology@Home
ID: 679 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Jayargh
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Jun 07
Posts: 508
Credit: 2,282,158
RAC: 0
Message 680 - Posted: 2 Jul 2007, 15:16:41 UTC - in response to Message 678.  

So far on my system, The average per work unit seems to be in the 15 minute area. Although there are a few that were in the 6 - 9 minute area also. So far all have run as successful.

G^R


I'd like to bump this topic up again. The runtime really is short.

Scott, would it make any sense to have longer running wus? Maybe 30 min or so?

I have 2 machines that I have to load with wus via my usb-stick and it's a bit of a pain to have the hosts run dry every few hours... (quad xeon there)

regards,

sysfried


sysfried please remember that not all running the project have the newest technology...bumping to 30 min on a quad may equal 2 hours on a P4 or 3200+...I stopped running Spinhenge due to losing too much time with reboots and Boinc Manager errors because of no checkpoints and that same situation could happen here(running Spin again beta version with cp's)

ID: 680 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [AF>Futura Sciences>Linux] Thrr-Gilag
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 May 07
Posts: 32
Credit: 145,576
RAC: 0
Message 681 - Posted: 2 Jul 2007, 15:23:05 UTC

Yeap, please don't forget that everybody do not use a quad xeon... and without a internet connection.

Please thinck that there is no checkpoint at this time with this application, and thus WU can't take too much time exept if the aim is to reserve the tests to only heavy configuration.
------
Thrr-Gilag Kee'rr

L'Alliance Francophone
ID: 681 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile sysfried

Send message
Joined: 24 Jun 07
Posts: 114
Credit: 5,296,905
RAC: 0
Message 682 - Posted: 2 Jul 2007, 15:26:27 UTC - in response to Message 680.  



sysfried please remember that not all running the project have the newest technology...bumping to 30 min on a quad may equal 2 hours on a P4 or 3200+...I stopped running Spinhenge due to losing too much time with reboots and Boinc Manager errors because of no checkpoints and that same situation could happen here(running Spin again beta version with cp's)


Dear JRenkar.

I'm well aware of that. My office desktop is a 2.4 GHz P4 (no HT, no dual core). Current wus run about 2 h on that host and I've also lost cpu time due to a reboot or other reasons.

Also I'm aware that this is a Alpha project, which doesn't have checkpoints at the moment. It was simply a request I made and I hope that no one is upset at me now. But I have faith in Scott that checkpoints will be implemented here much faster than what we saw at the spinhege project.

Regards,

Sysfried


Happy member of Team: Planet 3D Now!

ID: 682 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Jayargh
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Jun 07
Posts: 508
Credit: 2,282,158
RAC: 0
Message 686 - Posted: 2 Jul 2007, 16:08:49 UTC - in response to Message 682.  



sysfried please remember that not all running the project have the newest technology...bumping to 30 min on a quad may equal 2 hours on a P4 or 3200+...I stopped running Spinhenge due to losing too much time with reboots and Boinc Manager errors because of no checkpoints and that same situation could happen here(running Spin again beta version with cp's)


Dear JRenkar.

I'm well aware of that. My office desktop is a 2.4 GHz P4 (no HT, no dual core). Current wus run about 2 h on that host and I've also lost cpu time due to a reboot or other reasons.

Also I'm aware that this is a Alpha project, which doesn't have checkpoints at the moment. It was simply a request I made and I hope that no one is upset at me now. But I have faith in Scott that checkpoints will be implemented here much faster than what we saw at the spinhege project.

Regards,

Sysfried



Dear Sysfried,

Not upset at all :) We all have different concerns that we hope admin can address to help our individual needs....just wanted to make sure that Scott understood that by addressing your concerns may cause others to stop or significantly slow down running this project....for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction...isn't that a law of physics? and Boinc projects?
I don't care how long a wu is as long as it has checkpoints but w/o checkpoints I noticed if I lose too much work my enthusiasm for the project goes way down.
Best Regards,
JRenkar
P.S. Beam me up Scotty! hehe
ID: 686 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Forums : Technical Support : Longer WUs