New Nbody version 1.46
log in

Advanced search

Message boards : News : New Nbody version 1.46

Previous · 1 · 2
Author Message
E01902
Send message
Joined: 10 Jan 15
Posts: 5
Credit: 7,320
RAC: 0

Message 62994 - Posted: 12 Jan 2015, 3:07:02 UTC - in response to Message 62961.

Does this mean the tasks are going to really take longer than the Remaining estimate? I have a task running all day that is now 9% complete. It's recorded 14 hr run time and somehow it only thinks it has 18 hours left. The other thing that's odd is, I don't think that 18 hours has counted down much during the day but I didn't write down the initial number and don't do this enough to know where to look. Task manager thinks it's working on something, so hopefully its not running in circles. I'll let it run over night and check on it in the morning.

E01902
Send message
Joined: 10 Jan 15
Posts: 5
Credit: 7,320
RAC: 0

Message 62995 - Posted: 12 Jan 2015, 11:41:19 UTC - in response to Message 62994.

The time Remaining estimate went from 18 to 131 hrs overnight. This machine would never give enough processing time by the task deadline, so I aborted it.

Michele
Send message
Joined: 13 Nov 10
Posts: 2
Credit: 31,491,468
RAC: 28,814

Message 63025 - Posted: 17 Jan 2015, 0:58:52 UTC

Hi - I'm having trouble with this one too - The first task ran for over 127 hours at 100%. The second time it ran for over 48 hours at 100%. Now it's running again. I'll let it go for a while - but it says no time remaining. I was trying to post a snipet of the line but it's not allowing me to paste.

Its name is ps.nbody_12_20_orphan_sim_3_1413455402_1881638_0

I don't know how best to communicate with you so if you need me to abort it or let it run then e-mail me at mr23093@yahoo.com.

Thanks. Michele Roszell
____________

Michele
Send message
Joined: 13 Nov 10
Posts: 2
Credit: 31,491,468
RAC: 28,814

Message 63063 - Posted: 24 Jan 2015, 0:17:25 UTC - in response to Message 62863.

mine is still hanging. After over a day at 100% I aborted it. I would appreciate an e-mail to mr23093@yahoo.com if I need to let it run forever or something. I did upload the newest nbody.
____________

retslag1
Send message
Joined: 14 Dec 14
Posts: 2
Credit: 3,264,787
RAC: 0

Message 63065 - Posted: 24 Jan 2015, 15:33:12 UTC - in response to Message 62977.

For me, all of my errors were on the 1.46mt....I stopped doing them as it was significantly decreasing productivity due to erroring out early or staying at 100% forever until it was aborted.

Profile Keith Wachowicz
Send message
Joined: 2 Mar 14
Posts: 1
Credit: 18,730,704
RAC: 1,840

Message 63070 - Posted: 25 Jan 2015, 7:18:33 UTC

Similar to many problems reported below, the task ps_nbody_12_20_orphan_sim_3_1413455402_2019871_0 made to 100% complete, but got stuck there and would not report.

Tiger Leahu
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jul 10
Posts: 2
Credit: 4,074,513
RAC: 0

Message 63093 - Posted: 2 Feb 2015, 14:06:04 UTC - in response to Message 63070.

same here, 100% complete and wouldn't upload for 2 days using all 8 processors.. just aborted all the nbody projects to see if that works
____________
Tiger Leahu

Profile Wisesooth
Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 14
Posts: 33
Credit: 19,809,053
RAC: 29,363

Message 63102 - Posted: 5 Feb 2015, 19:22:29 UTC - in response to Message 62863.

This is a "heads up."
I occasional encounter a hung task while crunching n-body simulations using all 8 threads of my liquid-cooled Intel i7. It reaches either 100% or 99.999% and stays there until I manually abort it. The last abort was ps_nbody_12_20_orphin_sim_3_1422013803_27545_1. The prior instance lasted 2-1/2 days before I discovered it. Hope this helps.
____________

robertmiles
Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 09
Posts: 207
Credit: 8,542,068
RAC: 27,839

Message 63130 - Posted: 10 Feb 2015, 4:40:52 UTC

This workunit:

de_nbody_12_20_orphan_sim_3_1422013803_318386
http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=987452937

appears to have some issue that at least makes it run much slower than expected; unclear if it stalls.

It reserved 7 CPU cores (the maximum I allow BOINC to use), but did not appear to be using any CPU time at all on at least 3 of them.

Currently Waiting to run at 72.968% progress (after I suspended it to make sure other workunits could run, then resumed it), 02:01:24 elapsed, 00:44:58 estimated remaining.

Compare it to this workunit, which appears to have done about the same amount of work but much faster:

http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=987288190

Or should I consider this only software that is confused between total running time, and total running time * number of CPU cores?

robertmiles
Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 09
Posts: 207
Credit: 8,542,068
RAC: 27,839

Message 63131 - Posted: 10 Feb 2015, 4:57:32 UTC - in response to Message 63130.
Last modified: 10 Feb 2015, 4:58:38 UTC

This workunit:

de_nbody_12_20_orphan_sim_3_1422013803_318386
http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=987452937

appears to have some issue that at least makes it run much slower than expected; unclear if it stalls.

It reserved 7 CPU cores (the maximum I allow BOINC to use), but did not appear to be using any CPU time at all on at least 3 of them.

Currently Waiting to run at 72.968% progress (after I suspended it to make sure other workunits could run, then resumed it), 02:01:24 elapsed, 00:44:58 estimated remaining.

Compare it to this workunit, which appears to have done about the same amount of work but much faster:

http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=987288190

Or should I consider this only software that is confused between total running time, and total running time * number of CPU cores?


I just noticed that the properties page for this workunit claims it it has checkpointed at 12:15:33. Is that the elapsed time (greater than the elapsed time BOINC Manager shows!), or the elapsed time * number of CPU cores?

Sidd
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 19 May 14
Posts: 60
Credit: 325,261
RAC: 1,011

Message 63135 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 1:48:26 UTC

Hey All,

Your issues have not fallen on deaf ears! I looked into many of these errors and found some nasty little bugs. We will be releasing a new version soon which should rectify many of the issues you all are having. Thank you for your patience.


Cheers,
Sidd

TBrink
Send message
Joined: 27 Feb 09
Posts: 1
Credit: 4,285,752
RAC: 3,326

Message 63138 - Posted: 14 Feb 2015, 4:30:25 UTC - in response to Message 63135.

Thank heavens (no pun intended) I have aborted hundreds of these WU's (1.46) as the usually fail at some point and if they complete I never get credit for them since they cannot be validated.
I was away for 2 weeks and my computer chewed on the same task using all 8 cores and then I got nothing for it and nothing else could run.

thanks, please let us know when it gets fixed so I can let them run again.
Terry

Profile Wisesooth
Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 14
Posts: 33
Credit: 19,809,053
RAC: 29,363

Message 63238 - Posted: 15 Mar 2015, 19:00:23 UTC - in response to Message 63135.

One of my machines is essentially dedicated to milkyway@home. Every instance of n-body 1.46 is failing with a computation error within seconds of start. This machine has an i5 Intel processor but uses a 32-bit Windows OS. Although the i5 has 64-bit instruction support, 32-bit Windows does not know what to do with 64-bit anything. Could this be the reason why I am getting the computation errors? The Milkyway@home 7.0 stuff works fine. The n-body simulation stuff does not work at all.

My 64-bit screamer (liquid-cooled i7) runs both milkyway and seti tasks. I receive no n-body 146 stuff; only n-body 1.48. Although these tasks run to completion and report, the server reports a significant amount of "inconclusive", "invalid" and "error" rejections. I receive no errors or "invalids" from seti tasks. Processor core temps are well below the limit that would create excessive heat or overclocking instability.

Seti seems to be using deterministic algorithms. Milkyway seems to be using heuristic algorithms. If there is a randomizer in the code, I smell "Monte Carlo" in the hypotenuse. Heuristic algorithms do not produce answers that absolutely match. They produce answers that are statistically close (well, most of the time). Could this explain the anomalies that are unique to milkyway tasks?
____________

callum
Send message
Joined: 23 Mar 15
Posts: 1
Credit: 235,478
RAC: 262

Message 63255 - Posted: 24 Mar 2015, 10:07:35 UTC

My computer keeps giving computational errors for ps_nbody_2_13 files after a few seconds of work. other files seem ok.


Properties of task ps_nbody_2_13_orphan_sim_1_ 1422013803_1254696_3
Application MilkyWay@ Home N-Body Simulation 1.46 (mt)
Name ps_nbody_2_13 orphan_sim_1_1422013803_1254696
State Computation error
Received 2015/03/24 11:43:15 AM
Report deadline 2015/04/05 11:41:13 AM
Resources 8 CPUs
Estimated computation size 289079 GFLOPs
CPU time 00:00:00
Elapsed time 00 :00 :02

Previous · 1 · 2
Post to thread

Message boards : News : New Nbody version 1.46


Main page · Your account · Message boards


Copyright © 2017 AstroInformatics Group