LHC uses a minimum 15 minute interval between client updates. Attempted updates before the interval completes result in no work and the clock is reset for another full interval instead. Such server-side minimum update intervals prevent spamming and hammering the server, which has become a sport at Milkyway and a growing problem for everyone. If you enable this feature, it should stop this nonsense and assure work availability for everyone.

Thanks.
____________
--Bill

No problems with me. It takes about 12 minutes for me to complete the maximum number of wu's (6/core) that are allocated. I'd love to be able to get another 24 tasks 3 minutes after completing them versus the approx 20min it takes now!

I don't feel that it would be a good idea.

I have a great idea lets just all stop complaining and crunch what you get and help out the project.
____________

It's a great idea

i get sometimes only one or two WUs, i do them in 30 seconds, so this or less has to be the min update interval.

I'll set that in my update script at once - Bill & Patsy, thanks for the suggestion

Or not?

Perhaps it would be better to reduce the deadline from 3 days to 10 minutes, this would make sure those who can do will be supplied with work and the project would not be thwarted by the slow crunchers.

Travis, please!

just kidding of course, but some should really think about what they say before they say

Thanks Dan, that's the way :)

Here Here Dr Dan, think its about time those who are whining about the wu situation go GET A LIFE and wait for Travis to sort something out...
____________

A 15 min timeout would be stupid IMO, as the maximum cache you can get with a quad lasts only 12 mins with a 150€ 4870.

However, there is something which oculd be done: after a server request BOINC goes into an automatic timeout of 7 s at MW, whereas this time interval is 1 min by default. Well, a GPU is fast, but it's not that fast.. so if one does actually get a full cache, the next server requests are wasted as BOINC doesn't understand this "reached maximum quota per CPU"-message. If this time is increased to 1 min quite some unneccessary server requests would be eleminated.

It wouldn't stop update scripts or manual updates, though. If you went for the solution Bill & Patsy suggested I recommend a minimum time between connects of not more than 1 min. That should keep people from hammering the server in an unresponsible manner and would still give machines with 2 GPUs or an X2 at least a chance to get new work in time.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

abc@home use a 2 min delay.

>give machines with 2 GPUs or an X2 at least a chance to get new work in time.
But first there has to be work ready to d/l...

____________
Cheers,

PeterV

.

I agree with the idea, although from the responses about crunch times, perhaps 15 min is a bit long.

But the point is, as soon as it becomes pointless to use scripts to hammer the server more often than the min update interval, crunchers will hopefully stop using them, and the server may just be able to cope better.

Just so you know, I have no GPU and I don't use a script. If I don't get work from MW, Boinc gets from other projects.

15 minutes? Is it a joke?

My 4850 overclocked work on a E5300 (dualcore) and 6 Wu per core do 12 wu in cache !

12 wu in cache does mean a maximum of 6 min of work ! What about the other nine ones?
And what about my 3850 on my celeron single core?

Everybody don't have a big quadcore or Core i7

I don't buy graphics cards for fun !

Why doesn't Travis increase the length again? by five or ten for exemple? This won't be disturbing for CPUs

Hello ???

The interval has to be less than one WU can be done by any client!!!

This is far less than a minute!!!

So the interval has to be set smaller than this - easy to understand, i think

So the update interval can NOT be greater than 30 seconds and i don't know if this caps some hardware already.

This idea lacks any sense!

It's a simple me me me i don't get enough, someone got my pacifier idea, nothing else

Hello ???

The interval has to be less than one WU can be done by any client!!!

This is far less than a minute!!!

So the interval has to be set smaller than this - easy to understand, i think

So the update interval can NOT be greater than 30 seconds and i don't know if this caps some hardware already.

This idea lacks any sense!

It's a simple me me me i don't get enough, someone got my pacifier idea, nothing else

won't work too i think
1. Implementation: If i request 48 WU (i7 HT) the server has to wait until there are 48 WU ready to send any subsequent requests will be dropped, that will not help against update scripts
2. Implementation: When the Server has 6 WU ready the first client that requests 6(slowest PCs - 1 core) will get them - this way fast CPUs/GPUs will never get work until slower PCs have enough work

The problem is the behaviour of BOINC it is not made for a situation where no work is available. If a request fails BOINC will increase the time to the next request. This penalizes fast machines as they have to request more frequently than slower ones and so their time to the next request increases very fast and its very likely that they run dry for days. That's why especially GPU-users have to use such scripts to get at least the amount that slower PCs get percentaged.

I've two 4850 GPUs that starve at about 50% of their potential - not funny, but that's the situation. And if i don't use a script i will not get anything because of time to next request is always many hours

I think there can nothing be done than to wait that the project will be able to serve more work and on that solution is worked at the moment. Should they stop their work only to implement some disputable things and we have to wait even longer for a real solution?

I have a great idea lets just all stop complaining and crunch what you get and help out the project.

I don't buy graphics cards for fun !

This computer is used for an office automation use and for some little games as Fifa 08 so ...

I don't know why I tell you this, I do what I want with my money that's all. A lot of people do same thing and so what? It's our hobby ! Can you Respect this?

ZeuZ stop buying stupid things like a single graphic card ....
take it at least by two

...
I don't buy graphics cards for fun !
...

...
I don't buy graphics cards for fun !
...

I don't get it... Can we get money for credits now?

Getting back to the point...

In my initial post, I purposely did not suggest what the interval should be for MilkyWay. Travis will have to work that out based upon performance results and everyone's feedback. I cited LHC as an example, but yes, the LHC 15 min interval is clearly too long for MilkyWay.

As for "no work available", I don't understand why some people keep saying that. Every time I check the server it has plenty of work available. (The Home Page has a hot link "Server Status" where you can check this.)

Some have suggested that the "no work available" update problem is that the available work cannot load into the scheduler or upload/download server, or whatever, fast enough because the server is getting hammered so hard by all these requests. So if everyone backed off to some minimum interval, then we all could get work, maybe even on the first request, because the server would have time to actually serve us.

If this works, then everyone will be served, and those of you who are pushing to the front of the line will be fed plenty too without having to be so pushy. Those scripts may help some individuals, but they're hurting everyone else. A proper minimum update interval could fix this.

It's sure worth a try.
____________
--Bill

Interesting concept 'having *everyone* back off to some minimum interval' sounds like a view toward credit crunching altruism which, if applied to real social problems would eliminate poverty and war. Probably would require some modification of the human genome though....

Some have suggested that the "no work available" update problem is that the available work cannot load into the scheduler or upload/download server, or whatever, fast enough because the server is getting hammered so hard by all these requests. So if everyone backed off to some minimum interval, then we all could get work, maybe even on the first request, because the server would have time to actually serve us.

If this works, then everyone will be served, and those of you who are pushing to the front of the line will be fed plenty too without having to be so pushy. Those scripts may help some individuals, but they're hurting everyone else. A proper minimum update interval could fix this.

It's sure worth a try.

Interesting concept 'having *everyone* back off to some minimum interval' sounds like a view toward credit crunching altruism which, if applied to real social problems would eliminate poverty and war. Probably would require some modification of the human genome though....

--<snip>--
Some have suggested that the "no work available" update problem is that the available work cannot load into the scheduler or upload/download server, or whatever, fast enough because the server is getting hammered so hard by all these requests. So if everyone backed off to some minimum interval, then we all could get work, maybe even on the first request, because the server would have time to actually serve us.

If this works, then everyone will be served, and those of you who are pushing to the front of the line will be fed plenty too without having to be so pushy. Those scripts may help some individuals, but they're hurting everyone else. A proper minimum update interval could fix this.

It's sure worth a try.

I kept trying for candy but I am still waiting!! :(

At this point its kind of useless. As Travis will be splitting the project. So plesae hold on to your hats.

The cpu guys and gals get there project and the gpu's get there project wu.

Then the war lords like me can have fun...smile...

DD,
____________

Well i can tell u guys i have only a quad core amd to run and no gpu tasks on my machine other then nvidia ones , and have had after the outage no work at all.
So i guess there is a huge problem with assiging units somehow and not only for you hungry gpu crunchers.

This computer is used for an office automation use and for some little games as Fifa 08 so ...

I don't know why I tell you this, I do what I want with my money that's all. A lot of people do same thing and so what? It's our hobby ! Can you Respect this?

So you buy graphic cards as a hobby without having fun? So if your hobby is computer games and you are still unhappy about it, you should consider changing your hobby.

At this point its kind of useless. As Travis will be splitting the project.
--<snip>--

At this point its kind of useless. As Travis will be splitting the project.
--<snip>--

How long will that take? My suggestion should take about a minute to implement -- it's just a server setting. Splitting the project looks like it's going to take a little longer.

At this point its kind of useless. As Travis will be splitting the project.
--<snip>--

How long will that take? My suggestion should take about a minute to implement -- it's just a server setting. Splitting the project looks like it's going to take a little longer.

By the looks of your rac I see that you have maybe one or two machines on this project. Well to do as you ask would cause a drop in total project production to maybe 25 % of what it is now. so you would ask Travis to dump 75% of his data being done daily to make a few happy. As you and many others may be aware that this is a work in progress project. It may not make everyone happy but the end result of this project will be more work done in less time. I also understand that it is making some upset that the work is not there all of the time but lets just face it. Those like myself have many thousands of dollars in computer systems, and this is one of our main hobbies. My daily output production is in excess of 500k Now you would have me stop my machines so that those who have one or two machines may be happy that they got to get up to 10k per day. NOT!!

As to when the project will split? only Travis will know. But until that happens Be happy.......

PD-DD,

I give up. I guess some just don't see it for what it is...must be the forest not seen for all those trees..
____________

One of the project admins said that the problem is that the database is on the same disk as the server software. (which would rellay make sense as the limiting factor)

somewhere else it was stated that the project runs very smoothly

If the problem were the requests, the server couldn't keep up, but they're very constantly producing WUs, just not enough. That indicates that there is some other limiting factor. It couldn't be the requests as they rise every day but the servers are very stable. The status page only gives a snapshot at some given point and travis stated that ther was a problem with it.

You conclusion that the problem comes from requests isn't fact-based and it is wrong.

Fact is: the project hasn't any problem, all the work it could produce will be done. They're working on a higher output. Until this is done there will be not more work to do.

WOW, no Wu abuse going on here. For you guys who are whining, I have to respect Kevin for his input. I can't spend the money he can so more power to him. You will respect the fact that he warned EVERYONE this was going to happen. The effect you have now is the 200+ a day moving to MW. Guess what guys you were late to the game and it takes a toll on all of us. I was doing high 90's then 60k and now 50k on 1 4870. I see a pattern here...Oh well. If MW gets everything right it won't matter, the real rush will be on then. It will make this look like a light breeze compared to the hurricane that will follow once anyone can crunch 100k a day. SO UNDERSTAND IT CANNOT BE FIXED! the beast will keep growing because of the appetite for points. It's a shame too, I thought MW would open the door for gpu crunching and others would follow. The problem is it won't happen soon enough. More power to you Kevin, your personal investment is met with jealousy instead of respect. The rest of you are idiots for attacking him, I'm waiting to see how much he's got when the problem gets better.

I told this story to PB awhile ago.

When boinc was coming online Seti converted all classic workunits to boinc standards. A single Wu back then could take over a day to complete. In that time I had done 1111 classic Wu's, after conversion they were worth 2400 pts. It was like starting over and I quit for a few years after that. You have the same thing happening again. People that have been crunching for years I passed in a matter of DAYS. The gpu is the next evolution in crunching and yes it will make some feel that all that work was for nothing. A year from now the dust will settle. Older machines may finally be put to rest, who knows maybe not. The crunching will continue though and you need to do what you are comfortable with. If your goal is to have one of the top 100 scores, right now you need to be here. If you are into the science, those other projects still exist. Remember, the points don't mean ANYTHING but bragging rights, that's all. I like to have a pretty good score but I also pay respects to the other projects. When did this turn into life or death. Have fun with your friends and your team and help some colleges along the way. Later, Patrick

As long as $170.00 can translate into almost 100k a day it's tough to see an end to the problem. If output is increased more people will buy gpu's. They are just waiting for the fix. Your looking at 1 gpu = 40 rigs. It's just to tempting of an offer from a cost per point value. It can only be balanced by lowering the point value per Wu. Otherwise you cannot stop the wave of gpu's that will emerge. Honestly if Wu's increase you don't think gpu's will be there. The reward is just too high. Remember, this is no different than an arms race....how much money you got? Patrick

As long as $170.00 can translate into almost 100k a day

it's tough to see an end to the problem.

If output is increased more people will buy gpu's. They are just waiting for the fix. Your looking at 1 gpu = 40 rigs. It's just to tempting of an offer from a cost per point value.

It can only be balanced by lowering the point value per Wu. Otherwise you cannot stop the wave of gpu's that will emerge.

Honestly if Wu's increase you don't think gpu's will be there. The reward is just too high. Remember, this is no different than an arms race....how much money you got? Patrick

Moore's Law will fail when chip manufacturing gets below 10nm range. At that distance, quantum tunnelling of electrons results in energy going nuts, and can't be controlled. This is the physical limit, unless a material is developed that can stop quantum tunnelling (which won't happen, ever).

After that point, it really is all about efficiency and anticipating the next instruction. People will have to think outside the box.

It can only be balanced by lowering the point value per Wu. Otherwise you cannot stop the wave of gpu's that will emerge.

which won't happen, ever

which won't happen, ever

Tamensi movetur ;)

Your being unrealistic if you think MW can supply enough work. There are not even 150 gpu's and the site is starving to give out work. How about 1500 or 15,000, how about 150,000. These are not unrealistic numbers. It's the power of the gpu that will prevent it from balancing. To say there is no problem is nothing more than ignoring the problem. It's already here. Gpu's are coming online far faster than MW will ever be able to supply. That's why daily averages are dropping. Any increase by MW will only create a rush for a piece of the pie. Other projects are not even close to helping this pressure. The issue here is gpu's will constantly outstrip supply. Also lets be realistic, Moore's law is a real pretty graph and it has NOTHING to do with this. Can I show you a graph that shows the changing color of the sky...You need gpu support from other projects and that is not even close to happening. The magnet at this point is MW. They were overwhelmed when there were only 70 gpu's. So it is nothing more than simple math. The point reduction theory is nothing more than an attempt to stop the flow of people moving to MW. Once supply is increased people will decide at the same time - Hey I'm getting a gpu so I can get some killer points. People will not make an investment unless they can see a return, hence it will be even worse at that stage. Finally you might want to look up the definition of an arms race. At this point if you want to be in the lead you have to throw money at the problem ( buy more gpu's )to get a larger share. I have no problem with an opinion or discussion to think out an issue but to pick apart what I said with absolutely nothing more than short blank statements and a pretty, unrelated gragh is nothing more than " hey look at me, I wanna argue, can I, can I please..." Let me give you an angle to argue, try this. Has anyone given any thought to the size of the internet pipe needed by MW to move a 1000 times the data they are moving now, how about 10,000? Now let's move to the server, staff and so on...Hell has anyone thought just how much work MW even has? I could go on and these are BASIC issues that do have answers ( I thought I would start with the easy ones .) Now look at the fact that people are already holding MW accountable for the lack of work because they bought a nice shiney card and they don't feel that they are getting their fair share. This is nothing more than being late to a game that already has too many players. Ya, there is no problem, won't be any problem in a month either. I knew I should have stayed out of the rabbit hole. Patrick

Here's another pretty graph.



Pretty pointless getting another GPU atm.

Your right, and thanks for the chart. This one has some use. Average was 7-8 million then ramped up to 21 million and last fell back to 14 million after the incident.

Please set a minimum update interval

--<snip>--
Either way, setting update limits will not increase the amount of available work.
--<snip>--

--<snip>--
Either way, setting update limits will not increase the amount of available work.
--<snip>--

You're not paying attention.

In order to get more work, get more boxes running. The more boxes running, the more work you get. Plain and simpl

WU's are being distributed as fast as they are being generated. And will continue to do this no matter what sort of back-off timer you put in place. The server is simply at its limit. It is very possible, and most likely that the project admins reduced the flow of work after the last crash to keep the servers from crashing again, or to lower the amount of network usage.

There were complaints from the school about the high bandwidth usage just before the last crash.

WU's are being distributed as fast as they are being generated. And will continue to do this no matter what sort of back-off timer you put in place. The server is simply at its limit. It is very possible, and most likely that the project admins reduced the flow of work after the last crash to keep the servers from crashing again, or to lower the amount of network usage.

There were complaints from the school about the high bandwidth usage just before the last crash.

The server can't supply the demand.


A temp. quick help would be to make the wu's 10x(or so) longer. It might ease the demand and feed a few more systems.

WU's are being distributed as fast as they are being generated. And will continue to do this no matter what sort of back-off timer you put in place. The server is simply at its limit. It is very possible, and most likely that the project admins reduced the flow of work after the last crash to keep the servers from crashing again, or to lower the amount of network usage.

There were complaints from the school about the high bandwidth usage just before the last crash.

The server can't supply the demand.


A temp. quick help would be to make the wu's 10x(or so) longer. It might ease the demand and feed a few more systems.

The thing is, if they spent time coming up with a "quick temporary relief plan", that is time not being spent on a long-term solution.

--<snip>--
Either way, setting update limits will not increase the amount of available work.
--<snip>--

You're not paying attention.

The problem is not with work unit creation. See (once again) Server Status. The work is there. Even if the status page has a problem, as Holger suggested, I don't see it at zero. It seems to hover between 600-1000. So the work is available.

The problem is with work distribution. It's just not getting distributed efficiently.

So what's wrong with giving this proposal a try? Those of you who keep saying it won't work, without really knowing, are like a bunch of academics sitting around arguing about whether it's raining instead of doing a simple experiment by going outside to see.

Hammering and spamming a server is not a good thing. BOINC has recognized this, and has provided an option to prevent it via a minimum interval. There is work: Server Status. Let's try giving the server some headroom to get the work distributed. If I'm right, the graphs will come up. If I'm wrong, Travis can turn it off.

At least we'll know if it's raining. ;-)

Also, I agree with Patrick: until many other projects also support GPU, the GPU users will continue to swarm to MW and any "fix" will not help for long.

But help is help. And a minimum update interval will help. It deserves a test.

I think everyone who is not happy with the way things are should just trundle off to SETI or some other dark corner and leave the credits here for me (ME ME ME!!!)
____________

HEY!! What about ME,ME,ME!!
____________

ATM I have a RAC of only 160 ..and I`m happy ;-)
..How can that be??

Hi Moon!
I think thats plenty good reason to complain!!
So I guess its your turn?
____________

Hey moon!

I would set up camp outside the campus and protest that they are not giving enough credits!
____________

Yes, Bruce and Debs..It Must be the projects foult that my Rac is
this low. hehe. But to complaint is not much uplifting. So I just
stay away from that. Have a great day ;-)

Know what you mean Moon. CPDN and Einstein@home are just loving all this extra attention. ;)

Know what you mean Moon. CPDN and Einstein@home are just loving all this extra attention. ;)

I think everyone who is not happy with the way things are should just trundle off to SETI or some other dark corner and leave the credits here for me (ME ME ME!!!)

I think everyone who is not happy with the way things are should just trundle off to SETI or some other dark corner and leave the credits here for me (ME ME ME!!!)

We'll tell that to you at Cosmo. :P

I think everyone who is not happy with the way things are should just trundle off to SETI or some other dark corner and leave the credits here for me (ME ME ME!!!)

We'll tell that to you at Cosmo. :P

You're welcome, but I am not sure what you are referring to over there. Is it the thread where I gave the most accurate info I could to try to help them find the problem, and where some others did the same? Or did I miss something that happened over there that might prompt such a comment?