Posts by Nuadormrac
|
1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Completed tasks not showing up in log
(Message 74915)
Posted 18 Jan 2023 by Nuadormrac Post: Yeah, I do now; at the time I posted it, those weren't showing up, and phoning home they were just disappearing from my log without ending up in another category.... |
|
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Completed tasks not showing up in log
(Message 74913)
Posted 18 Jan 2023 by Nuadormrac Post: After a task is completed, it seems to just disappear from the log unless it goes to validation inconclusive. As few do, I'm just crunching GPU tasks that seem to end up in the big bucket. NO credit appears, but because it isn't in my log anymore, I can't just check to see what's going on with them.... There are also no errors or what have you either, they just vanish upon completion with no indication I crunched them or what happened to any of the tasks completed.... |
|
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Validation inconclusive
(Message 74131)
Posted 9 Sep 2022 by Nuadormrac Post: post delay, thought it didn't post Plz delete duplicate |
|
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Validation inconclusive
(Message 74130)
Posted 9 Sep 2022 by Nuadormrac Post: I'm now getting a lot of this validation inconclusive on a brand new laptop I installed a couple days ago. Oddly enough, my old laptop (the graphics card on it has recently died outside the Intel one on the CPU), didn't seem to pop these up. I'm sure the new laptop isn't fatally flawed, so waiting to see what happens... Other projects I've tried, have been validating without issue.... |
|
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
BOINC 7.0.28 ignoring project preferences
(Message 55107)
Posted 13 Jul 2012 by Nuadormrac Post: I just got a new laptop in the mail. It has an i7 quad core (though each core is dual threaded, so Windows 7 and BOINC sees it as 8 CPU cores), with a nVidia GT 650m graphics. BOINC sees the GPU fine, and grabed tasks for it, but I set Milkyway to take tasks on the GPU only and 7.0.28 requested tasks for the CPU also... Not a biggie, but with it running on the GPU, I think some other projects could use the CPU themselves... Is it just the current client that ignores those preference settings, or is something else going on? |
|
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Anormal Wu time
(Message 37433)
Posted 16 Mar 2010 by Nuadormrac Post: Both new ones have now been over 6 hours, and still at 0% |
|
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Anormal Wu time
(Message 37420)
Posted 16 Mar 2010 by Nuadormrac Post: Perhaps check pointing got messed up, not sure. But I'm having to run it on a CPU, not a GPU; and I've got 2 more sitting here at 0% for it's been over 1.5 hours now. I can let these sit if that's what's being seen, but no idea. When the thing doesn't budge for hours, it really does look stuck. |
|
8)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Anormal Wu time
(Message 37416)
Posted 16 Mar 2010 by Nuadormrac Post: I'm not sure if this is related or not; but of late I've been noticing WUs that never seem to progress beyond 0.000% completion. I've aborted, thinking bad WU, but as it has happened a bit more; I'm wondering what is going on with WUs which appear to hang/not progress for a fair amount of time. And by all appearances we're not talking slow, but rather stalled. |
|
9)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Posting restrictions
(Message 34482)
Posted 12 Dec 2009 by Nuadormrac Post: I don't fully understand why this discussion is taking place. Getting total credit of more than 50 takes 1 wu. I'd prefer to see a minimum RAC utilised, of say 20.... The main problem with minimum RAC's are that they can peanalize long time crunchers, who had been at projects for years, for crunching something else now. Take someone's suggestion to someone on editing their profile (suspend all other projects, get the RAC up, then resume)... The only problem is that it forces people to have to do this, and if it came about every time a post needed to be made (didn't sound like it was going to posting though), meh... I'll be a little blunt here; it isn't just spammers who would have issue with this sort of mandate. Like many others, I'm not particularly fond of what can very well appear as strong arm tactics or having my hand forced... And certainly when volunteering is what's being done. Consider this scenario; and in no way am I saying this is what happens, but just for sake of example. Lets say someone was donating to United Way. Then a decision came down to restrict phone and on site access, so no one could call in or speak with anyone on site unless they donated a minimum of $25/month. Some might argue that's not even a $1/day so isn't much, but in point of fact it would come down to the principal of the thing. A person who is being kind enough to help with (in that case a charity) is being told "give more, else you can just drop your checks in the mail, but otherwise..." The impression would be no better then when one televangelist went to India, supposedly to "preach to the indigent populations there, unable to afford our visit" for which he incidentally got funds state side. But then turned around, and passed the collection plate, not once, not twice, but 3 times in the same service, while telling them to dig deeper into their pockets, and "give more". On the news documentary where this was reported, one of the locals finally said to another "this isn't a service, it's a da**** business meeting". Now as to what's involved, one also has to take into account not only the beta nature of the project, and the fact that the servers don't exactly have a history of holding up the work load for demand (in part because Collatz is the other GPU project, and if one goes down, the other is likely to get swamped, and suffer as a result. Yes a third GPU project for both ATI and nVidia would help this, but is neither here nor there, as it's more in the landscape of projects available altogether). In any case, these downtimes do effect RAC. But the problem is also that for those who have to process this on a CPU (aka their gfx card is too old to support CUDA or the ATI equivallent), that 1 work unit instead of taking 45 mins? could take 6 hours, 8 hours, 10 hours, really depends on the speed of someone's CPU. Older obviously means it's probably not the lattest, core 2 duo or the like, but it could be just as old as my Athlon 64, or it could be a Pentium 4... We don't know, but what we do know is the project does officially support CPU processing, and as long as it does, they are a consideration. Obviously I'm not speaking for myself here (considering my current RAC is off using a CPU, I had given a fair amount of crunch time on this project anyhow), but in terms of point of fact, on where it would put people who chose to spend a bit more time on other projects, it doesn't escape me. Ya know? I was there with SETI. There's something I would have responded to on their board (ironically the SETI beta forums I can post to however). However I simply am not going to be pressured (even through a sort of soft sell kinda pressuring) into crunching their project only until I get x RAC, just to be able to post one message. On an old account, affecting RAC from 1 WU only is also no small thing (I had processed one of everything sometime back when I changed emails just to make sure the x-platform ID got updated, etc). Now I have a SETI account from 2000, and though by today's standards the credits aren't much, years ago, it took more time to crunch out. And looking at that, I'm rather less inclined, not more to go and crunch another WU for them; largely because I don't like being pressured in such manner. Do I commonly say as such? This said, I went from previously wanting to run other projects, to finding out about this; and currently I'm more inclined, rather then less to leave SETI nnt. There's other crunchers anyhow, so I doubt they'll miss whatever WU I might have done for them, prior to their decision on this. Pretty much an "oh well" sort of mutual indifference at present, I would imagine. |
|
10)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Cruncher's MW Concerns
(Message 34071)
Posted 1 Dec 2009 by Nuadormrac Post: I got one of the larger units, and when I divided total credits by hours spent crunching the result was a bit lower (fell down to 37/hour on the same opti-app). This said the computer was downloading at the time, so a comparison when something else isn't running would probably be a bit more fair. Truth be told however, some of us can't run this on a GPU, nor is "go out and by x hardware" a likely situation during a time of a recession where we got layed off from work. Not trying to start controversy or anything; but rather stating that many aren't exactly in the hardware buying market at present, because "well under this configuration..." We're talking about donation of computer resources, which do become a bit more limited for many of us state side, until this economy pulls out of it's current slump and work opportunities become better. Ways to spend is just not what people are thinking about when they're having to survive a recession. |
|
11)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Posting restrictions
(Message 34069)
Posted 1 Dec 2009 by Nuadormrac Post: tbh, a post restriction based on total credit isn't a biggie, but based on RAC, meh. SETI does that now (though even to post), and it was actually a source of some consternation and problems for our team. The thing is, someone, somehow, got ownership over our SETI team (I thought someone would have to pass it? or don't know the exact details, but there was a thread on our forums for it). The person was not in our team. People weren't happy and wanted that matter changed. So, along the way, one of the mods to the team boards was like "hmm, my 100,000 credit with SETI doesn't seem to be enough to allow me to post; can someone go to their forums so we can inform them our team has been stolen on their project, and we want it back?" It finally got resolved, but the person most familiar with the matter was unable to post, and so going round about middle man was the start of oh dear, how to fix this for our members, sorta thing. For myself (and looking at how SETI implemented that one), it suggests that a person who was a long time cruncher for them (my account goes back to like 2000), that OK not so much credit in the present, but it was a lot around 3-5 years ago; loses the ability to post because they're essentially trying to "convince us" to not crunch other projects instead of them, or to crunch others less... I can half chuckle as I say that; though if there was some thinking to that, rather then having total credit as the deciding factor, it might not exactly make for the best PR. Main reason is, it is volunteer time. |
|
12)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Server Crash November 10
(Message 33232)
Posted 12 Nov 2009 by Nuadormrac Post: Travis: But then some member of the janitorial staff might forget to leave the air conditioner on in the server closet :p Something along those lines happened at one of the colleges I went too; where no a/c meant it hit like 140 degrees F in one of the server closets. Umm, the HDs were never quite the same. |
|
13)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Server Crash November 10
(Message 33231)
Posted 12 Nov 2009 by Nuadormrac Post: Something is up with Collatz, as the Home page cannot be displayed. It's all on the server status page. Results in progress as well as ready to send are both 0, and the transitioner backlog is over 300,000. Until there's a transition up and running, it's as dead as a door nail. |
|
14)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Cruncher's MW Concerns
(Message 33228)
Posted 12 Nov 2009 by Nuadormrac Post: Cruncher's MW Concerns. Well, on the first point, that doesn't entirely address the situation at hand. With the CPU renderer that can take 1.5 hours, 2 hours, or so a WU; that can take substantially less time on a GPU.... Fast turn around is one thing, but expecting results back every 30 seconds (12 second completion times) would hardly reduce the load on the servers. At least on the networking end, it would mean chatty boxes that are constantly hammering it with requests for new work, and constant uploads/reporting results. All these additional requests then have to be handled, and as they occur more often... In fact a larger queue for these people, with a slightly more aggressive backoff algorithm could help some types of resource load problems. The problem is, that addressing it, would require 1. estimating a devices average completion time, and then 2. instead of restricting it by x number WUs (assuming all computing devices are equal), restrict it by y-time factor where faster devices can get a larger queue. Only problem that introduces is that if one's looking at a single BOINC client, it could pull both WUs for the CPU as well as the GPU, and if it comes up as a single computer ID that might get hairy for saying "OK, the number of GPU WUs allowed to be uncompleted at a time should be one thing, the number of CPU WUs that much smaller. Unless there's a way to distinguish between them from the scheduler's standpoint, which would require more info then a simple computer ID, with whatever benchmark stats got uploaded assuming one computation device of equal perf. Allowing 30 minutes, or 1 hr of GPU tasks to exist on a box at a time, wouldn't delay return times greater then allowing one task to be completed on a CPU that takes longer then that to crunch, even exclusively. Also, the CPU can run a greater number of total projects (scheduled runtime), then projects that are GPU only. But it does add complexities to the mix; if one's goal is to get them in said reasonable time frame; when the WU completion time can very between seconds on the one hand, vs hours on the other. And both present rather different problems (results that aren't returned for days on the one hand, but on the other results getting reported so often with a constant stream of downloads, that the server's being practically hammered with constant uploads/downloads, and requests in unrelenting fashion). There's almost a balance to be had between faster turn around (and the attendent faster WU generation) and server load issues that could be introduced if clients are having to contact it all the time, without some form of break before the next demand/request is placed upon the server via the network pipe, at least looking at the face of it. But with such a wild variation in completion times, and given a single box could have 1 of each device turning them in, meh... The single box would simply have no single constant wrt performance, due to the variation between the devices doing the tasks; even if the time to completion is what one really wants to get at, ignoring the differences in speed on varying devices which this introduces.. |
|
15)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
3rd.in - optimized apps
(Message 32060)
Posted 7 Oct 2009 by Nuadormrac Post: Actually, hitherto it's been using the 0.19 app; things got a little whonky, so did a reset project, then just put the 0.19 in as that's all that was there, after cleaning it out (it wasn't even processing WUs). Now that's a hmm, because with the seti optimized apps, when they transitioned from 1 science app version to another, having entries for both in the app_info file worked perfectly well, and on download it just told it which to use. Either way, as it gave 0.19 work from all indications that's what I put in. However, the project is out of results ready to send, so once it comes back up I'll see. Some indication should definitely come when they want us to switch, but I'm guessing there was a backlog of 0.19 work present or something for which it continued sending results. Perhaps this no work available now, could be replaced with only 0.20 coming up after? Or maybe it's just another in a long line of server problems (the website access timed out once or twice, and one access to the project gave 10/6/2009 8:41:16 PM Milkyway@home Sending scheduler request: To fetch work. I'll see after it shows more then 0 results ready to send on server status page. |
|
16)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
server crash (July 29)
(Message 31946)
Posted 4 Oct 2009 by Nuadormrac Post: Just got this: 10/4/2009 5:00:57 AM Milkyway@home Requesting new tasks |
|
17)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
server crash (July 29)
(Message 31864)
Posted 2 Oct 2009 by Nuadormrac Post: Well, in all honesty to that; my join date was in Sept 2008, which puts my time on project almost 13 months. I think about the only project I've been on which would be called "alpha" so long, would be RALPH... From a pragmatic standpoint, I'd say that it had progressed beyond alpha (on the CPU processing); however the GPU processing component is new still, so.... As of the following day, it still shows up as down ;) |
|
18)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
server crash (July 29)
(Message 31840)
Posted 2 Oct 2009 by Nuadormrac Post: The only thing now, is that the project is reporting it is still down for a maintenance, when the client attempts to connect. Not sure how long this maintenance will be, though it has been many hours on now |
|
19)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
3rd.in - optimized apps
(Message 31837)
Posted 2 Oct 2009 by Nuadormrac Post: There was somewhere, not sure if I got it from this thread, on one of the sites that presented the apps, or where it was. But basically each step up is faster. Basically you can use CPU-Z to see what your CPU supports, and then just download the highest listed for it. With an Athlon 64 I use the ssse3 optimized client, which runs well. Anyhow you can get what you need from there, then just take the best available to it. Incidentally I'm running with the 0.19 version of it, given that 0.19 is the WUs I kept getting even after the 0.20 optimized client was released. I'll get the the newer when the server sees fit to send them; though for the time being it runs fine. Whereas when I went to parse together the 2 app_info.xml files to include entries for both one listing followed by the other; things seemed to not exactly go well together (the run times were suggestive of it going back to a stock client). It might actually be useful, least until the 0.19 work is off the servers if the app_info.xml includes entries for both groups of WUs. But until it does, I'll go with whichever the server has been sending me to make sure I get the optimized app onto the WUs. |
|
20)
Message boards :
Cafe MilkyWay :
Can I justify electricity costs for MW?
(Message 30704)
Posted 13 Sep 2009 by Nuadormrac Post: Remember something similar comming up on the SETI boards years earlier. Since then a recession has hit in many parts, and I can see many asking this. A few things basically: - If one's concerned, they don't need to run the computer more often then they otherwise would. 5 minute trips to the bathroom, and even when the computer is in use (running a word processor or web browser), uses hardly any CPU time at all. In many cases one is only using 1-5% of their CPU or such for such tasks... These apps just do not need CPU's with the computer power available today. Multi-core CPUs are another example. The system might use a different core then then some old word processor, but the word processor isn't necessarily multi-threaded, and even if it is really wouldn't need the full resources of 1 core. - Not rebooting all the time is more of a convenience, then anything. Some don't reboot ever, because they don't want to wait to use their computer, whenever. Booting does take time, as does logging in. Others don't mind in the morning, but after lunch etc would rather not. I know few who would want to go to the trouble to shutdown, and reboot everytime they come back from a bathroom break, or a 5 min phone call. - The biggest consumer of power on the computer isn't exactly the computer itself, it's the monitor. I s'pose LCDs use less power then the old CRT? CRT's have always been big power hogs. In my old apartment, just turning off the monitor while I wasn't using my computer (but leaving the computer running), cut my electric bill by about 20-25%, with all other useage the same (lights, TV, etc). Monitor off, whether one leaves the comp running or not, is the first good bet to cut the costs. One doesn't need to see the screen when not there, after that one can adjust to what they can afford, and want to do (aka the smaller useage on power from the comp itself, vs. convenience of it being "ready to use". |
Next 20
©2024 Astroinformatics Group