Welcome to MilkyWay@home

20 WU per core - not per host


Advanced search

Questions and Answers : Wish list : 20 WU per core - not per host
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profilemeshmar

Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 07
Posts: 7
Credit: 187,002
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 1315 - Posted: 3 Jan 2008, 14:21:25 UTC

My 400MHz K6-2 gets 20 WU
My 3.2GHz Athlon 64 X2 gets 20 WU

It takes an average of 66000 seconds of time for the K6-2 to complete 20 short WU and about 200000 for long WU.
It takes the Athlon 1750 for short WU and 4500 for long WU.

The reasoning behind the per host limit is time of return of the WU. This is an extreme example, but it shows that issuing 20 WU per host would not affect timely return of crunched WUs ...
ID: 1315 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileWebmaster Yoda
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Dec 07
Posts: 69
Credit: 7,048,412
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 1319 - Posted: 3 Jan 2008, 14:52:24 UTC

20 per core/cpu would be good. Some computers (4 cores or more) can go through 20 (short) work units in less than 15 minutes so they have to contact the server very often.

If it was 20 per core (provided it could be done), they could still get the work done in about an hour but with fewer connections to the server.

It would make no difference to slower, single core machines but could prove more efficient on multi core machines.
Join the #1 Aussie Alliance on MilkyWay!
ID: 1319 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileLiborA
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Sep 07
Posts: 15
Credit: 9,468,620
RAC: 1,601
5 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 1511 - Posted: 16 Jan 2008, 14:19:55 UTC

Yes, 20 WUs per core will be better :-)
ID: 1511 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileWebmaster Yoda
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Dec 07
Posts: 69
Credit: 7,048,412
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 1539 - Posted: 20 Jan 2008, 2:24:38 UTC
Last modified: 20 Jan 2008, 2:26:58 UTC

Alternatively, if it has to stay at 20 per host, perhaps the backoff time could be reduced.

Milkyway@home   20/01/2008 11:09:18 AM   Message from server: No work sent
Milkyway@home   20/01/2008 11:09:18 AM   Message from server: (reached per-host limit of 20 tasks)
Milkyway@home   20/01/2008 11:09:18 AM   Deferring communication for 20 min 0 sec
Milkyway@home   20/01/2008 11:09:18 AM   Reason: requested by project


The problem with this setting is that, when only short (2 credit) work units are sent, this computer (and others) goes through them in less than 20 minutes (typically 13-14 minutes on this particular computer). It runs out of work before it is allowed to connect again, so either goes idle or switches to another project (and may not switch back for an hour).

On a dual quad (which I don't have), 20 work units might only take 7 or 8 minutes...
Join the #1 Aussie Alliance on MilkyWay!
ID: 1539 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
teemac

Send message
Joined: 3 Jan 08
Posts: 5
Credit: 1,377,460
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 1541 - Posted: 20 Jan 2008, 2:38:41 UTC

I would also like the limit to changed to at least 20 WU per core.

My Quads need more work as they just eat up 20 WU per machine really fast and then BOINC jumps back over to my backup project.

This means that MilkyWay is not getting my full attention
ID: 1541 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileCruncher Pete

Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 07
Posts: 16
Credit: 228,997,900
RAC: 12,610
200 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 1542 - Posted: 20 Jan 2008, 2:41:55 UTC - in response to Message 1315.  

I agree entirely with Webmaster Yoda and Meshmar. This is emphasized more with our time difference around the world. In my case in Australia if a WU is stuck the machine will continue to work the other 16units and will stop as no more work units are available. As it is in the middle of our night I can not physically check and manually adjust thereby loosing many hours of computer time.
If the WU's were increased at least our machines could crunch on until all units completed and the server is back functioning normal...
ID: 1542 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
CairnsByTheSea

Send message
Joined: 28 Dec 07
Posts: 1
Credit: 2,592,006
RAC: 0
2 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 1543 - Posted: 20 Jan 2008, 3:06:16 UTC


On a dual quad (which I don't have), 20 work units might only take 7 or 8 minutes...


So, in other words for this scenario, for the default setting for the BOINC client (I think) of 60 minutes for switching on applications Milkyway could lose 52 minutes of CPU time!

Hmmmm . . .
ID: 1543 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileWebmaster Yoda
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Dec 07
Posts: 69
Credit: 7,048,412
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 3510 - Posted: 24 May 2008, 13:12:24 UTC

Any further news on progress in this regard? Please?
ID: 3510 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Questions and Answers : Wish list : 20 WU per core - not per host

©2020 Astroinformatics Group