Questions and Answers :
Wish list :
20 WU per core - not per host
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 29 Aug 07 Posts: 7 Credit: 187,002 RAC: 0 |
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 ... |
Send message Joined: 21 Dec 07 Posts: 69 Credit: 7,048,412 RAC: 0 |
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! |
Send message Joined: 15 Sep 07 Posts: 15 Credit: 9,818,265 RAC: 0 |
Yes, 20 WUs per core will be better :-) |
Send message Joined: 21 Dec 07 Posts: 69 Credit: 7,048,412 RAC: 0 |
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! |
Send message Joined: 3 Jan 08 Posts: 5 Credit: 1,377,460 RAC: 0 |
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 |
Send message Joined: 30 Sep 07 Posts: 17 Credit: 269,654,203 RAC: 0 |
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... |
Send message Joined: 28 Dec 07 Posts: 1 Credit: 9,008,282 RAC: 0 |
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 . . . |
Send message Joined: 21 Dec 07 Posts: 69 Credit: 7,048,412 RAC: 0 |
Any further news on progress in this regard? Please? |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group