Message boards :
Number crunching :
new work (4/02)
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0 |
I know we're out of work. I'm running a purge right now and there should be more work available as soon as it finishes :) |
Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0 |
I know we're out of work. I'm running a purge right now and there should be more work available as soon as it finishes :) i've started up a new (really big) batch of searches. these should keep you happily crunching for a long time (i hope) :D |
Send message Joined: 5 Oct 07 Posts: 33 Credit: 3,189,992 RAC: 0 |
I know we're out of work. I'm running a purge right now and there should be more work available as soon as it finishes :) Thanks Travis Whats this new file stars_convolved_82_simulated.txt its big anyway at 6mb Smoke me a kipper ill be back for breakfast |
Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0 |
I know we're out of work. I'm running a purge right now and there should be more work available as soon as it finishes :) it's a new set of star points to crunch on. Nate has been running into some problems with using conjugate gradient descent on different data sets (its converging to a local minima), and interestingly enough we were getting the same problem with the genetic search. we're trying out a new set of data, and tweaked our genetic search a little bit (we think some of the parameters in the model aren't orthogonal -- which is screwing things up). so these new searches on this new data should help us figure out the problem. |
Send message Joined: 5 Oct 07 Posts: 33 Credit: 3,189,992 RAC: 0 |
I know we're out of work. I'm running a purge right now and there should be more work available as soon as it finishes :) Well lets hope it works. Also what happening about sortting the server out so that you can run automatic purges instead of having to do it mannualy yhus giving you more time to sort out the searches which will inturn give us more work without the breaks for purging Smoke me a kipper ill be back for breakfast |
Send message Joined: 9 Nov 07 Posts: 131 Credit: 180,454 RAC: 0 |
|
Send message Joined: 27 Aug 07 Posts: 647 Credit: 27,592,547 RAC: 0 |
... PS- Is it me or are the WU's getting longer? Hm, maybe your computers are just tired and need a rest? *grin* To me the WUs seem to be of the same length as before. ;-) Lovely greetings, Cori |
Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0 |
Seem the same too. Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected? If it makes sense, DON'T do it. |
Send message Joined: 29 Aug 07 Posts: 1 Credit: 68,743 RAC: 0 |
I know we're out of work. I'm running a purge right now and there should be more work available as soon as it finishes :) And if you reduce the deadline, one or two day. It could be better ? |
Send message Joined: 28 Aug 07 Posts: 146 Credit: 10,703,601 RAC: 0 |
PS- Is it me or are the WU's getting longer? I have the same feeling, but only a wee bit, some seconds maybe. Member of BOINC@Heidelberg and ATA! My BOINCstats |
Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0 |
PS- Is it me or are the WU's getting longer? the WUs might be a little longer, because the star file is bigger. more stars to calculate the likelihood would increase the time of calculation. basically, the WU does two parts, the first calculates an integral over the volume of space we're dealing with. this is pretty much fixed -- we can set how fine grained it is, but once thats fixed it should take the same amount of time. the second part calculates the likelihood of the calculated model being a good match to the data. this is usually pretty quick as it's done in linear time over the stars in the stars file, and not nearly as computationally intensive as calculating the integral. so when we increase the star file you should see the WUs take slightly longer. this is also the reason that the progress bar is a bit wonky, when it changes speeds that means it's stopped calculating the integral and started to calculate the likelihood. |
Send message Joined: 28 Aug 07 Posts: 146 Credit: 10,703,601 RAC: 0 |
|
Send message Joined: 9 Nov 07 Posts: 131 Credit: 180,454 RAC: 0 |
PS- Is it me or are the WU's getting longer? Thanks Travis. CLICK TO HELP BUILD |
Send message Joined: 15 Nov 07 Posts: 31 Credit: 56,404,447 RAC: 0 |
WU's on my main crunchers are running exactly the same as before, 5:07, on a 3GHz AMD, according to the BoincView monitor. I'd say your PC needs a vacation. |
Send message Joined: 11 Mar 08 Posts: 28 Credit: 818,194 RAC: 0 |
On my 1200 MHz Duron workunits are 15 seconds faster at 13m 44s. On my 2.4 GHz P4, they're 5 seconds faster at 12m 24s. So, thank you for the speed increase. :-) |
Send message Joined: 18 Nov 07 Posts: 280 Credit: 2,442,757 RAC: 0 |
There could certainly be some truth to this. Cache misses and consequent memory performance are hard to predict, not to mention branch predictors failing et cetera. However, I've seen no difference on this PC aside from some differences between different WUs (i.e. different gs_5xx) |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group