Welcome to MilkyWay@home

New N-Body Release


Advanced search

Message boards : News : New N-Body Release
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2

AuthorMessage
Link
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Jul 10
Posts: 357
Credit: 16,320,358
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 57386 - Posted: 28 Feb 2013, 22:44:17 UTC - in response to Message 57384.  

Will my result now be discarded

Yes, there's nothing you can do about it.
.
ID: 57386 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Link
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Jul 10
Posts: 357
Credit: 16,320,358
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 57387 - Posted: 28 Feb 2013, 22:48:20 UTC - in response to Message 57385.  

I also have a 1.06 N-Body workunit that has run for 43.5 hours and is 37.8% complete.

Since there are 5 other failed tasks on this workunit, should I let it

run hoping to get another user to complete this workunit?

Eventually it might be enough that only you complete it successfully. The validator will decide that, when you retun your result.



Someone mentioned that they do not need 1.06 Workunits anymore??

They don't need 1.02 WUs anymore.
.
ID: 57387 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Tom*

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 11
Posts: 38
Credit: 285,340,761
RAC: 18
200 million credit badge8 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 57388 - Posted: 28 Feb 2013, 23:00:33 UTC - in response to Message 57387.  
Last modified: 28 Feb 2013, 23:18:02 UTC

The validator will decide that, when you retun your result.


Does the Validator accept donations?:-)

EDIT - I shouldn't have said anything

The percentage complete jumped back to 18.210% at Elapsed 44:30:22:-(

Deadline is 3/9/2013
ID: 57388 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Richard Haselgrove

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 12
Posts: 219
Credit: 448,778
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge7 year member badge
Message 57416 - Posted: 4 Mar 2013, 11:01:07 UTC - in response to Message 57165.  

Shortly, there will be release of N-Body 1.07. Hopefully, many of the issues on the Windows clients will be resolved. I plan to upload a search with an improved likelihood calculation and a fixed simulation time. We are making a lot of progress with N-Body's development thanks to the excellent userbase. We really appreciate your feedback.

Jake

That was written one month ago today.

Thank you for appreciating our feedback. In turn, I think some of us - especially the poor guys cleaning up the last vestiges of the 1.06 run, in Number Crunching - would appreciate some feedback from the project team.
ID: 57416 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Alinator

Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 08
Posts: 464
Credit: 56,639,936
RAC: 0
50 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 57488 - Posted: 12 Mar 2013, 18:05:28 UTC - in response to Message 57416.  

Shortly, there will be release of N-Body 1.07. Hopefully, many of the issues on the Windows clients will be resolved. I plan to upload a search with an improved likelihood calculation and a fixed simulation time. We are making a lot of progress with N-Body's development thanks to the excellent userbase. We really appreciate your feedback.

Jake

That was written one month ago today.

Thank you for appreciating our feedback. In turn, I think some of us - especially the poor guys cleaning up the last vestiges of the 1.06 run, in Number Crunching - would appreciate some feedback from the project team.


Agreed.

What's the story here with the remaining detritus from the 1.06 beta run?

I just picked up two on separate machines, both have a couple of successes, a couple of failures, and some timeouts thrown in just for laughs! Also, both look like they will burn multiple hundreds of thousands of seconds of CPU time if they are able to run to completion (and we all know there is no guarantee of that for a number of reasons we already documented).

In fact, the server stats page is showing the range of runtimes currently being reported from 36 seconds to 29 DAYS!

Given the problems we saw early on, I think it's time to cut bait on these (especially if they're being 'forced' to run single threaded by the BOINC version you're running).
ID: 57488 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
SandJ

Send message
Joined: 2 Jan 08
Posts: 17
Credit: 2,608,409
RAC: 0
2 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 57541 - Posted: 18 Mar 2013, 9:08:19 UTC - in response to Message 57488.  

Given the problems we saw early on, I think it's time to cut bait on these (especially if they're being 'forced' to run single threaded by the BOINC version you're running).

That would be rather annoying for those of us with "Completed, validation inconclusive" packets with wingmen who keep running out of time.

If the deadline were extended, they would mostly finish and the credits then get allocated.

If these 1.06 runs are to be culled, can it be done such that we get the credits for the time we've contributed, to prevent some serious disappointment?
ID: 57541 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Alinator

Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 08
Posts: 464
Credit: 56,639,936
RAC: 0
50 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 57546 - Posted: 18 Mar 2013, 16:22:20 UTC - in response to Message 57541.  

Given the problems we saw early on, I think it's time to cut bait on these (especially if they're being 'forced' to run single threaded by the BOINC version you're running).

That would be rather annoying for those of us with "Completed, validation inconclusive" packets with wingmen who keep running out of time.

If the deadline were extended, they would mostly finish and the credits then get allocated.

If these 1.06 runs are to be culled, can it be done such that we get the credits for the time we've contributed, to prevent some serious disappointment?



Just extending the deadline wouldn't take care of the problem for a number of reasons.

First, is the fact that one of the problems with the really long running nBody tasks is they can run into a local 'Resource Exceeded' errors, especially on Winboxes. For me some sort of checkpointing problem which lead to a 'Max Disk Space Allocation Exceeded' error was the most common, but there have been many which ran into 'Max Execution Time Allocated Exceeded' and others of that nature.

Second, they have been purging the nBody tasks from the BOINC database as they either complete and validate or fault out completely on the replication limits. This has gone on since the beginning of the run, and many are gone now which could have (or looked like they should have validated on the two good returns). This means they would have to do significant 'manual' accounting for the entire run to award everybody who fell into that category, and not just the couple of hundred WU's remaining 'active' in the field.

There are other reason pertaining to how the application parameters were set up for the last run which made the current situation almost inevitable, but there isn't anything which can be done about those at this point.

Don't get me wrong here, I see your point on this matter and agree with it in principle. However, don't forget this was announced ahead of time as a Beta run for the application so you really have to be willing to eat the lost time for tasks which go down the can for whatever the reason. Hopefully the delay in rolling out 1.07 application indicates the project team is taking the time to go everything they learned with this one with a fine toothed comb, and apply it so the next test run goes off better.
ID: 57546 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
SandJ

Send message
Joined: 2 Jan 08
Posts: 17
Credit: 2,608,409
RAC: 0
2 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 57642 - Posted: 25 Mar 2013, 15:21:01 UTC - in response to Message 57546.  

Just extending the deadline wouldn't take care of the problem for a number of reasons. <snip>

Helpful, thank you.

Don't get me wrong here, I see your point on this matter and agree with it in principle

Here we go...

However, don't forget this was announced ahead of time as a Beta run for the application so you really have to be willing to eat the lost time for tasks which go down the can for whatever the reason.

I wasn't expecting beta runs on a project I joined about 5 years ago! Mind you, it seems most of the projects are either claiming to be Alpha or Beta status regardless of their age or stability.

On just one data packet, that 'lost time' was about 3 months of processor time. A seriously big ouch when multiplied across all the affected data packets.

Anyway, I see the one remaining one of these data packets I had has now been credited as a wingman managed to get it finished (in just under 22 days) (although someone is still crunching it) so I'll slope off happy.
ID: 57642 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : News : New N-Body Release

©2020 Astroinformatics Group