Welcome to MilkyWay@home

New Work


Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : New Work
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2

AuthorMessage
ProfilePhil
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 13 Feb 08
Posts: 1124
Credit: 46,740
RAC: 0
10 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 7533 - Posted: 7 Dec 2008, 23:15:12 UTC - in response to Message 7532.  

hi, why does a WU have 450+hrs and runs on high priority and is completed inside 2 hrs, it override my other projects !!!..



I believe Travis has to tweak the flops_estimate in the work generator, are there any Tekkies around who can shed light on this?
ID: 7533 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilebanditwolf
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 2425
Credit: 524,164
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 7534 - Posted: 7 Dec 2008, 23:25:53 UTC

Should correct after a few run.
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.
ID: 7534 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileMary
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 08
Posts: 32
Credit: 281,582
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge12 year member badge
Message 7555 - Posted: 9 Dec 2008, 6:24:54 UTC

Well, not necessarily "a few" runs, but it will eventually work its way down. Mine still reads too high on the estimate time, but it is very slowly dropping.
ID: 7555 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileTravis
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 07
Posts: 2046
Credit: 26,480
RAC: 0
10 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 7556 - Posted: 9 Dec 2008, 7:07:32 UTC - in response to Message 7534.  

Should correct after a few run.


The old fpops estimate for the WUs was really really low. I'm hoping the new estimate is a bit closer to what it actually is. Kind of hard to tell yet.
ID: 7556 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Mr Mystery

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 08
Posts: 90
Credit: 2,601
RAC: 0
1 credit badge12 year member badge
Message 7557 - Posted: 9 Dec 2008, 7:09:16 UTC - in response to Message 7555.  

Well, not necessarily "a few" runs, but it will eventually work its way down. Mine still reads too high on the estimate time, but it is very slowly dropping.


If you manually set 0<DCF<1 one or two runs will certainly do it.
ID: 7557 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileMary
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 08
Posts: 32
Credit: 281,582
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge12 year member badge
Message 7575 - Posted: 9 Dec 2008, 18:08:44 UTC - in response to Message 7557.  

I'm letting it come down on its own since I've got a fair bit of variation between say the 86's and the 79's. If I bring it down manually and end up with an 86, then my overall estimate will be too low and my computer will try to grab more work than it can handle (like it did when I first joined this project). I try to avoid repeating that situation whenever possible since it wasn't a fun experience. :(
I'm aware that it'll balance out in a few units, but that would still amount to a few hours of my processor freaking out. I'll take the slow route if it means that my darn computer remains usable the entire time.
ID: 7575 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profileritterm
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 08
Posts: 93
Credit: 366,882,323
RAC: 0
300 million credit badge12 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 7608 - Posted: 10 Dec 2008, 19:35:45 UTC - in response to Message 7557.  

Well, not necessarily "a few" runs, but it will eventually work its way down. Mine still reads too high on the estimate time, but it is very slowly dropping.


If you manually set 0<DCF<1 one or two runs will certainly do it.


My run times have been roughly the same for all WUs and my DCF has been coming down very, very slowly; however, the run time estimates have still been in the 100s of hours.

I hope that I haven't shot myself in the foot, but I manually edited my client_state file and lowered the DCF to 0.25 from about 25. WUs downloaded since then have more reasonable run time estimates.
ID: 7608 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileJLDun
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Nov 07
Posts: 77
Credit: 117,183
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 7613 - Posted: 11 Dec 2008, 1:54:10 UTC - in response to Message 7608.  

but I manually edited my client_state file and lowered the DCF to 0.25

Mine's sitting at around .19xx...

And we still have work...
ID: 7613 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Misfit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 915
Credit: 1,503,319
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 7619 - Posted: 11 Dec 2008, 5:35:01 UTC - in response to Message 7555.  

Well, not necessarily "a few" runs, but it will eventually work its way down.

I hate the runs, especially a few, but what you say of them is true.
me@rescam.org
ID: 7619 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : Number crunching : New Work

©2021 Astroinformatics Group