Welcome to MilkyWay@home

WU abuse


Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 10 · Next

AuthorMessage
ProfileLord Tedric
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Nov 07
Posts: 151
Credit: 8,391,608
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge14 year member badge
Message 16212 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 16:38:36 UTC

I've just received wu's having not forced BOINC, this took the better part of 1hr 30mins
ID: 16212 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
MontagsMeeting

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 09
Posts: 61
Credit: 9,214,340
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 16230 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 18:51:40 UTC - in response to Message 16209.  

So if I understand you, if you have one place to obtain water wherever you live and you decide that your obtaining water should take precedence over anyone else's and so you decide to try to get every drop of water that you possibly can by whatever means neccessary and then you tell me that I should either do the same or get out of the way, I would be the one who was being greedy?


No you didn't understand
It is actually the situation, that faster rigs run dry very often if they don't correct the behavior of BOINC while slower rigs have no really problems keeping their client running.

if i do 100 WUs and then have to wait 1 hour to get new WUs this will make my rigs utilization about 50% (100WUs/hour)
if a slow rig will do 100 WUs (1 WU/hour) and then waits 1 hour it will have a utilization of 99%
That's not fair and will favor slow rigs?

Your example with the waterhole doesn't fit the situation. I would stop if the waterhole gets hurt, but the waterhole can live without water.
To correct your waterhole story there are people who need more water than others, for whatever reason.
Let's say there are people who need 100l/h while others need only 1l/h the hole produces only people*50l/h and everybody can carry 20l so the people who need 100l/h have to come 5times/h to get what they need for the next 12 Minutes while the other people need only to come once in 20 hours to fill their needs for the next 20 hours. if it is now only allowed to come once per hour ...

Should people be allowed to go to the waterhole if they need to?

And now who is greedy?

And as i've written i only correct BOINCs behavior to increase time between 2 requests if they aren't successful. Which is meant to reduce serverload in case there's a problem which isn't the case here, so this behavior is wrong and doesn't match the situation.
I will either increase repetition or stop completely my script if there will be any problems with the servers. My script actually runs every 5 Minutes and i try this weekend to run it only if boinc can't handle it by itself.

And if you follow my posts, i only tried to optimize my rigs. My rigs run dry often enough, but can you see me whining and complaining? I don't do bad to the project nor do i badmouth something or someone which was the intension of this thread and the reason why i write here.
Statements like someone should be banned (or whatever else) are antipathetic to me. They are for small people in small worlds and say much more about them as their allegation of a "Me First" attitude. especially if there is no reason for that other than their selfishness. They don't care about the project as there's no problem, so everything left is that they care for themselves only and hide it behind a specious argument.

BTW i don't think one minute or less is good for the project, but it's not to me to judge it or even to ban someone. If the servers can handle it, it's the peoples decision to do it or not.
ID: 16230 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileThe Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge14 year member badge
Message 16233 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 19:07:50 UTC
Last modified: 20 Mar 2009, 19:11:23 UTC

There is a mechanism in BOINC to stop users hitting the project more often than the project wishes. This setting is set by the project to ensure the server load is reduced to a level that they can hopefully sustain and to avoid the DOS attack scenario. Milkyway uses 7 seconds. I use an update of 3 minutes.

LHC@home uses 15min 10sec - on no work received the BOINC exponential backoff occurs up to a max of 24 hrs. With the amount of work they have recently, or lack thereof, if you were keen to do as much work as you could because it interested you the most, you can quite easily end up not getting any work even though the project had some available even if it was for a short period of time. I use an update of 20 minutes.

ABC@home uses 2 minutes. As this project has work available on request I do not use an auto update.

SETI uses 11 seconds. As this project has work available on request I do not use an auto update.

PrimeGrid uses 7 seconds. As this project has work available on request I do not use an auto update.

MalariaControl uses 11 seconds. They are currently out of work for extensive periods. I use an update of 1 hour. Once work is flowing again this auto update will be turned off since it becomes pointless.

I use an update script on Milkway, MalariaControl and LHC@home. The common thread with all these is 1. I want to do each one as much as I can. 2. Each has periods of time where no work is available causing BOINC to back off too far.

I believe the update periods I have selected is well within the projects ability to service them, even if multiple people used exactly the same periods of time.

If Milkyway wish to inform users that a back off that is the equivalent to the period of time it would take a single core machine with an ATI GPU installed to process the maximum amount of work allocated to it, is too much for the project then I will increase the time between updates.

Live long and BOINC.
ID: 16233 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Misfit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 915
Credit: 1,503,319
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge15 year member badge
Message 16236 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 19:27:17 UTC - in response to Message 16233.  

Running an update script at SETI did not get you banned.

EEENT! Wrong! N/A and "The K's" were banned by Rom Walton. I don't doubt there were others. As Rom said if you got caught running any scripts at SETI you could expect to be banned (because Rom sez so!)
me@rescam.org
ID: 16236 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Misfit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 915
Credit: 1,503,319
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge15 year member badge
Message 16238 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 19:33:11 UTC - in response to Message 16210.  

...especially any that make requests less than 1 minute apart...

One minute? Does anyone actually force BOINC to ask for work more often than it's own maximum frequency? No matter how little harm that might do, it certainly wouldn't do much good either.

Of course - the people running the scripts. If they are going to write a script they certainly will make it request work as much as possible.
me@rescam.org
ID: 16238 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileThe Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge14 year member badge
Message 16239 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 19:35:05 UTC - in response to Message 16236.  

Running an update script at SETI did not get you banned.

EEENT! Wrong! N/A and "The K's" were banned by Rom Walton. I don't doubt there were others. As Rom said if you got caught running any scripts at SETI you could expect to be banned (because Rom sez so!)

That must have been in the very early does of BOINC...got a time frame?
ID: 16239 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Misfit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 915
Credit: 1,503,319
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge15 year member badge
Message 16240 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 19:37:31 UTC - in response to Message 16239.  

Running an update script at SETI did not get you banned.

EEENT! Wrong! N/A and "The K's" were banned by Rom Walton. I don't doubt there were others. As Rom said if you got caught running any scripts at SETI you could expect to be banned (because Rom sez so!)

That must have been in the very early does of BOINC...got a time frame?

I left my day planner from that time frame at home. You'll have to read through Rom's post history. Enjoy.
me@rescam.org
ID: 16240 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileLord Tedric
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Nov 07
Posts: 151
Credit: 8,391,608
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge14 year member badge
Message 16244 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 19:47:41 UTC - in response to Message 16230.  


if i do 100 WUs and then have to wait 1 hour to get new WUs this will make my rigs utilization about 50% (100WUs/hour)
if a slow rig will do 100 WUs (1 WU/hour) and then waits 1 hour it will have a utilization of 99%
That's not fair and will favor slow rigs?


Surely this calculation only applies to a user who crunches for a single project!
I run other projects alongside Milkyway, therefore I still maintain 100% utilization.
ID: 16244 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileThe Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge14 year member badge
Message 16245 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 19:48:23 UTC - in response to Message 16240.  

Running an update script at SETI did not get you banned.

EEENT! Wrong! N/A and "The K's" were banned by Rom Walton. I don't doubt there were others. As Rom said if you got caught running any scripts at SETI you could expect to be banned (because Rom sez so!)

That must have been in the very early does of BOINC...got a time frame?

I left my day planner from that time frame at home. You'll have to read through Rom's post history. Enjoy.

As I thought....too long ago to be of concern in this discussion.
ID: 16245 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
MontagsMeeting

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 09
Posts: 61
Credit: 9,214,340
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 16246 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 19:52:33 UTC - in response to Message 16238.  

If they are going to write a script they certainly will make it request work as much as possible.


made some self-experiments? :D
ID: 16246 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileThe Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge14 year member badge
Message 16247 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 19:53:26 UTC - in response to Message 16244.  


if i do 100 WUs and then have to wait 1 hour to get new WUs this will make my rigs utilization about 50% (100WUs/hour)
if a slow rig will do 100 WUs (1 WU/hour) and then waits 1 hour it will have a utilization of 99%
That's not fair and will favor slow rigs?


Surely this calculation only applies to a user who crunches for a single project!
I run other projects alongside Milkyway, therefore I still maintain 100% utilization.

I have an old P4 with HT doing SETI and MW and I have a quad core with a GPU doing this project and a few others. Every time my quad core misses out on getting MW work my GPU sits idle while the CPU is happily crunching the other projects. Poor use of resources.

My old P4 has a 90% resource share on MW, wu's take anywhere from an hour to 40min. Due to the BOINC back off it still gets down to 2 wu's cached from 12. It doesn't run out of work but heck it comes close!
ID: 16247 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfilePhil
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 13 Feb 08
Posts: 1124
Credit: 46,740
RAC: 0
10 thousand credit badge14 year member badge
Message 16248 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 19:57:49 UTC - in response to Message 16239.  

Running an update script at SETI did not get you banned.

EEENT! Wrong! N/A and "The K's" were banned by Rom Walton. I don't doubt there were others. As Rom said if you got caught running any scripts at SETI you could expect to be banned (because Rom sez so!)

That must have been in the very early does of BOINC...got a time frame?

I recall Rom getting upset in the "SETI Classic" days and the earliest days of BOINC, before they got better connectivity and more machinery.
ID: 16248 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileLord Tedric
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Nov 07
Posts: 151
Credit: 8,391,608
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge14 year member badge
Message 16249 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 20:01:06 UTC - in response to Message 16247.  


if i do 100 WUs and then have to wait 1 hour to get new WUs this will make my rigs utilization about 50% (100WUs/hour)
if a slow rig will do 100 WUs (1 WU/hour) and then waits 1 hour it will have a utilization of 99%
That's not fair and will favor slow rigs?


Surely this calculation only applies to a user who crunches for a single project!
I run other projects alongside Milkyway, therefore I still maintain 100% utilization.


I have an old P4 with HT doing SETI and MW and I have a quad core with a GPU doing this project and a few others. Every time my quad core misses out on getting MW work my GPU sits idle while the CPU is happily crunching the other projects. Poor use of resources.


Yes, but these are project specific applications, I have an nVidia based graphics card which is at present useless for Milkyway and if I had an ATI based card it would be useless (I think) for Seti@home - you make your choice
ID: 16249 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
MontagsMeeting

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 09
Posts: 61
Credit: 9,214,340
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 16250 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 20:02:20 UTC - in response to Message 16244.  

Surely this calculation only applies to a user who crunches for a single project!
I run other projects alongside Milkyway, therefore I still maintain 100% utilization.


I run seti alongside, but as MW is actually the only serious project using ATI-graphics there's nothing to switch to. If seti goes ATI i'm back, they're only whining when servers go down, as it should be
ID: 16250 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileLord Tedric
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Nov 07
Posts: 151
Credit: 8,391,608
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge14 year member badge
Message 16251 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 20:04:47 UTC - in response to Message 16250.  

Surely this calculation only applies to a user who crunches for a single project!
I run other projects alongside Milkyway, therefore I still maintain 100% utilization.


I run seti alongside, but as MW is actually the only serious project using ATI-graphics there's nothing to switch to. If seti goes ATI i'm back, they're only whining when servers go down, as it should be


But it's not about the servers going down is it!
It's about having to wait more than a nano second for new work units to be sent out.
ID: 16251 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileThe Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge14 year member badge
Message 16252 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 20:07:43 UTC - in response to Message 16249.  


if i do 100 WUs and then have to wait 1 hour to get new WUs this will make my rigs utilization about 50% (100WUs/hour)
if a slow rig will do 100 WUs (1 WU/hour) and then waits 1 hour it will have a utilization of 99%
That's not fair and will favor slow rigs?


Surely this calculation only applies to a user who crunches for a single project!
I run other projects alongside Milkyway, therefore I still maintain 100% utilization.


I have an old P4 with HT doing SETI and MW and I have a quad core with a GPU doing this project and a few others. Every time my quad core misses out on getting MW work my GPU sits idle while the CPU is happily crunching the other projects. Poor use of resources.


Yes, but these are project specific applications, I have an nVidia based graphics card which is at present useless for Milkyway and if I had an ATI based card it would be useless (I think) for Seti@home - you make your choice

Correct. I made the choice. I swapped out my nvidia 9600 for an ati 4850 got heaps of work the first 2 days then things started to go down hill and frustration set in due to no work and seeing MW backed off for 24hrs, YES 24HRS. I made my choice to write an update script which had been in the back of my mind for a while due to LHC. It was my choice to work within the project constraints and still is.
ID: 16252 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
MontagsMeeting

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 09
Posts: 61
Credit: 9,214,340
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 16253 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 20:09:20 UTC - in response to Message 16251.  

Yes, it's all about keeping things up and running and not malevolence that someone else is getting more than he deserves
ID: 16253 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 08
Posts: 625
Credit: 558,425
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge14 year member badge
Message 16254 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 20:37:25 UTC - in response to Message 16253.  

Yes, it's all about keeping things up and running and not malevolence that someone else is getting more than he deserves


Have any of you ever stopped to consider that your actions could be causing other people to run into similar shortages, or is that too far outside of your realm of concern?
ID: 16254 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileThe Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge14 year member badge
Message 16255 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 20:42:38 UTC - in response to Message 16254.  

Yes, it's all about keeping things up and running and not malevolence that someone else is getting more than he deserves


Have any of you ever stopped to consider that your actions could be causing other people to run into similar shortages, or is that too far outside of your realm of concern?

The wu shortages were occuring before GPU crunching really took off. I believe mainly due to the fact that new work is generated based on the results of the work returned. If anything, folks using a GPU could be complaining about the slow turn around time from the CPU crunchers and how it is limiting the amount of new work generated..... ;P LOL
ID: 16255 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 08
Posts: 625
Credit: 558,425
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge14 year member badge
Message 16256 - Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 20:44:40 UTC - in response to Message 16247.  


My old P4 has a 90% resource share on MW, wu's take anywhere from an hour to 40min. Due to the BOINC back off it still gets down to 2 wu's cached from 12. It doesn't run out of work but heck it comes close!


So, other than competition, what is the problem with boxes being idle for even several hours a day? There have been several days in the past few months that I've just decided that I'm powering my computer off for the night when I go to bed. Other days I leave it running. If a project has no work for me, I either pick another to get work from, or I just let it idle. So I'd like to understand what reason there could be other than a competitive reason why one has to run an update script. I don't mean a reason why one might "want to" run an update script, but why one would absolutely be forced into (aka "need to" or "has to") run a script.
ID: 16256 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 10 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse

©2022 Astroinformatics Group