Please set a minimum update interval

According the the graph, and the topic of this thread.

Setting a minimum update interval will do absolutely no good. The project has reached its WU production peak.

True, its peak output now is much lower than it was before the crash a last week. Before the crash, the project was doing 20M a day in credit, now is is doing 15M a day in credit.

Could be 2 causes for this. Lower credit per WU -(I have not checked to verify this, maybe someone should) OR, the server is peaked out, and the project admins have lowered the WU creation to avoid another crash.

Either way, setting update limits will not increase the amount of available work.

In order to get more work, get more boxes running. The more boxes running, the more work you get. Plain and simple.

I don't like running at 50% any more than the rest, but I also run other projects alongside MW to take up the slack.

---

.

--<snip>--
Either way, setting update limits will not increase the amount of available work.
--<snip>--

You're not paying attention.

The problem is not with work unit creation. See (once again) Server Status. The work is there. Even if the status page has a problem, as Holger suggested, I don't see it at zero. It seems to hover between 600-1000. So the work is available.

The problem is with work distribution. It's just not getting distributed efficiently.

So what's wrong with giving this proposal a try? Those of you who keep saying it won't work, without really knowing, are like a bunch of academics sitting around arguing about whether it's raining instead of doing a simple experiment by going outside to see.

Hammering and spamming a server is not a good thing. BOINC has recognized this, and has provided an option to prevent it via a minimum interval. There is work: Server Status. Let's try giving the server some headroom to get the work distributed. If I'm right, the graphs will come up. If I'm wrong, Travis can turn it off.

At least we'll know if it's raining. ;-)

Also, I agree with Patrick: until many other projects also support GPU, the GPU users will continue to swarm to MW and any "fix" will not help for long.

But help is help. And a minimum update interval will help. It deserves a test.

---

--Bill

--<snip>--
Either way, setting update limits will not increase the amount of available work.
--<snip>--

You're not paying attention.

Nope I think it is you that is not paying attention. Ether that, or not understanding what I said. Setting a back off interval is fine in theory, but it will still not make the lack of work situation any better.

I said.

In order to get more work, get more boxes running. The more boxes running, the more work you get. Plain and simpl

Work is being distributed amongst the hosts. If you want more work, get more hosts.

WU's are being distributed as fast as they are being generated. And will continue to do this no matter what sort of back-off timer you put in place. The server is simply at its limit. It is very possible, and most likely that the project admins reduced the flow of work after the last crash to keep the servers from crashing again, or to lower the amount of network usage.

There were complaints from the school about the high bandwidth usage just before the last crash.

---

.

WU's are being distributed as fast as they are being generated. And will continue to do this no matter what sort of back-off timer you put in place. The server is simply at its limit. It is very possible, and most likely that the project admins reduced the flow of work after the last crash to keep the servers from crashing again, or to lower the amount of network usage.

There were complaints from the school about the high bandwidth usage just before the last crash.

The server can't supply the demand.


A temp. quick help would be to make the wu's 10x(or so) longer. It might ease the demand and feed a few more systems.

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

WU's are being distributed as fast as they are being generated. And will continue to do this no matter what sort of back-off timer you put in place. The server is simply at its limit. It is very possible, and most likely that the project admins reduced the flow of work after the last crash to keep the servers from crashing again, or to lower the amount of network usage.

There were complaints from the school about the high bandwidth usage just before the last crash.

The server can't supply the demand.


A temp. quick help would be to make the wu's 10x(or so) longer. It might ease the demand and feed a few more systems.

The thing is, if they spent time coming up with a "quick temporary relief plan", that is time not being spent on a long-term solution.

WU's are being distributed as fast as they are being generated. And will continue to do this no matter what sort of back-off timer you put in place. The server is simply at its limit. It is very possible, and most likely that the project admins reduced the flow of work after the last crash to keep the servers from crashing again, or to lower the amount of network usage.

There were complaints from the school about the high bandwidth usage just before the last crash.

The server can't supply the demand.


A temp. quick help would be to make the wu's 10x(or so) longer. It might ease the demand and feed a few more systems.

The thing is, if they spent time coming up with a "quick temporary relief plan", that is time not being spent on a long-term solution.

I shouldn't think it would take that long. The wu's were quickly added to before. The gpu addition doesn't seem to be going that quick.

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

--<snip>--
Either way, setting update limits will not increase the amount of available work.
--<snip>--

You're not paying attention.

The problem is not with work unit creation. See (once again) Server Status. The work is there. Even if the status page has a problem, as Holger suggested, I don't see it at zero. It seems to hover between 600-1000. So the work is available.

The problem is with work distribution. It's just not getting distributed efficiently.

So what's wrong with giving this proposal a try? Those of you who keep saying it won't work, without really knowing, are like a bunch of academics sitting around arguing about whether it's raining instead of doing a simple experiment by going outside to see.

Hammering and spamming a server is not a good thing. BOINC has recognized this, and has provided an option to prevent it via a minimum interval. There is work: Server Status. Let's try giving the server some headroom to get the work distributed. If I'm right, the graphs will come up. If I'm wrong, Travis can turn it off.

At least we'll know if it's raining. ;-)

Also, I agree with Patrick: until many other projects also support GPU, the GPU users will continue to swarm to MW and any "fix" will not help for long.

But help is help. And a minimum update interval will help. It deserves a test.

And when I just checked the status page, the data was 3 minuts old...I think it updates every 10 minutes or so, and in that time there could be 100+ requests for those 607 WUs...so they all would be gone...don't forget, the status page is only a snapshot of the server 'at that time'.

---

Click to help Seti City.

I think everyone who is not happy with the way things are should just trundle off to SETI or some other dark corner and leave the credits here for me (ME ME ME!!!)

---

HEY!! What about ME,ME,ME!!

---

ATM I have a RAC of only 160 ..and I`m happy ;-)
..How can that be??

Hi Moon!
I think thats plenty good reason to complain!!
So I guess its your turn?

---

Hey moon!

I would set up camp outside the campus and protest that they are not giving enough credits!

---

Yes, Bruce and Debs..It Must be the projects foult that my Rac is
this low. hehe. But to complaint is not much uplifting. So I just
stay away from that. Have a great day ;-)

Know what you mean Moon. CPDN and Einstein@home are just loving all this extra attention. ;)

Know what you mean Moon. CPDN and Einstein@home are just loving all this extra attention. ;)

Yes, they do. And so do I. ;-))

Good night.

I think everyone who is not happy with the way things are should just trundle off to SETI or some other dark corner and leave the credits here for me (ME ME ME!!!)

We'll tell that to you at Cosmo. :P

---

me@rescam.org

I think everyone who is not happy with the way things are should just trundle off to SETI or some other dark corner and leave the credits here for me (ME ME ME!!!)

We'll tell that to you at Cosmo. :P

You're welcome, but I am not sure what you are referring to over there. Is it the thread where I gave the most accurate info I could to try to help them find the problem, and where some others did the same? Or did I miss something that happened over there that might prompt such a comment?

---

I think everyone who is not happy with the way things are should just trundle off to SETI or some other dark corner and leave the credits here for me (ME ME ME!!!)

We'll tell that to you at Cosmo. :P

You're welcome, but I am not sure what you are referring to over there. Is it the thread where I gave the most accurate info I could to try to help them find the problem, and where some others did the same? Or did I miss something that happened over there that might prompt such a comment?

It's your thread. And the usual way to lose the app is to detach or reset.

---

me@rescam.org