Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Please give more time to process WUs

Message boards : Number crunching : Please give more time to process WUs
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Amauri

Send message
Joined: 30 Jan 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 13,256,888
RAC: 0
Message 26489 - Posted: 25 Jun 2009, 21:33:44 UTC

Hi,

I can't process 6 hours of WU in 3 days, I need 4-5 days... All my last jobs are completed but the results are discarded due to time expiration.
ID: 26489 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile banditwolf
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 2425
Credit: 524,164
RAC: 0
Message 26490 - Posted: 25 Jun 2009, 21:39:28 UTC - in response to Message 26489.  

I would suggest raising your "connect every" setting in Boinc to a few days+, it should make it so that you only download 1 wu at a time. That way you could finish 1 at a time without loosing the time & credits. Or try to connect & upload the results you do have before the time is due.
ID: 26490 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Amauri

Send message
Joined: 30 Jan 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 13,256,888
RAC: 0
Message 26530 - Posted: 26 Jun 2009, 8:03:42 UTC - in response to Message 26490.  

I'm running just 1 WU at a time. My computer (AMD Semprom 1.66 GHz) is powered on for 12 hs/day, and I donated 15% of my CPU time to run BOINC in background. This gives me 1.8 hours/day of CPU time dedicated to BOINC. In 3 days I can process 5.4 hours of a WU - and I also run SETI...

If my config doesn't meet the requirements to run Milkyway, I'll disconnect from this project. I don't want to earn credits, I just want my work to be useful to Milkyway and not being discarded all times.
ID: 26530 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Emanuel

Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 07
Posts: 280
Credit: 2,442,757
RAC: 0
Message 26532 - Posted: 26 Jun 2009, 8:33:36 UTC - in response to Message 26530.  

How long have you been running Milkyway? This sounds to me like a classic case of BOINC biting off more than it can chew, and should sort itself out in time. It sucks, but you should blame BOINC's scheduler for that, not Milkyway.
ID: 26532 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile banditwolf
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 2425
Credit: 524,164
RAC: 0
Message 26541 - Posted: 26 Jun 2009, 12:10:32 UTC - in response to Message 26530.  

I'm running just 1 WU at a time. My computer (AMD Semprom 1.66 GHz) is powered on for 12 hs/day, and I donated 15% of my CPU time to run BOINC in background. This gives me 1.8 hours/day of CPU time dedicated to BOINC. In 3 days I can process 5.4 hours of a WU - and I also run SETI...

If my config doesn't meet the requirements to run Milkyway, I'll disconnect from this project. I don't want to earn credits, I just want my work to be useful to Milkyway and not being discarded all times.


I was merely trying to suggest something to help out. It has nothing to do with meeting requirements. It seems Boinc is getting too much work. You could go to a 20% share but I'm sure you have thought of that.
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.
ID: 26541 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile The Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
Message 26558 - Posted: 26 Jun 2009, 19:36:19 UTC - in response to Message 26530.  

I'm running just 1 WU at a time. My computer (AMD Semprom 1.66 GHz) is powered on for 12 hs/day, and I donated 15% of my CPU time to run BOINC in background. This gives me 1.8 hours/day of CPU time dedicated to BOINC. In 3 days I can process 5.4 hours of a WU - and I also run SETI...

If my config doesn't meet the requirements to run Milkyway, I'll disconnect from this project. I don't want to earn credits, I just want my work to be useful to Milkyway and not being discarded all times.

Try running the optimised app. You will then complete wu's in time.
ID: 26558 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Amauri

Send message
Joined: 30 Jan 09
Posts: 21
Credit: 13,256,888
RAC: 0
Message 26629 - Posted: 28 Jun 2009, 7:49:51 UTC - in response to Message 26541.  

I was merely trying to suggest something to help out. It has nothing to do with meeting requirements. It seems Boinc is getting too much work. You could go to a 20% share but I'm sure you have thought of that.


It's not too much work, it's my 15% (17% really) share. I want to minimize my power consumption, as I leave the computer alone for several hours. With share at 17%, the power consumption increases almost nothing running BOINC (that's what my UPS says), and my CPU stays at 30 C (85 F). Really cool, in both senses.

I'm always seeing my jobs at 90% of completion when time is about to expire, since the WUs changed from 2 hs long to 6 hs long two weeks ago...
ID: 26629 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Glenn Rogers
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 08
Posts: 165
Credit: 364,966
RAC: 0
Message 26635 - Posted: 28 Jun 2009, 11:00:23 UTC - in response to Message 26629.  

Like the Gas Giant said mate use one of the optimised apps you will find the links in most threads here. You will find that your computer will finnish in time then..
ID: 26635 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
jjwhalen

Send message
Joined: 18 Mar 09
Posts: 3
Credit: 1,042,573
RAC: 0
Message 26668 - Posted: 28 Jun 2009, 22:22:54 UTC - in response to Message 26541.  

I was merely trying to suggest something to help out. It has nothing to do with meeting requirements. It seems Boinc is getting too much work. You could go to a 20% share but I'm sure you have thought of that.


The real point here is that current Milkyway WUs have report deadlines set artificially short, compared to other BOINC projects with WUs of similar size. This can force newly downloaded results directly into high priority processing, overriding the user's desired resource share for the project. That is widely seen as a project trying to bend the rules to grab more CPU time than the (volunteer) user intends. This tends to drive multiproject supporters away. Some older BOINC projects have already learned this lesson the hard way, as their active userbase declined.

As Milkyway WUs got longer over the past few weeks, the report deadlines should've been pushed back proportionally. They weren't. Project administrators please take note: the galaxy will still be there a few days later.
ID: 26668 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile banditwolf
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 2425
Credit: 524,164
RAC: 0
Message 26670 - Posted: 28 Jun 2009, 22:33:06 UTC - in response to Message 26668.  

I was merely trying to suggest something to help out. It has nothing to do with meeting requirements. It seems Boinc is getting too much work. You could go to a 20% share but I'm sure you have thought of that.


The real point here is that current Milkyway WUs have report deadlines set artificially short, compared to other BOINC projects with WUs of similar size. This can force newly downloaded results directly into high priority processing, overriding the user's desired resource share for the project. That is widely seen as a project trying to bend the rules to grab more CPU time than the (volunteer) user intends. This tends to drive multiproject supporters away. Some older BOINC projects have already learned this lesson the hard way, as their active userbase declined.

As Milkyway WUs got longer over the past few weeks, the report deadlines should've been pushed back proportionally. They weren't. Project administrators please take note: the galaxy will still be there a few days later.


They are short because the new wu creation is based on the results of the complete wus. Other projects don't create the new ones that way.
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.
ID: 26670 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 08
Posts: 625
Credit: 558,425
RAC: 0
Message 26675 - Posted: 29 Jun 2009, 0:04:35 UTC - in response to Message 26670.  
Last modified: 29 Jun 2009, 0:08:26 UTC


As Milkyway WUs got longer over the past few weeks, the report deadlines should've been pushed back proportionally. They weren't. Project administrators please take note: the galaxy will still be there a few days later.


They are short because the new wu creation is based on the results of the complete wus. Other projects don't create the new ones that way.


This is pretty much a "standard issue complaint" that happens because the complainer has not taken any time to understand the process here, nor BOINC in general for that matter (CPU scheduling). Perhaps someone should make a forum post and have it stickied as to why the deadlines are 3 days, why they are appropriate to be that length, and what consequences can happen when one tries to place a host that is already stretched out over multiple projects onto this project and/or said host is not running very much during the day? Most won't read it, but perhaps some will...
ID: 26675 · 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
Message 26678 - Posted: 29 Jun 2009, 3:48:59 UTC

Well, strictly speaking they could have increased the deadline proportionally with the longer running tasks and still have had the same relative turnaround factor as before.

However the reason for the tight deadline remains, the simulations can wander off down the wrong path otherwise.

Also, the conclusion that tight deadline projects are set up that way to 'hog' the CPU is wrong. LTD will shut them down eventually and let the other projects get their time according to the RS. The biggest factor in causing breaks from the RS is project outages, which can result in fetches from debt ineligible (overworked) projects.

Alinator
ID: 26678 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile The Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
Message 26679 - Posted: 29 Jun 2009, 3:49:24 UTC - in response to Message 26668.  

I was merely trying to suggest something to help out. It has nothing to do with meeting requirements. It seems Boinc is getting too much work. You could go to a 20% share but I'm sure you have thought of that.


The real point here is that current Milkyway WUs have report deadlines set artificially short, compared to other BOINC projects with WUs of similar size. This can force newly downloaded results directly into high priority processing, overriding the user's desired resource share for the project. That is widely seen as a project trying to bend the rules to grab more CPU time than the (volunteer) user intends. This tends to drive multiproject supporters away. Some older BOINC projects have already learned this lesson the hard way, as their active userbase declined.


There are other projects that only have a 4 day deadline and they get enough volunteers crunching their projects.
ID: 26679 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile borandi
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Feb 09
Posts: 180
Credit: 27,806,824
RAC: 0
Message 26682 - Posted: 29 Jun 2009, 7:07:32 UTC

I'd suggest heading over to Aqua@Home Amauri - they have long WUs (100-200 hours on a modern machine) and the credit return is also good.

Unfortunately MW deadlines are set for the project so they stay on a good path - future research depends on results of the current work, and if that change is every 3 days then your results won't matter to the project...
ID: 26682 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 08
Posts: 625
Credit: 558,425
RAC: 0
Message 26694 - Posted: 29 Jun 2009, 15:22:00 UTC - in response to Message 26678.  

Well, strictly speaking they could have increased the deadline proportionally with the longer running tasks and still have had the same relative turnaround factor as before.

However the reason for the tight deadline remains, the simulations can wander off down the wrong path otherwise.


IIRC, and I'm pretty sure I do, they had already stated that 3 days was more than what they'd like to have had...as a compromise. I believe they stated that they'd prefer 2 days, or even perhaps 1...so even if the task size just doubled (apparently they did), 3 days would still be a good deadline given the stated needs of the project...or at most 4 days...
ID: 26694 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : Number crunching : Please give more time to process WUs

©2024 Astroinformatics Group