Message boards :
Number crunching :
Please give more time to process WUs
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 30 Jan 09 Posts: 21 Credit: 13,256,888 RAC: 0 |
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. |
Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0 |
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. |
Send message Joined: 30 Jan 09 Posts: 21 Credit: 13,256,888 RAC: 0 |
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. |
Send message Joined: 18 Nov 07 Posts: 280 Credit: 2,442,757 RAC: 0 |
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. |
Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0 |
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... 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. |
Send message Joined: 24 Dec 07 Posts: 1947 Credit: 240,884,648 RAC: 0 |
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... Try running the optimised app. You will then complete wu's in time. |
Send message Joined: 30 Jan 09 Posts: 21 Credit: 13,256,888 RAC: 0 |
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... |
Send message Joined: 4 Jul 08 Posts: 165 Credit: 364,966 RAC: 0 |
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.. |
Send message Joined: 18 Mar 09 Posts: 3 Credit: 1,042,573 RAC: 0 |
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. |
Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0 |
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. 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. |
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0 |
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... |
Send message Joined: 7 Jun 08 Posts: 464 Credit: 56,639,936 RAC: 0 |
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 |
Send message Joined: 24 Dec 07 Posts: 1947 Credit: 240,884,648 RAC: 0 |
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. There are other projects that only have a 4 day deadline and they get enough volunteers crunching their projects. |
Send message Joined: 21 Feb 09 Posts: 180 Credit: 27,806,824 RAC: 0 |
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... |
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0 |
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. 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... |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group