Message boards : Number crunching : Status of the new clients
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Markku Degerholm

Send message
Joined: 3 Sep 04
Posts: 212
Credit: 4,545
RAC: 0
Message 6838 - Posted: 5 Apr 2005, 17:01:28 UTC

We have been doing alpha testing of the new clients and it seems to be going well. At least zero CPU time and progress indicator problems have been resolved.

We continue testing of the clients until our physicists are ready to generate more work.

Markku Degerholm
LHC@home admin
ID: 6838 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile B-Roy

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 55
Credit: 21,297
RAC: 1
Message 6839 - Posted: 5 Apr 2005, 17:43:40 UTC

thanks for keeping us updated. We really appreciate that.


ID: 6839 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile sysfried

Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 04
Posts: 282
Credit: 1,415,417
RAC: 0
Message 6840 - Posted: 5 Apr 2005, 18:37:46 UTC - in response to Message 6839.  

> thanks for keeping us updated. We really appreciate that.
>
>
>
WE CERTAINLY DO... Thanks Markku!!! :-D
ID: 6840 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Paul D. Buck

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 545
Credit: 148,912
RAC: 0
Message 6842 - Posted: 5 Apr 2005, 20:30:46 UTC - in response to Message 6838.  

> We continue testing of the clients until our physicists are ready to generate
> more work.

The lazy bums ... they should have been making more work already!

Could it be Cherenkov radiation that, um, that made them lazy?
ID: 6842 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile littleBouncer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 04
Posts: 358
Credit: 1,439,205
RAC: 0
Message 6843 - Posted: 5 Apr 2005, 21:11:54 UTC
Last modified: 5 Apr 2005, 21:12:37 UTC


> thanks for keeping us updated. We really appreciate that.


I agree.
And THX to the CERN-team for the hard working over the past weekend!
(If not; we hadn't such much work to test at the LAN-party!)

greetz littleBouncer
ID: 6843 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Astro

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 69
Credit: 26,714
RAC: 0
Message 6845 - Posted: 5 Apr 2005, 22:11:05 UTC

Markku, Thank you for the news. My soul can rest now.

tony
ID: 6845 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile The Gas Giant

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 309
Credit: 715,258
RAC: 0
Message 6846 - Posted: 6 Apr 2005, 5:14:23 UTC

Cool....thanks ace!

Paul
(S@H1 8888)
BOINC/SAH BETA
ID: 6846 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ric

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 190
Credit: 649,637
RAC: 0
Message 6848 - Posted: 6 Apr 2005, 9:20:23 UTC - in response to Message 6846.  
Last modified: 6 Apr 2005, 9:22:26 UTC

since April 4th about 185 LHC (produktiv) WUs found the way to *my* clients.
Some are still pending and a small amount is still to be processed by the clients.(Result offset =200)

I went trough, found only 4 "strange" results returning a "0":
ALL of them had an execution time of only a few seconds


resultid=38810
CPU time 0
stderr out
Validate state Valid
Claimed credit 0
Granted credit 0.0429765904437008
application version 4.64


resultid=388193
CPU time 0
Validate state Valid
Claimed credit 0
Granted credit 0.0165617483638138
application version 4.64


resultid=38819
CPU time 11.546875
Claimed credit 0.023762991622237
Granted credit 0
application version 4.64

resultid=389183
CPU time 20.03125
Claimed credit 0.0800060458069565
Granted credit 0
application version 4.64

A headache creating "long running" WU, returning "0" could not be found

success!

About 10 Users, attached to the LHC Alha project, got work yesterday,
my modest contribute was about 60 WUs (appl.ver 4.66) from there. (offset=60)

There no one had the "zero" returning

success nr2!

so far it looks great!

keep on.
ID: 6848 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile sysfried

Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 04
Posts: 282
Credit: 1,415,417
RAC: 0
Message 6849 - Posted: 6 Apr 2005, 9:37:37 UTC - in response to Message 6848.  

> since April 4th about 185 LHC (produktiv) WUs found the way to *my* clients.
> Some are still pending and a small amount is still to be processed by the
> clients.(Result offset =200)
>

ric, you make me jealous.... I got NONE!!!! :-(
ID: 6849 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile littleBouncer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 04
Posts: 358
Credit: 1,439,205
RAC: 0
Message 6850 - Posted: 6 Apr 2005, 9:47:55 UTC - in response to Message 6848.  
Last modified: 6 Apr 2005, 10:10:05 UTC

After short examamination of your results : they are all s18_!

IMO:
For me: s16_ and s18_ are the most 'critical' WU's, they will finish very fast ( between 0 sec and 5 min. )

what do I mean with s18_?

explan:
v64boince6ib1-19s18_20645_1_sixvf_23940_0

I have a 'stats' about this over about the same # of WU' as you....:-)
or you take a look here!
(I still have to crunch:-))

greetz littleBouncer

ID: 6850 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ric

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 190
Credit: 649,637
RAC: 0
Message 6851 - Posted: 6 Apr 2005, 10:08:32 UTC - in response to Message 6850.  

sysfried, no need to feel jealous,

an other time you will get your part to do and I will have "nothing"

And the number are not high, used to see a little more.


There are so many nice and beautifull stats sides, one of them is the
boincsynergy

Take a look to, even if it's a view in the past(like all stats), it shows that many users got work.

look here



and LB, I have seen your provided informaions, in short, this means,
as lower the s_xy number is, as loger they would/could/should run?

so hurry to crunch your part down, the validation for the pendings waits...

have a good time

ID: 6851 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile littleBouncer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 04
Posts: 358
Credit: 1,439,205
RAC: 0
Message 6852 - Posted: 6 Apr 2005, 10:19:20 UTC - in response to Message 6851.  
Last modified: 6 Apr 2005, 12:30:51 UTC

> and LB, I have seen your provided informaions, in short, this means,
> as lower the s_xy (corr. sxy_) number is, as loger (corr. longer) they would/could/should run (add.: the simulation)?

Yes (see also the corrections in parentesis) , I made a table in that thread.
Meanwhile I have exacter #'s, but if you unterstand the system you can adapte on your results.

BTW: Take s4_ as base (als Basis)or 'normal-run-time' or 100% ,( your avg. CPU-time for such (s4_) WU's).

I crunch 'full steam' here (just s---day)

greetz lB:-)
[EDIT] @ Chrulle; as I predict, the other statement was only to explain this table.
[/EDIT]
ID: 6852 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Chrulle

Send message
Joined: 27 Jul 04
Posts: 182
Credit: 1,880
RAC: 0
Message 6853 - Posted: 6 Apr 2005, 11:42:41 UTC

the number in s(number) like for example s16 is the amplitude of the starting conditions, the higher the amplitude the more likely it is that particles will be lost.


Chrulle
Research Assistant & Ex-LHC@home developer
Niels Bohr Institute
ID: 6853 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 04
Posts: 112
Credit: 104,059
RAC: 0
Message 6860 - Posted: 6 Apr 2005, 21:58:54 UTC - in response to Message 6853.  

> the number in s(number) like for example s16 is the amplitude of the starting
> conditions, the higher the amplitude the more likely it is that particles will
> be lost.
>
>
>

Thanks for the information. I'm sure it will be useful whenever more work is made available.

ID: 6860 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile bjacke
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 39
Credit: 4,910
RAC: 0
Message 6912 - Posted: 9 Apr 2005, 14:34:44 UTC

So far no probs here (Win 2000 PROF, AMD Athlon)
ID: 6912 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Paul D. Buck

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 545
Credit: 148,912
RAC: 0
Message 6914 - Posted: 9 Apr 2005, 14:44:03 UTC

Well, Trouble in Disneyland ...

84619
84143
84620

What is especially painful is that I know at least one of these ran for close to the full 10 hours ...

ID: 6914 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Holmis

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 10
Credit: 5,620
RAC: 0
Message 6915 - Posted: 9 Apr 2005, 15:02:09 UTC - in response to Message 6914.  

> Well, Trouble in Disneyland ...
>
> 84619
> 84143
> 84620
>
> What is especially painful is that I know at least one of these ran for close
> to the full 10 hours ...
>

They were chrunched using app. ver. 4.64 or am I misstaken.
The bugfix is in app. ver. 4.66, right???
ID: 6915 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Paul D. Buck

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 545
Credit: 148,912
RAC: 0
Message 6921 - Posted: 9 Apr 2005, 20:08:03 UTC - in response to Message 6915.  

> They were chrunched using app. ver. 4.64 or am I misstaken.
> The bugfix is in app. ver. 4.66, right???

Great! How the hell did I get work for the broken client?
ID: 6921 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Holmis

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 10
Credit: 5,620
RAC: 0
Message 6923 - Posted: 9 Apr 2005, 22:53:20 UTC - in response to Message 6921.  

> > They were chrunched using app. ver. 4.64 or am I misstaken.
> > The bugfix is in app. ver. 4.66, right???
>
> Great! How the hell did I get work for the broken client?

Bad luck I guess. The first unit I got yesterday used 4.64 and the next used the new 4.66.
ID: 6923 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Vid Vidmar*
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Sep 04
Posts: 27
Credit: 17,091
RAC: 0
Message 6933 - Posted: 10 Apr 2005, 8:26:57 UTC - in response to Message 6923.  

> > > They were chrunched using app. ver. 4.64 or am I misstaken.
> > > The bugfix is in app. ver. 4.66, right???
> >
> > Great! How the hell did I get work for the broken client?
>
> Bad luck I guess. The first unit I got yesterday used 4.64 and the next used
> the new 4.66.

Same here. But fortunately it was just a single v.4.64 WU. I only noticed 1 0 CPU time WU with v.4.66 (in alpha test) and am still uncertain what caused it.

Happy crunching,

ID: 6933 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Status of the new clients


©2024 CERN