Message boards : Number crunching : Sixtrack 4.67 available
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile sysfried

Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 04
Posts: 282
Credit: 1,415,417
RAC: 0
Message 6968 - Posted: 12 Apr 2005, 9:15:48 UTC

With workunits! ;-) go grab them before they're gone
ID: 6968 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile bjacke
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 39
Credit: 4,910
RAC: 0
Message 6969 - Posted: 12 Apr 2005, 9:17:57 UTC

actually downloading, thx :)
ID: 6969 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile sysfried

Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 04
Posts: 282
Credit: 1,415,417
RAC: 0
Message 6970 - Posted: 12 Apr 2005, 10:46:16 UTC - in response to Message 6968.  

> With workunits! ;-) go grab them before they're gone
>
they're gone now! ;-)
ID: 6970 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Thierry Van Driessche
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 157
Credit: 82,604
RAC: 0
Message 6971 - Posted: 12 Apr 2005, 11:04:04 UTC
Last modified: 12 Apr 2005, 11:04:47 UTC

First time I notice this: the report deadline is 14 days minus 2 hours 40 minutes.
Was this not 14 days round?

I have 8 WU's that have been downloaded at 10:53:39 UTC, which is the correct time, but the deadline is stated on the website as 8:13:39 UTC for all of them.

The reported deadline in Boinc Manager, v4.30, is stated as the same time as on the website.
ID: 6971 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
4l4r1

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 1
Credit: 1,321,527
RAC: 0
Message 6972 - Posted: 12 Apr 2005, 11:24:25 UTC - in response to Message 6971.  

> First time I notice this: the report deadline is 14 days minus 2 hours 40
> minutes.
> Was this not 14 days round?
>

Little calculation:
1209600 seconds rounded to 1200000!
ID: 6972 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Thierry Van Driessche
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 157
Credit: 82,604
RAC: 0
Message 6973 - Posted: 12 Apr 2005, 11:34:24 UTC - in response to Message 6972.  
Last modified: 12 Apr 2005, 11:34:58 UTC

> Little calculation:
> 1209600 seconds rounded to 1200000!

Don' know if this could be the answer alariz.

At S@H the deadline is exactly 14 days and at E@H it is exactly 7 days.
ID: 6973 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile littleBouncer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 04
Posts: 358
Credit: 1,439,205
RAC: 0
Message 6974 - Posted: 12 Apr 2005, 15:40:46 UTC
Last modified: 12 Apr 2005, 15:52:25 UTC

Why there is a difference in use of memory from the same application 4.67?

See the picture bellow the sixtrack 4.67 once at 51'572 KB and once at 12'072 KB:



I ask this because the second one I crunch now the 3th. time on the same host, once with 4.66 at alpha success, once here with 4.64 failed with 0 CPU-time, and now with 4.67: it hasn't finished yet. But I noticed this difference in using the memory.

greetz littleBouncer

ID: 6974 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile The Gas Giant

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 309
Credit: 715,258
RAC: 0
Message 6977 - Posted: 12 Apr 2005, 19:09:27 UTC
Last modified: 12 Apr 2005, 19:09:47 UTC

On my HT machine 4.67 is using 46,712kB and 46,732kB.
ID: 6977 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Thierry Van Driessche
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 157
Credit: 82,604
RAC: 0
Message 6978 - Posted: 12 Apr 2005, 20:00:45 UTC - in response to Message 6974.  
Last modified: 12 Apr 2005, 20:02:17 UTC

> Why there is a difference in use of memory from the same application 4.67?
>
> See the picture bellow the sixtrack 4.67 once at 51'572 KB and once at 12'072
> KB:
> I ask this because the second one I crunch now the 3th. time on the same host,
> once with 4.66 at alpha success, once here with 4.64 failed with 0 CPU-time,
> and now with 4.67: it hasn't finished yet. But I noticed this difference in
> using the memory.

Hello littleBouncer,

this had to do with the use of the graphics or screensaver AFAIK. Once one of them has been used, the used RAM drops down to some 10.9xxkB on my host but the peak consumption is shown as some 45.9xxkB in the taskmanager.

sixtrack v4.67
ID: 6978 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile littleBouncer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 04
Posts: 358
Credit: 1,439,205
RAC: 0
Message 6979 - Posted: 12 Apr 2005, 21:53:23 UTC - in response to Message 6978.  
Last modified: 12 Apr 2005, 21:55:01 UTC

> Hello littleBouncer,
>
> this had to do with the use of the graphics or screensaver AFAIK. Once one of
> them has been used, the used RAM drops down to some 10.9xxkB on my host but
> the peak consumption is shown as some 45.9xxkB in the taskmanager.
>
> sixtrack v4.67
>
>
THX Thierry
I didn't think at that(/this) .
( I'm not using the scrennsaver, but from time to time 'show graphic'. I saw it before and when 4.64 WU's began to exit with 0 CPU-time. That's why I was a little upset; first to see the same WU which previously failed, and second with this difference... Meanwhile this WU has finished with success (with 4.67).)

greetz littleBouncer
ID: 6979 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile bluumi

Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 04
Posts: 13
Credit: 155,619
RAC: 0
Message 6980 - Posted: 12 Apr 2005, 23:09:39 UTC - in response to Message 6979.  

>Meanwhile this WU has finished with success (with 4.67).)

how can i re-run a 4.64 wu with 4.67 ?
ID: 6980 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Alex

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 378
Credit: 10,765
RAC: 0
Message 6983 - Posted: 13 Apr 2005, 5:17:14 UTC
Last modified: 13 Apr 2005, 5:18:32 UTC

I noticed that my name is moving about the top of the screensaver.

Is this new? Or because i pressed a key, like F7?


I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here.
ID: 6983 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile littleBouncer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 04
Posts: 358
Credit: 1,439,205
RAC: 0
Message 6984 - Posted: 13 Apr 2005, 5:41:25 UTC - in response to Message 6980.  

> >Meanwhile this WU has finished with success (with 4.67).)
>
> how can i re-run a 4.64 wu with 4.67 ?
>
You can do nothing .
That is by send out the work from LHC; the last times they were always the same, first with 4.63, then 4.64 ....

I noticed that first by the graphic. I was wondering me , that I see to often the same 'beginn' (on 'show graphic'). Then I discovered that every Simulation has at least 8 different (how Chrulle discribed) amplitude (s4_ - s18_).

For example:
v64boince6ib1-1s6_8660_1_sixvf_92_1 with 4.66 success on Alpha
v64boince6ib1-19s6_8660_1_sixvf_812_0 with 4.64 failed
v64boince6ib1-3s6_8660_1_sixvf_2542_2 with 4.67 success

This is one, and the same WU was crunched with different executables on the same host the past week.

greetz littleBouncer
ID: 6984 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile bluumi

Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 04
Posts: 13
Credit: 155,619
RAC: 0
Message 6985 - Posted: 13 Apr 2005, 6:25:56 UTC - in response to Message 6984.  
Last modified: 13 Apr 2005, 6:30:20 UTC

> For example:
> v64boince6ib1-1s6_8660_1_sixvf_92_1 with 4.66 success on Alpha
> v64boince6ib1-19s6_8660_1_sixvf_812_0 with 4.64 failed
> v64boince6ib1-3s6_8660_1_sixvf_2542_2 with 4.67 success
>
Jä so meinsch Du das...
Oki, Now i understand, you don't meen the sam WU, you meen the same Units, but with different WorkParameters, and send from LHC self :-)
I only ask, because i had cancel many 4.64 Units via textedito (Client 4.19).
And i woundering there is a way to "save the unit" and edit the current_state.xml so that the unit is a 4.66 oder 4.67 Unit..

[workunit]
[name]v64boince6ib1b-29s8_10615_1_sixvf_28345[/name]
[app_name]sixtrack[/app_name]
[version_num>466[/version_num]
....
....
[/workunit]


I ask because the version line ... :-)

No, i never edit this, i don't cheat..
i only was woundering its possible and want ask, if so.. :-)


ID: 6985 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile littleBouncer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 04
Posts: 358
Credit: 1,439,205
RAC: 0
Message 6987 - Posted: 13 Apr 2005, 8:07:12 UTC - in response to Message 6985.  
Last modified: 13 Apr 2005, 8:28:57 UTC

> > For example:
> > v64boince6ib1-1s6_8660_1_sixvf_92_1 with 4.66 success on Alpha
> > v64boince6ib1-19s6_8660_1_sixvf_812_0 with 4.64 failed
> > v64boince6ib1-3s6_8660_1_sixvf_2542_2 with 4.67 success
> you meen the same Units, but
> with different WorkParameters, and send from LHC self :-)
-----
@ bluumi
Just to clearify:
This example same Unit with the same parameters (s6_8660_1) but with different executables (sixtrack_4.6x_windows_intelx86).
The other numbers are to catalog the unit (which run, which result, which place on sendout etc..)

schöns tägly no
greetz littleBouncer

I will look into the results-table from 'boinclogx' to compare the times, and will make some notes here ( if I get in 60 minutes, then I update this post).
[update]
4.67 : 11:18:49
4.64 : 00:00:00 (date: 4.10.05)
4.66 : 10:59:21

I noted that I crunched the '0-one' on 3.28.05 with 4.64 and success, maybe that's why it failed the second time?!

4.64 : 11:13:05 (date: 3.28.05)
[/update]
ID: 6987 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Astro

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 69
Credit: 26,714
RAC: 0
Message 6988 - Posted: 13 Apr 2005, 12:24:37 UTC

Why me,,,,oh, why me.

on the 9th, four days ago, I finally got to download some WUs (8). Like normal I didn't watch them, and just let them do there things. three days later (yesterday) I notice I still have 8 of them. 7 ready to run and one running. These were Boinc 4.64 units on boinc 4.27. The one that was running was only at 02:26:15 CPU time. I kept an eye on it and It'd reset to zero each time it restarted. I have my switch between projects set to 120 min. I ended up Aborting them all.

Yesterday I downloaded eight more WUs, this time they are 4.67. I've been sort of watching them yesterday. This morning 0642 EST I noticed the first one had 02:27:03 CPU time and 12:01:33 to completion. I "Suspended" all other projects in Boinc CC 4.30. It's now 8:22 am EST (1 hr 40 min elapsed) and the CPU time says "02:28:42" and the "to comp" says 11:56:54.

The other projects crunch just fine.

What's going on?????? Is the clock "Days/hours/Min", instead of the regular?

tony
Formerly
mmciastro. Name and avatar changed for a change

The New Online Helpsytem help is just a call away.
ID: 6988 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile cyclistgb

Send message
Joined: 22 Oct 04
Posts: 6
Credit: 3,413,714
RAC: 0
Message 6989 - Posted: 13 Apr 2005, 12:42:22 UTC

From the looks of it, sixtrack does not do any periodic saves. Therefore whenever you unload the application from memory, all the work done is "forgotten".

The other BOINC applications, at least the other 3 I subscribe to, are doing periodic saves. There is some loss of work, but at least itr is not 1 or 2 hours but just a matter of minutes.

Hopefully, the save feature will be added to the application in the very near future.
[img src="http://www.boincstats.com/signature/user_10138.gif"]
ID: 6989 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Astro

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 69
Credit: 26,714
RAC: 0
Message 6990 - Posted: 13 Apr 2005, 12:50:44 UTC - in response to Message 6989.  
Last modified: 13 Apr 2005, 12:55:44 UTC

> From the looks of it, sixtrack does not do any periodic saves. Therefore
> whenever you unload the application from memory, all the work done is
> "forgotten".
so basically, we can either run Lhc all by itself or NOT run Lhc at all. Why are they even a Boinc project if they don't want to share with others (cpu time).

sorry, I know they're working on it, sometimes it gets so frustrating. Wanting to help a project, but not being able to.

This still doesn't account for the 1 hour and 40 min of run time being displayed as 1 minute and change. Now CPU time is up to 02:28:58. it's advanced 16 seconds in the last 25 minutes. This specific WU is Vboince6ib1-15s4-6645-1 6vf-2803_2

thanks for your reply
ID: 6990 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Ben Segal
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 134
Credit: 2,579
RAC: 0
Message 6991 - Posted: 13 Apr 2005, 14:14:04 UTC

Let's just clarify this point again: Sixtrack DOES do checkpointing ("periodic saves") and always has done, BUT there was a bug in version 4.64 which made this unreliable, leading to the bad effects you are describing.

Later Sixtrack versions (4.65, 4.66, 4.67 ... ) have corrected this checkpointing bug.

Users should stop using 4.64 as soon as possible. (You may have to reset your BOINC client to trigger the update of your Sixtrack version).

Ben Segal / LHC@home
ID: 6991 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Aurora Borealis

Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 04
Posts: 59
Credit: 317,857
RAC: 0
Message 6992 - Posted: 13 Apr 2005, 15:19:39 UTC - in response to Message 6991.  

> Let's just clarify this point again: Sixtrack DOES do checkpointing ("periodic
> saves") and always has done, BUT there was a bug in version 4.64 which made
> this unreliable, leading to the bad effects you are describing.
>
> Later Sixtrack versions (4.65, 4.66, 4.67 ... ) have corrected this
> checkpointing bug.
>
> Users should stop using 4.64 as soon as possible. (You may have to reset your
> BOINC client to trigger the update of your Sixtrack version).
>
> Ben Segal / LHC@home
>
No need to reset the project. Install Boinc V4.2x and you can kill individual work unit.

Questions? Answers are in the BOINC Wiki.

Boinc V6.10.56 Recommended
WinXP C2D 2.1G 3GB
ID: 6992 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Sixtrack 4.67 available


©2023 CERN