Message boards :
Number crunching :
scheduler hickup?
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 27 Sep 04 Posts: 282 Credit: 1,415,417 RAC: 0 |
If I remember correctly, the scheduler should send out work again when there not enough results in time.... right? Look here. There are only 2 valid results. The other ones have timed out. But no new WU's have been sent out. Is that the delay we were talking about a few days ago, Markku? On the other hand.... Same date sent... same number of valid results... It did send out new work here cheers, Sysfried |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 352 Credit: 1,393,150 RAC: 0 |
But no new WU's have been sent out. ========== I've been fortunate enough to receive a few WU's the last few days dated due the 29'th & 30'th, so they have been sending out the over due ones it seems to me ... ;) |
Send message Joined: 30 Sep 04 Posts: 112 Credit: 104,059 RAC: 0 |
> But no new WU's have been sent out. > ========== > > I've been fortunate enough to receive a few WU's the last few days dated due > the 29'th & 30'th, so they have been sending out the over due ones it > seems to me ... ;) > <I>We are currently finishing "tail" of current study, that is, resubmitting work until every workunit has been processed. After that there will be a short break (week or so) and then about one million new workunits (which makes about five million results) will be submitted. Markku Degerholm LHC@home admin</I> said here |
Send message Joined: 29 Sep 04 Posts: 196 Credit: 207,040 RAC: 0 |
@Logan5 What is it with people not reading the forums before not posting? I share in your apathy when posts like this happen. You've quoted this at least two times now on different threads and yet people still don't take the time to READ.. RTF-Message Board, folks.. :( |
Send message Joined: 27 Sep 04 Posts: 282 Credit: 1,415,417 RAC: 0 |
> What is it with people not reading the forums before not posting? I share in > your apathy when posts like this happen. You've quoted this at least two > times now on different threads and yet people still don't take the time to > READ.. RTF-Message Board, folks.. :( > @ Logan 5 & Travis DJ. What's the flaming about? As Markku said "resubmitting work until every workunit has been processed." Which I understand as: We will keep the server resubmitting units until we have the valid results.... BUT my original post pointed to a WU which at THAT point had NOT been re-submitted. A quick look at what I originally posted would have shown that. I want to end this thread, because the WU has been send out again later today. So the issue is no longer existing. Sincerely, Sysfried |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 309 Credit: 715,258 RAC: 0 |
I agree with Sysfried, at the time of the original post the wu had not been resent, but within a few hrs it had. No need to knock someone for posting what, at the time, looked like a valid beef! It is good to see that the wu was resent and now has granted credit. Live long and crunch! Paul (S@H1 8888) BOINC/SAH BETA |
Send message Joined: 30 Sep 04 Posts: 112 Credit: 104,059 RAC: 0 |
> > > @ Logan 5 & Travis DJ. > > What's the flaming about? > I can only speak for myself, but <B><I>I flamed no one</B></I>. I thought you had missed the post. Nothing more or less then that. Why are you so quick to jump to a wrong conclusion? I guess with all the strong differences of opinion that are being offered about the direction these forums "might/should/should not" be heading, I guess that tempers are a bit short for some?? Who knows. There was no offense meant. :/ |
Send message Joined: 29 Sep 04 Posts: 196 Credit: 207,040 RAC: 0 |
Ditto. |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 309 Credit: 715,258 RAC: 0 |
Travis DJ wrote: ----------------------- @Logan5 What is it with people not reading the forums before not posting? I share in your apathy when posts like this happen. You've quoted this at least two times now on different threads and yet people still don't take the time to READ.. RTF-Message Board, folks.. :( ----------------------- Depending on how you read it, it reads fairly inflammatory to me.......especially the RTF....definitely not needed. Paul. |
Send message Joined: 27 Sep 04 Posts: 282 Credit: 1,415,417 RAC: 0 |
> > There was no offense meant. > > :/ > Ok. None taken. :-) Let's end this thread right here. :-) |
©2024 CERN