Message boards :
Number crunching :
Time to Completion
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 18 Sep 04 Posts: 35 Credit: 250,303 RAC: 0 |
Time to completion is being over estimated by almost a factor of 3 on all my crunchers. Is this a deliberate effort to "spread" the work amongst the users or an error? <img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/teambanner.php?teamname=GasBuddy"> <img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=84c0cf7846cbf28338406e54b3eb8a83"> |
Send message Joined: 27 Sep 04 Posts: 282 Credit: 1,415,417 RAC: 0 |
> Time to completion is being over estimated by almost a factor of 3 on all my > crunchers. > > Is this a deliberate effort to "spread" the work amongst the users or an > error? > > I can confirm this... time estimated... 10 hours... but WU's finish in aprox. 3 h sysfried |
Send message Joined: 23 Oct 04 Posts: 358 Credit: 1,439,205 RAC: 0 |
Same here; but I think it has to do with this quotes from the frontpage at 20.5.2005 12:39 UTC and 31.5.2005 10:12 UTC : Some new scripts have been developed which hopefully should increase the speed and ease of use of the job submission. and greetz littleBouncer |
Send message Joined: 1 Sep 04 Posts: 157 Credit: 82,604 RAC: 0 |
> I can confirm this... time estimated... 10 hours... but WU's finish in aprox. > 3 h Running Boinc v4.44 with HT CPU 2.4@2.88 estimated CPU time 13:05 crunched in some 4:50 |
Send message Joined: 24 Oct 04 Posts: 79 Credit: 257,762 RAC: 0 |
It seems as I watch this phenomena on different runs as they have a formula for 100k runs and 1 for 1m runs that is calculated with your hosts benchmarks give you a consistent time to completion no matter what the parameters of a particular test ie: the time to completion calculated by boinc and lhc always come up about the same time on all my hosts but the REAL time changes dramatically mostly less but on occasion more and a few runs were almost spot on. Just an observation |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 309 Credit: 715,258 RAC: 0 |
Why is it that the projects find it so hard to estimate the completion time like they do. Currently the projects I attach to on my laptop have the following; LHC Estimates 15hr15min Actual 4hr54min PP@h Estimates 2hr32min Actual 1hr10min S@h Estimates 6hr30min Actual 4hrs My laptop doesn't get to attach to a network from 5pm Friday to 9am Monday and with the current wu schedular (V4.44) and estimated completion times I can't get sufficient work to last the weekend. Hopefully LHC can do a little better with the next release of wu's. Come on folks, with the combined brainpower of the couple of physicists doing this project, surely this estimation can be better done (yes I know it's a function of the benchmarks, but it is something that can be played with on the project side as well). Live long and crunch! Paul (S@H1 8888) BOINC/SAH BETA |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 352 Credit: 1,393,150 RAC: 0 |
Why is it that the projects find it so hard to estimate the completion time like they do. ========== Sometimes the Project itself over estimates the time it will take to complete the WU's in an effort to slow down the amount of WU's 1 Host can download at one time ... But I don't know if this is the case with the latest LHC WU's or not, I know I can remember some time ago over at the Seti Site they purposefully added time to the WU's to slow down the downloads ... |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 309 Credit: 715,258 RAC: 0 |
> Sometimes the Project itself over estimates the time it will take to complete > the WU's in an effort to slow down the amount of WU's 1 Host can download at > one time ... > > But I don't know if this is the case with the latest LHC WU's or not, I know I > can remember some time ago over at the Seti Site they purposefully added time > to the WU's to slow down the downloads ... > Thanks PoorBoy, but the projects now have the maximum wu's per day setting, so overestimating the completion time is now redundant.....next! |
Send message Joined: 3 Sep 04 Posts: 212 Credit: 4,545 RAC: 0 |
I think the core clients computes the estimated computation directly from the "maximum number of integer/fp operations" value of workunit and benchmarked FLOPS/IOPS values of the host machine. The maximum operation count is very rough worst-case estimate. But if we find time to do some statistics to find correct values, maybe we will change them... Markku Degerholm LHC@home admin |
Send message Joined: 18 Sep 04 Posts: 143 Credit: 27,645 RAC: 0 |
It's completely out of whack here. ;) 08/06/2005 00:15:49|LHC@home|Requesting 4.00 seconds of work 08/06/2005 00:15:51|LHC@home|Started download of wboinc7_v6s4hvnom__1__64.294_59.304__14_16__6__18_1_sixvf_boinc9645.zip 08/06/2005 00:15:52|LHC@home|Finished download of wboinc7_v6s4hvnom__1__64.294_59.304__14_16__6__18_1_sixvf_boinc9645.zip 08/06/2005 00:15:52|LHC@home|Throughput 60788 bytes/sec I am getting another 4 hour unit. (It's claiming 14 hours at the start, but they run in 4 hours). Jord BOINC FAQ Service |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 309 Credit: 715,258 RAC: 0 |
> I think the core clients computes the estimated computation directly from the > "maximum number of integer/fp operations" value of workunit and benchmarked > FLOPS/IOPS values of the host machine. The maximum operation count is very > rough worst-case estimate. But if we find time to do some statistics to find > correct values, maybe we will change them... > Markku, Even if you can have a quick look to try and reduce the estimated completion time to half of the current values it would go along way to overcoming the problem. Unless I'm mistaken, estimated wu completion times are more than double all platforms actual completion times. Live long and crunch! Paul. |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 545 Credit: 148,912 RAC: 0 |
I guess I am lucky, I get estimates from 11 to 13 hours. It looks like I get them done in about 4 too ... but these estimates are not that bad ... |
Send message Joined: 27 Sep 04 Posts: 282 Credit: 1,415,417 RAC: 0 |
> I guess I am lucky, I get estimates from 11 to 13 hours. It looks like I get > them done in about 4 too ... but these estimates are not that bad ... > my opteron does them in somewhat 2:40 h while estimates are 9:18 h |
©2024 CERN