Message boards : Number crunching : information should not be that difficult
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
bass4lhc

Send message
Joined: 28 Sep 04
Posts: 43
Credit: 249,962
RAC: 0
Message 9743 - Posted: 31 Aug 2005, 2:21:12 UTC

we are not getting work. while it is obviously there.

lowerring the network connection helps sometimes. why?

you have your own set of boinc rules?
maybe then you could make this public?


ID: 9743 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Angus

Send message
Joined: 3 Oct 04
Posts: 19
Credit: 46,312
RAC: 0
Message 9744 - Posted: 31 Aug 2005, 5:08:17 UTC - in response to Message 9743.  
Last modified: 31 Aug 2005, 5:08:40 UTC

<blockquote>we are not getting work. while it is obviously there.

lowerring the network connection helps sometimes. why?

you have your own set of boinc rules?
maybe then you could make this public?

</blockquote>

For some reason, they have gone to an insanely short deadline.

People complained bitterly at Einstein because of this....

I know I would never stay at Einstein with the short deadlines, because I want a large cache - more than a couple of days.

I have now done a project reset on all my boxes running LHC. You all can have the WUs in 5 days or so to crunch.

Good Luck.


ID: 9744 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Gaspode the UnDressed

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 506
Credit: 118,619
RAC: 0
Message 9745 - Posted: 31 Aug 2005, 7:24:41 UTC
Last modified: 31 Aug 2005, 7:24:51 UTC

The news about the deadline estimator was posted by Chrulle in the this forum on 4th August - perhaps not the best place since it is now buried in a long thread.

Basically, to reduce the overall time taken by individual studies Chrulle implemented some scripts to look at the database and optimise the deadline for fastest return. The result is a reduction in deadline from fourteen days to eight, and now to five.

I'm sure LHC know what they want to achieve, but I'm finding it awkward to meet the deadlines comfortably, and our friend Angus has quit already. Einstein moved from seven days to fourteen for this reason.

Issuing each unit five times for a quorum of three seems excessive. Reducing the number of issued units from five to four would increase available computing power by 20% and speed up returns accordingly. I wonder why they haven't done this...


Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk
ID: 9745 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Antjest

Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 04
Posts: 21
Credit: 1,442,034
RAC: 0
Message 9747 - Posted: 31 Aug 2005, 8:27:38 UTC - in response to Message 9744.  

<blockquote>
For some reason, they have gone to an insanely short deadline.

People complained bitterly at Einstein because of this....

I know I would never stay at Einstein with the short deadlines, because I want a large cache - more than a couple of days.

</blockquote>

This are perfect example of statements made by WU collectors.

I don't understand why you need so many results on your puter when they are stored on server. And when they run dry on one project the others will get more attention. That is why BOINC was made.

And for those who want to squeze a little more credit when everyone run dry.
I get a lot of spam about different enlargements. Perhaps you should try one to boost your ego. Boinc credit obviously can't do the job anymore.

Tony
ID: 9747 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Antjest

Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 04
Posts: 21
Credit: 1,442,034
RAC: 0
Message 9750 - Posted: 31 Aug 2005, 8:38:34 UTC - in response to Message 9745.  

<blockquote>

Issuing each unit five times for a quorum of three seems excessive. Reducing the number of issued units from five to four would increase available computing power by 20% and speed up returns accordingly. I wonder why they haven't done this...

</blockquote>

I agree with this one.
And with five days deadline it can be send out quick enough to additional client if needed.
Reducing quorum to two might do the trick as well as results in LHC must be exactly the same.

I believe this is the next step in achieving higher throughput rate at LHC.

Tony
ID: 9750 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Angus

Send message
Joined: 3 Oct 04
Posts: 19
Credit: 46,312
RAC: 0
Message 9759 - Posted: 31 Aug 2005, 14:13:06 UTC - in response to Message 9747.  
Last modified: 31 Aug 2005, 14:36:11 UTC

<blockquote><blockquote>
For some reason, they have gone to an insanely short deadline.

People complained bitterly at Einstein because of this....

I know I would never stay at Einstein with the short deadlines, because I want a large cache - more than a couple of days.

</blockquote>

This are perfect example of statements made by WU collectors.

I don't understand why you need so many results on your puter when they are stored on server. And when they run dry on one project the others will get more attention. That is why BOINC was made.

Tony</blockquote>

I take offense at your characterizing me as a "WU Collector" for simply wanting to have an adequate cache of work on hand to weather outages, whether they are due to lack of WU, or some other problem like web sites down, databases down, connectivity problems, etc.

I don't buy into the statement that BOINC is designed so you can run other projects when one is dry. It is merely a crutch for projects who want to play in the big leagues of DC, but can't generate enough work to satisfy demand. I will agree that it was designed as a platform that projects could utilize without creating their own from the ground up, and that it makes it possible (but NOT MANDATORY)to run multiple projects.

I pick the projects I want to run, and the fact that it's under the BOINC umbrella is immmaterial to me. I don't need BOINC deciding where my cycles go.

If one project's deadlines are out-of-whack with the others it causes issues with all the projects that you might be attached to, running BOINC into EDF mode immediately, then the LTD dance begins...
ID: 9759 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
klasm

Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 05
Posts: 31
Credit: 2,909
RAC: 0
Message 9762 - Posted: 31 Aug 2005, 14:42:43 UTC

One of the good things, for the science of the project, with send a WU to five persons while requiring three for quorum is that it reduces the risk som WU getting stuck with either someone grabbing too many WU, or just someone who for random reasons weren't able to connect and upload their results.

As has been said before, most of the WUs are done nicely and quickly and a small number of WUs take a lot longer. Where the optimal balance here in terms of project completion time is of course something the project administrators will have to experiment with to find out.

As usual the optimal thing for the science part of the project is that everyone keeps their caches as small as possible and connects often instead. Even though this might not optimal for those who want to collect credit it can be better for the project to have someone without work while others keep on working.

One can also not assume that one should be able to run just any combination of projects with the hardware and connection one has. The projects behave differently due to their different scientific needs, and not all combinations are good.
ID: 9762 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile FZB

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 23
Credit: 6,855,133
RAC: 448
Message 9763 - Posted: 31 Aug 2005, 14:46:56 UTC - in response to Message 9759.  

<blockquote>
I don't buy into the statement that BOINC is designed so you can run other projects when one is dry. It is merely a crutch for projects who want to play in the big leagues of DC, but can't generate enough work to satisfy demand.</blockquote>

i don't want to be offensive here but basicly the projects run to statisfy sientific needs, not to statisfy users "wu demand".
beside, one design decision on boinc really was to let other projects jump in when one dries up.
"adequate" is a rather relative word... while some people thínk having at least 2 weeks of work in their queue is the least to feel safe, it have turned out in real life that it is a hassle for some of the projects (db groth and so on), so if this projects have identified that to be a issue for their sience, it is their decision (and one that they have the right to do) to tune their deadline mechanisms.
to your point boinc deciding where your cycles go: you set your preferences, mechanisms like LTD make sure they are met, cannot really follow you there
ID: 9763 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
J D K

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 05
Posts: 50
Credit: 24,055
RAC: 0
Message 9764 - Posted: 31 Aug 2005, 15:23:24 UTC

I will take it to the next level ""not to satisfy users "wu demand"",which is whiny users who will not play the game according to the rules.
ID: 9764 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] thierry@home

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 26
Credit: 27,752
RAC: 0
Message 9781 - Posted: 31 Aug 2005, 19:58:48 UTC

Can somebody explain what is an '...adequate cache of work...'? Adequate to what? What is the interest to have 10 WUs in stock if a project is down for a week. Until now I thought we offer a service. This is less ans less the case, I think.
The only important thing with the deadlines is to be able to run several project at a time.
I have set my cach on 0.1 day. And I crunch Wu after WU. If a project is down, it raises the percentage allowed to other project. Automatically. I never have a problem.
Some people will say that everybody is free to choose the way he wants to work. Yes but in the project limits. Don't forget we offer a service. The goal is not to control the projects. Not for me at least :-p
ID: 9781 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Angus

Send message
Joined: 3 Oct 04
Posts: 19
Credit: 46,312
RAC: 0
Message 9783 - Posted: 31 Aug 2005, 21:04:11 UTC - in response to Message 9781.  

<blockquote>Can somebody explain what is an '...adequate cache of work...'? Adequate to what? What is the interest to have 10 WUs in stock if a project is down for a week. Until now I thought we offer a service. This is less ans less the case, I think.
The only important thing with the deadlines is to be able to run several project at a time.
I have set my cach on 0.1 day. And I crunch Wu after WU. If a project is down, it raises the percentage allowed to other project. Automatically. I never have a problem.
Some people will say that everybody is free to choose the way he wants to work. Yes but in the project limits. Don't forget we offer a service. The goal is not to control the projects. Not for me at least :-p </blockquote>

Well, my stated goal since DC was a baby is to gain as many points as possible in whatever project I choose, to advance my standing and my team's standing.

I'm not hiding that behind any phony talk about the 'science'. It's pure STATS.

If that offends you, too bad.

ID: 9783 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] thierry@home

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 26
Credit: 27,752
RAC: 0
Message 9784 - Posted: 31 Aug 2005, 21:16:04 UTC
Last modified: 31 Aug 2005, 21:17:45 UTC

I'm not offended, I'm boring with those recurrent moanings. If you want to become famous, go do something in the show business.


ID: 9784 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile FZB

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 23
Credit: 6,855,133
RAC: 448
Message 9786 - Posted: 31 Aug 2005, 21:38:06 UTC - in response to Message 9783.  

<blockquote>
Well, my stated goal since DC was a baby is to gain as many points as possible in whatever project I choose, to advance my standing and my team's standing.
I'm not hiding that behind any phony talk about the 'science'. It's pure STATS.
</blockquote>

From what i read, your best bet would be joining climaprediction then, almost always work there and you barely need to look if you run out of work + as they give a fixed amount of credits per trickle, you have a credit advantage too from what i've heard... (have never calculated it as i am not too worried about credits, sure nice to see them grow but in the end you cannot buy anythin from it IMO)
as thierry points out, many people are just tiered ot always see those complainers (amazingly it are few, but those are on all forums, i was not too surprised to see the users complaining at hte predictor forum are the same as on the other projects forum). in the end, if people are unhappy with a project, they are free to leave...
ID: 9786 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Gaspode the UnDressed

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 506
Credit: 118,619
RAC: 0
Message 9788 - Posted: 31 Aug 2005, 22:01:38 UTC - in response to Message 9783.  

>>I'm not hiding that behind any phony talk about the 'science'. It's pure STATS.

If this is the really the case then it doesn't matter which project you run. Why get so upset about LHC?



Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk
ID: 9788 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
STE\/E

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 352
Credit: 1,393,150
RAC: 0
Message 9789 - Posted: 31 Aug 2005, 22:47:25 UTC
Last modified: 31 Aug 2005, 22:52:27 UTC

you have a credit advantage too from what i've heard...have never calculated it as i am not too worried about credits
==========

Most definitely you get more Credit at the CPDN Site for the amount of work you do & time spent doing it. I've run all the Projects at one time or another & when I do I usually throw all my Computers at it 100% of the time and run the Project 24/7 for at least 1 month or more to get an idea what kind of Credit they give out. Heres what I came up with by doing that for me anyway & with the amount of Computers I have ...

These are a Per Day average Credit Amount ...

1. Seti = 4400-4500
2. CPDN = 3900-4000
3. All the rest of the Projects are about in the same group ... LHC-Predictor-Einstein-Sztaki-Message all are about 2200-2500 range ...
4. BURP I don't know about because I haven't really run it enough & they haven't released enough work to do to get a true average ...

All though I like my Credit as much as the next guy it isn't an end all for me as you can see by my Signature I've gave all the Projects considerable Processing time. Right now I'm running SZTAKI & Message@Home & plan to for the foreseeable future because they both have 4 day deadlines so they don't conflict to much with each other if I give them both the same amount of Resource Share ... :)


ID: 9789 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bass4lhc

Send message
Joined: 28 Sep 04
Posts: 43
Credit: 249,962
RAC: 0
Message 9791 - Posted: 1 Sep 2005, 2:00:12 UTC - in response to Message 9743.  

<blockquote>we are not getting work. while it is obviously there.

lowerring the network connection helps sometimes. why?

you have your own set of boinc rules?
maybe then you could make this public?

</blockquote>

my question was simple. there is work, i just am not getting any. why?

a lower my cache size or a lower network connection time makes not any difference.

is it so difficult to put on the home page how to get work? i think not.

information is not difficult. just put in the effort for your donators.
ID: 9791 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile JigPu

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 26
Credit: 600,998
RAC: 0
Message 9798 - Posted: 1 Sep 2005, 5:18:10 UTC - in response to Message 9759.  

<blockquote>I don't buy into the statement that BOINC is designed so you can run other projects when one is dry. It is merely a crutch for projects who want to play in the big leagues of DC, but can't generate enough work to satisfy demand. I will agree that it was designed as a platform that projects could utilize without creating their own from the ground up, and that it makes it possible (but NOT MANDATORY)to run multiple projects.</blockquote>
You might bot buy into that, but it's the truth. In a recent interview David Anderson himself pointed out that for BOINC, "High availability is not a goal." BOINC was designed to be a framework to allow people to participate in multiple projects simultanously. It was never designed with running only a single project in mind (and so, sucks rather royally when attempting to do so).

If you're in BOINC just for the stats (I admit that stats are a large portion of why I run BOINC as well, and totaly understand why a large cache is good for that :D), then why not run multiple projects? I understand that there are a few teams out there who like to focus on a single project, though you can always create a team for other projects if one doesn't already exist.

Having long deadlines (and thus large queues) is a nice thing to have. But given how BOINC can honor resource share in the face of some pretty outstanding circumstances, I'm OK with a project with short deadlines. It's not exactly fun to see BOINC always in earliest-deadline-first mode, but if I ignore it everything always works out in the end, with each project getting their bit of my defined resource share.

Puffy
ID: 9798 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile JigPu

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 26
Credit: 600,998
RAC: 0
Message 9800 - Posted: 1 Sep 2005, 5:57:57 UTC - in response to Message 9791.  

<blockquote><blockquote>we are not getting work. while it is obviously there.

lowerring the network connection helps sometimes. why?

you have your own set of boinc rules?
maybe then you could make this public?

</blockquote>

my question was simple. there is work, i just am not getting any. why?

a lower my cache size or a lower network connection time makes not any difference.

is it so difficult to put on the home page how to get work? i think not.

information is not difficult. just put in the effort for your donators.</blockquote>
I would check to make sure that your LTD (Long Term Debt) for LHC isn't negative, and that there aren't any error messages popping up in the messages pane. Also, have you tried clicking the "Update" button to manually request more work from LHC?

Puffy
ID: 9800 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile littleBouncer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 04
Posts: 358
Credit: 1,439,205
RAC: 0
Message 9811 - Posted: 1 Sep 2005, 10:45:47 UTC - in response to Message 9791.  
Last modified: 1 Sep 2005, 10:46:52 UTC

wrong place posted.-Sorry
greetz littleBouncer

ID: 9811 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Paul D. Buck

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 545
Credit: 148,912
RAC: 0
Message 9818 - Posted: 1 Sep 2005, 14:38:09 UTC - in response to Message 9786.  

<blockquote>(have never calculated it as i am not too worried about credits, sure nice to see them grow but in the end you cannot buy anythin from it IMO)</blockquote>
For what it is worth, I have calculated it. And CPDN does give most credit per second of CPU Time. Unfortunately, I have not yet calculated the credit peer second of CPU Time with an optimized SETI@Home Science Application. But, that is another way to improve your score (at least for the moment).

If you look at my history for the last month or so, you can see that my SETI@Home standing is fast approaching 1000th place. Prior to using the optimized applications I was falling in place and was up to 1060 I think.

With CPDN, you have the normal trickles being granted credit. Then, when the model is completed and returned, you get a "completion bonus" as it were ...
ID: 9818 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : information should not be that difficult


©2022 CERN