Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 11 · Next

AuthorMessage
YeshuaAgapao

Send message
Joined: 29 Nov 05
Posts: 9
Credit: 1,266,935
RAC: 0
Message 13982 - Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 19:00:29 UTC - in response to Message 13728.  
Last modified: 14 Jun 2006, 19:06:10 UTC

I not only had 2 days of work left when LHC ran out of work, I also suspend all other projects on all machines in the duration that LHC has work to offer, then turned them back on when it ran dry, so it takes mee 4-5 days to clear the cached WUs out.

The INCA computer (the 3.4ghz with 2GB RAM) is not always connected so that one has the worst lagtime on WU-return. That machine i grub it all up from all projects (I only connect it regularly when LHC has work) and wait until 1 day before the shortest deadline to connect it again. Thats why that machine has the most CPDN and CPDN-Seasonal credits. INCA is 10-days on all projects (home profile). The other 2 machines are work profile (1-day cache) on all projects but home for LHC for expert scarce-WU pigging. The 1.7GHZ machine is my file sharing (Emule) machine and it keeps the Verizon Wireless CellPhone Modem (I'm 99.999% bandwidth hog on VZW using 30-60GB per month on a traffic-shaped 14Kup/14down low prio - 5-7K daytime - bandwidth) . The 1GB 3.4MHZ is me using BOINC at work.

If LHC always had work then I wouldn't be so greedy :) And I'd probably be at 85th percentile for RAC/Total and not 99.5% RAC and 96% total :) Check out this: I pigged about 4600 credits in the past 3 work batches

It is important to MaxCache LHC becuase it takes only 18-30 hours for them to run out of work once they put it up (looks like they put up 80000-150000 WUs at a time).


What's important is getting the work done. As I write this, GreatInca, one of your computers still has eight results left to run, while my computers have been out of work for two or three days. Had you not filled your cache to excess the eight results could have been assigned to other computers and the work completed days ago. Spread this across thousands of users and the tail of unreturned results drags out for days.

Each study generally requires analysis of the previous study to determine appropriate parameters. If each study is completed more quickly the next one can be released sooner. The message, therefore is:

Keep your cache as small as possible.






My... LinkSite | Blog | Pictures
ID: 13982 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Jack H

Send message
Joined: 22 Dec 05
Posts: 27
Credit: 46,565
RAC: 0
Message 13983 - Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 22:25:14 UTC

Personally, I put the cache on 10 days, it send me for 7 (until the deadline) and I run them in less of half of the time (dual-core) although my PC is run only half of the time.

I wonder how do those which are still in progress!

The deadline was the 9, we are the 15 and there remain 11 operations!

ID: 13983 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Jack H

Send message
Joined: 22 Dec 05
Posts: 27
Credit: 46,565
RAC: 0
Message 13984 - Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 22:41:09 UTC - in response to Message 13376.  

I love LHC, and I realize it's different from the other BOINC projects in that it doesn't have continuous work to send out. It sends out work, and analyzes those results before sending out the next batch.

I notice that this is slowed down by a minority of users who set their caches to maximum. When the number of work units available hits zero, we still have to wait a week or more while the people who grab a maximum number of units empty their cache before the scientists can even begin the analyzing process.

That doesn't help the project - that's greed by people who want the most LHC units.

When the number of available units hits zero, the scientists shouldn't have to wait more than a day or two. I suggest that the project limit the number of work units per computer to 2-3 at any given time. That way, as soon as all the work is sent out LHC will get them all back very soon after. Once a work unit is sent back, that computer can have another.

This will speed up work-unit generation for all of us (my cache is set very low and every work unit I get is sent back within 12 hours, since I have other projects running too) since LHC scientists will get their work back faster and thus be able to create the next batch sooner.


I have just read this message. Before critical, I make a point of saying that I did not do that at the beginning. It is precisely because it is necessary to await 1 week (minimum!) that I started to make reserves.
LHC is my preferred project, that annoys me to wait so long time because some have the eyes larger than the belly!

ID: 13984 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Philip Martin Kryder

Send message
Joined: 21 May 06
Posts: 73
Credit: 8,710
RAC: 0
Message 13985 - Posted: 15 Jun 2006, 2:03:27 UTC - in response to Message 13966.  

I've started another thread asking if there is any way to view the WUs.

Why do I get the feeling that you'd like to see the wu's, so that you can try and associate them with a user whom you may believe can be pressured into returning them faster?

I smell a witchhunt brewing. :(

I no longer micromanage my systems, I rely on the infrastructure to work as designed. Granted, in the early days under certain conditions (quite a few actually :) the infrastructure failed to work properly. Those days are pretty much history, rendering micromanaging unnecessary.

The system has worked well enough to date. If the project team thought there was a flaw, or the scientists were clammering for answers earlier, they may be inclined to address a perceived "problem".

IMHO, impatient users are not a problem and the system doesn't look broke...Does it really need fixing?


I'm not witch hunting.

I don't know why you feel as you do, that is a question only you (and perhaps not even you) can answer.

I wanted DATA to try to stop the inuendos about "hogging and hoarding".

I don't think anything is "broke".

phil





ID: 13985 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ElectroPig von Fökkengrüüve...

Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 05
Posts: 2
Credit: 1,692,037
RAC: 0
Message 13998 - Posted: 15 Jun 2006, 19:24:21 UTC - in response to Message 13747.  


Keep your cache as small as possible.


Yes, well, there are always the idiots that think bigger is better.
Personally, I reckon they're compensating for something.

(you're right, Steve, they are greedy little antisocial pigs)


Oink, Oink


Couldn'ta said it better muhself. \\\\;^)
ID: 13998 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ElectroPig von Fökkengrüüve...

Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 05
Posts: 2
Credit: 1,692,037
RAC: 0
Message 13999 - Posted: 15 Jun 2006, 19:28:53 UTC - in response to Message 13751.  

Oink, Oink


Actually, I must apologise for my previous statement. It was grossly unfair to pigs.


Apology accepted. d;o)
ID: 13999 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile anarchic teapot

Send message
Joined: 15 Feb 06
Posts: 67
Credit: 455,027
RAC: 16
Message 14000 - Posted: 15 Jun 2006, 21:05:49 UTC - in response to Message 13999.  

Oink, Oink


Actually, I must apologise for my previous statement. It was grossly unfair to pigs.


Apology accepted. d;o)


:D
<scratches ElectroPig between the ears and gives him an apple>

sQuonk
Plague of Mice
Intel Core i3-9100 CPU@3.60 GHz, but it's doing its bit just the same.
ID: 14000 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Jack H

Send message
Joined: 22 Dec 05
Posts: 27
Credit: 46,565
RAC: 0
Message 14001 - Posted: 15 Jun 2006, 23:36:41 UTC - in response to Message 13998.  


Keep your cache as small as possible.


Yes, well, there are always the idiots that think bigger is better.
Personally, I reckon they're compensating for something.

(you're right, Steve, they are greedy little antisocial pigs)


Oink, Oink


Couldn'ta said it better muhself. \\\\;^)



Idiot, I let pass by respect of the freedom of expression (the dribble of the frog does not reach the white dove! ;) ). Personally, I know that it is not true! I block anything, I returned all 4-5 days before the deadline (which was the 9!).

Pig, that NOT, I do not accept! It is lack of respect! And the respect is the base of the social life! Who is the antisocial one?

ID: 14001 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile clownius
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 May 06
Posts: 34
Credit: 64,492
RAC: 0
Message 14002 - Posted: 16 Jun 2006, 3:02:22 UTC

Well my cache is nice and empty atm for all projects although boinc is doing some strange things of recent. Its running my lowest priority project most of the time and hang the others. Cant wait till the next load of WU's comes out so i grab a nice big selection and crunch away as quickly as possible. Running a 2 day cache atm and ill bump it to 10 at the first sign of work. Im shure that will make a few people unhappy but rest assured my work will still be returned faster than most even if i do grab a batch. If you crunch it fast grab all you can.
ID: 14002 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bowlingguy300

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 14
Credit: 3,857
RAC: 0
Message 14007 - Posted: 16 Jun 2006, 13:16:39 UTC
Last modified: 16 Jun 2006, 13:18:21 UTC

wow what a jerk! what part of you can only process one workunit at a time. so if there is even 1 puter sitting idle while you have all these WU's waiting to be crunched, they would of had it done already by the time you even got to it. you (1 puter) are not faster then the whole community dude. lets say you grab 20 units when they are available and there are 20 people sitting dry at the moment, if it takes you a week to do them by yourself, wouldent it make sense to you that it would take that same 20 units the same time it took you to do 1 unit if they were done by 20 people instead? now times that by all the people changing thier chaches lol selfish ones. funny the defult setting is .1 day not even a day lol but .1 and your turning it up to 10 days lol
ID: 14007 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Dronak
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 May 06
Posts: 20
Credit: 297,111
RAC: 0
Message 14009 - Posted: 16 Jun 2006, 18:40:33 UTC - in response to Message 14007.  

wouldent it make sense to you that it would take that same 20 units the same time it took you to do 1 unit if they were done by 20 people instead?


Yes. But at the risk of being blunt, some people are apparently more interested in personal gain (credits) than helping the project get work done as soon as possible. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be able to change the minds of the large cache people, so I wish someone from the project administration side would step in and straighten them out.
ID: 14009 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile David Lahr

Send message
Joined: 27 Dec 05
Posts: 7
Credit: 461,367
RAC: 0
Message 14010 - Posted: 16 Jun 2006, 20:36:34 UTC - in response to Message 14009.  

wouldent it make sense to you that it would take that same 20 units the same time it took you to do 1 unit if they were done by 20 people instead?


Yes. But at the risk of being blunt, some people are apparently more interested in personal gain (credits) than helping the project get work done as soon as possible. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be able to change the minds of the large cache people, so I wish someone from the project administration side would step in and straighten them out.



No, I think you've got it wrong. Everyone needs to keep their cache as large as possible. Then the hogs will start to cry when they're sitting with no work, and there is none available, but other people are still happily crunching away. Then, once they see the light (e.g. how selfish their behavior is), we can all agree to act intelligently and reasonably again.
ID: 14010 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Philip Martin Kryder

Send message
Joined: 21 May 06
Posts: 73
Credit: 8,710
RAC: 0
Message 14011 - Posted: 17 Jun 2006, 0:53:34 UTC - in response to Message 14009.  


....than helping the project get work done as soon as possible. ....


Why is this a goal?

It has been pointed out repeatedly that the work is getting done "fast enough" and if it were not, then the LHC folk could adjust the deadlines and max downloads per day.

Why do you try posit a position of
"I know better than you do, what you should do with your life or computer or whatever...?"

ID: 14011 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Toby

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 137
Credit: 964,481
RAC: 0
Message 14012 - Posted: 17 Jun 2006, 5:23:53 UTC

wow... This thread is still alive? *sigh*

You can argue until you are blue in the face (which seems to be happening) but people will continue to do whatever the system allows them to do. The only way to get people to run shorter caches is to change the the project settings on the server. End of story. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, this is just the way things are.
- A member of The Knights Who Say NI!
My BOINC stats site
ID: 14012 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile John Hunt

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 133
Credit: 162,641
RAC: 0
Message 14013 - Posted: 17 Jun 2006, 6:27:36 UTC - in response to Message 14012.  

wow... This thread is still alive? "sigh"


[lightbulb]Perhaps they're trying to beat this silly thread...[/lightbulb]



ID: 14013 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile clownius
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 May 06
Posts: 34
Credit: 64,492
RAC: 0
Message 14015 - Posted: 17 Jun 2006, 11:17:30 UTC

I could go into my previous posts that some haven't liked but y bother lol. I will be a work hog as much due to the fact id prefer to be crunching LHC as much as the fact i enjoy upsetting the dont hog people (actually proberbly more the second reason).
Most people seem to complain about the late returners of which im definatly not one and to some extent i do agree no point hogging what u cant process. I can and will process the WU's i recieve within a very reasonable time frame so stop crying unless your just upset u dont get a nice big cache of workunits too. It's a funny thing but when i try and see how quickly these whingers return their WU's and what they run em on they either hide their computers or have a 5 day plus average return time (much more than mine).

Go cry to the project admin if u dont like people processing your Wu's mayby they can give u a special batch :)

*flameproof trousers---check*
ID: 14015 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
m.mitch

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 05
Posts: 112
Credit: 1,832,123
RAC: 0
Message 14019 - Posted: 17 Jun 2006, 16:13:50 UTC - in response to Message 14007.  
Last modified: 17 Jun 2006, 16:40:17 UTC

wow what a jerk! what part of you can only process one workunit at a time. so if there is even 1 puter sitting idle while you have all these WU's waiting to be crunched, they would of had it done already by the time you even got to it. you (1 puter) are not faster then the whole community dude. lets say you grab 20 units when they are available and there are 20 people sitting dry at the moment, if it takes you a week to do them by yourself, wouldent it make sense to you that it would take that same 20 units the same time it took you to do 1 unit if they were done by 20 people instead? now times that by all the people changing thier chaches lol selfish ones. funny the defult setting is .1 day not even a day lol but .1 and your turning it up to 10 days lol


I'm beginning to get the picture Bowlingguy300. I think you have three user ID's.


ID: 14019 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Helmer Bryd

Send message
Joined: 28 Jul 05
Posts: 4
Credit: 126,707
RAC: 0
Message 14031 - Posted: 18 Jun 2006, 9:14:10 UTC
Last modified: 18 Jun 2006, 9:17:05 UTC

I like this project and stop everything else when work is available, fire up old Athlons that are not in use normally.
I'm not ashamed by that.
There are limits for downloading work, like this:
2006-06-18 10:36:28 [LHC@home] Message from server: No work sent
2006-06-18 10:36:28 [LHC@home] Message from server: (reached daily quota of 100 results)
ID: 14031 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bowlingguy300

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 14
Credit: 3,857
RAC: 0
Message 14039 - Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 11:02:13 UTC - in response to Message 14019.  

[quote]I'm beginning to get the picture Bowlingguy300. I think you have three user ID's.



hows that... what you talkin about 3 ids always had only this one. been with seti at home from thier start. so this be the only non-WU hoarding name I have. looking at your credits I see your one of the hoarders...lol
ive been a member for almost a year more then you and you have 20,000 more credits then me lol yep you dont have your cache up at all.
ID: 14039 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
bowlingguy300

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 14
Credit: 3,857
RAC: 0
Message 14040 - Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 11:11:38 UTC

also in a post earlier how am i hiding my computer... I have just normal firewalls on, turned nothing off or changed any settings so im not sure what you mean there. so just askin.

and when you write a post it tells you your total credits.
so what does hiding anything do? everyone can see how many credits I have.
just in case you cant read ill copy and paste it for ya. :o) only kidding lol

Joined: Sep 1, 2004
Posts: 11
ID: 87
Credit: 3,826
RAC: 5

ID: 14040 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 11 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units


©2022 CERN