Message boards : Number crunching : Long WU's
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 6 · Next

AuthorMessage
[PST]Howard
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 26
Credit: 319,239
RAC: 0
Message 24487 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 13:13:47 UTC - in response to Message 24478.  
Last modified: 4 Aug 2012, 13:14:29 UTC

Would this not have been what the old Aplha project was for ?
ID: 24487 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Eric Mcintosh
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 11
Posts: 857
Credit: 1,619,050
RAC: 0
Message 24488 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 14:54:06 UTC - in response to Message 24480.  

Good point; too late now I think but I shall try and remember.
Also change user side to make deadline proportional to number
of turns or max CPU estimate. Eric.
ID: 24488 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Eric Mcintosh
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 11
Posts: 857
Credit: 1,619,050
RAC: 0
Message 24489 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 14:55:27 UTC - in response to Message 24486.  

Sorry don't understand the credit system. I'll review with Igor when
possible.
ID: 24489 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Eric Mcintosh
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 11
Posts: 857
Credit: 1,619,050
RAC: 0
Message 24490 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 14:58:54 UTC - in response to Message 24473.  

We cannot predict the unpredictable. We are studying chaos.
The stimate is only an estimate and of the Maximum time
required.
BUT I agree the deadline should have been extended. Eric.
ID: 24490 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
grumpy

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 57
Credit: 2,765,209
RAC: 147
Message 24492 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 16:41:51 UTC - in response to Message 24478.  
Last modified: 4 Aug 2012, 16:42:31 UTC

"floating-point error accumulation"

Be very carefull and watch out for those, they can give wild errored results.
Had to deal with them in my laborary all the time.
( Can vary from type cpu's, OS)
ID: 24492 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile fatbozz

Send message
Joined: 26 Oct 04
Posts: 3
Credit: 814,721
RAC: 0
Message 24493 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 18:53:48 UTC

Seems i win 1st prize :) 37hrs and no bang to wall :) 10m turns wooo yay ! science in my computer :D
http://lhcathomeclassic.cern.ch/sixtrack/workunit.php?wuid=2479609

ID: 24493 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sunny129
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Dec 05
Posts: 31
Credit: 9,709,398
RAC: 0
Message 24495 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 20:57:25 UTC - in response to Message 24493.  
Last modified: 4 Aug 2012, 20:58:03 UTC

i'm going on 33 hours myself w/ a task. it's ~75% complete though, so it should finish with a total run time well within the 48-hour upper bound that Eric mentioned several posts up. this is on an X6 1090T simulating 7 cores - 5 for LHC@H, and 2 for T4T@H dual-threaded tasks.
ID: 24495 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Tex1954

Send message
Joined: 24 Apr 11
Posts: 37
Credit: 1,160,105
RAC: 0
Message 24496 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 22:13:19 UTC
Last modified: 4 Aug 2012, 22:18:06 UTC

Wow, one of my 3.75GHz AMD boxes finished one that took 24 hours... and the wingman is a 1.6GHz Pentium-M that will probably take 3 times longer...

Does this mean the equations are turning out more and more relevant data???

Many longer tasks lately... but they seem to finish just fine...

I have one task at 29 hrs now with 14 more to go on the same box... I have another on the 950 box at 39hrs elapsed with 11 more to go as well... LOL!

:)

http://lhcathomeclassic.cern.ch/sixtrack/workunit.php?wuid=2493244
ID: 24496 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
[AF>FAH-Addict.net]toTOW

Send message
Joined: 9 Oct 10
Posts: 77
Credit: 3,671,357
RAC: 0
Message 24497 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 23:12:54 UTC

I'm afraid my old P4-m 1.4 GHz is not gonna make the deadline on these WUs ... :(
ID: 24497 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Ray Murray
Volunteer moderator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 04
Posts: 277
Credit: 11,530,929
RAC: 2,480
Message 24498 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 23:23:59 UTC

35 hrs in with 30 hrs estimated left on a 2.5Ghz i3. Others completed at 20hrs and 26 hrs with a couple of 10 minute ones thrown in just to confuse the estimator. Good to see longer WUs here as the longer the run, the more stable the beam.
Not sure which is the preferred project between here and T4T as they're not really "rival" projects, just opposite sides of the detector, although I suppose a more stable beam should give better results so I've stopped getting T4T work to concentrate here.
ID: 24498 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
grumpy

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 57
Credit: 2,765,209
RAC: 147
Message 24499 - Posted: 5 Aug 2012, 1:29:00 UTC

Some of these are extra long 72% @ 41 hours ( i7, 3.33 ghz)

T4T has 10 times less users, around 500 active in the last 24hrs.
I'm sticking with them.
ID: 24499 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Eric Mcintosh
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 11
Posts: 857
Credit: 1,619,050
RAC: 0
Message 24500 - Posted: 5 Aug 2012, 4:36:37 UTC - in response to Message 24492.  

Well I should have said "floating-point rounding error" accumulation.
Every WU is run twice (at least) and is validated if we have two
identical results. t appears that we have only some 50 CPUs out of
tense of thousand givibg erroneous results. Eric.
ID: 24500 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Eric Mcintosh
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 11
Posts: 857
Credit: 1,619,050
RAC: 0
Message 24501 - Posted: 5 Aug 2012, 4:39:04 UTC - in response to Message 24492.  

Well I should have said "floating-point rounding error" accumulation.
Every WU is run twice (at least) and is validated if we have two
identical results. t appears that we have only some 50 CPUs out of
tense of thousand givibg erroneous results. Eric.
ID: 24501 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Toby Broom
Volunteer moderator

Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 08
Posts: 739
Credit: 522,936,709
RAC: 285,554
Message 24502 - Posted: 5 Aug 2012, 13:07:30 UTC

This just finished

http://lhcathomeclassic.cern.ch/sixtrack/workunit.php?wuid=2467282

almost 200,000 sec's of processing time
ID: 24502 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Brbe

Send message
Joined: 28 Sep 04
Posts: 9
Credit: 10,997,861
RAC: 1,875
Message 24503 - Posted: 5 Aug 2012, 13:42:34 UTC
Last modified: 5 Aug 2012, 13:45:01 UTC

Long long WU's.....
my monster one
http://lhcathomeclassic.cern.ch/sixtrack/workunit.php?wuid=2467332
155,297.90 crunching sec... 43h and something... o.O
ID: 24503 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Michael Becker

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 05
Posts: 8
Credit: 1,036,470
RAC: 0
Message 24504 - Posted: 5 Aug 2012, 14:36:27 UTC - in response to Message 24503.  

i have long WU's too, some of them are finished but the credits are so poor.
long WU ~8 credits/hour
normal WU ~30 credits/hour

there is a correction necessary
ID: 24504 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Eric Mcintosh
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 11
Posts: 857
Credit: 1,619,050
RAC: 0
Message 24505 - Posted: 5 Aug 2012, 15:24:10 UTC

Right I went a bit over the top here BUT......
As this is an experiment we are exploring new ground.
It certainly seems there is a problem with credits.
I don't think BOINC should send WUs if the Estimate divided
by the speed of the CPU exceeds the deadline or is more than
50%/40%/10%??? of the deadline. Maybe that is OK.
All to be looked at soonest. Eric.

ID: 24505 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Eric Mcintosh
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 11
Posts: 857
Credit: 1,619,050
RAC: 0
Message 24506 - Posted: 5 Aug 2012, 15:24:10 UTC

Right I went a bit over the top here BUT......
As this is an experiment we are exploring new ground.
It certainly seems there is a problem with credits.
I don't think BOINC should send WUs if the Estimate divided
by the speed of the CPU exceeds the deadline or is more than
50%/40%/10%??? of the deadline. Maybe that is OK.
All to be looked at soonest. Eric.

ID: 24506 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Eric Mcintosh
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 11
Posts: 857
Credit: 1,619,050
RAC: 0
Message 24507 - Posted: 5 Aug 2012, 15:24:11 UTC

Right I went a bit over the top here BUT......
As this is an experiment we are exploring new ground.
It certainly seems there is a problem with credits.
I don't think BOINC should send WUs if the Estimate divided
by the speed of the CPU exceeds the deadline or is more than
50%/40%/10%??? of the deadline. Maybe that is OK.
All to be looked at soonest. Eric.

ID: 24507 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Michael Becker

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 05
Posts: 8
Credit: 1,036,470
RAC: 0
Message 24508 - Posted: 5 Aug 2012, 16:39:32 UTC - in response to Message 24507.  
Last modified: 5 Aug 2012, 16:53:26 UTC

thx Eric,
maybe this wu's are helpful to locate the problem
http://lhcathomeclassic.cern.ch/sixtrack/workunit.php?wuid=2481201
http://lhcathomeclassic.cern.ch/sixtrack/workunit.php?wuid=2481003
http://lhcathomeclassic.cern.ch/sixtrack/workunit.php?wuid=2509899
they get all the same credit (281.02) but have realy different runtimes
ID: 24508 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 6 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Long WU's


©2022 CERN