Message boards : Number crunching : Why, oh why, oh why??
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
rob

Send message
Joined: 4 Mar 11
Posts: 2
Credit: 1,303,895
RAC: 15,386
Message 24771 - Posted: 2 Sep 2012, 19:38:27 UTC

Does LHC deliver so many WU that are destined to run at High Priority.
This is an arrogant behaviour, more akin to bullying than a co-operative multi-project behaviour. Doubling deadlines wouldn't affect the through put, and might actually encourage folks to stay around a bit longer, s actually IMPROVE the overall project WU turnaround.
ID: 24771 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Richard Haselgrove

Send message
Joined: 27 Oct 07
Posts: 185
Credit: 3,297,428
RAC: 0
Message 24772 - Posted: 2 Sep 2012, 21:07:32 UTC - in response to Message 24771.  

Does LHC deliver so many WU that are destined to run at High Priority.
This is an arrogant behaviour, more akin to bullying than a co-operative multi-project behaviour. Doubling deadlines wouldn't affect the through put, and might actually encourage folks to stay around a bit longer, s actually IMPROVE the overall project WU turnaround.

There are two decisions being made in this scenario:

1) Whether to request new work
2) Whether to run the work, once received, at high priority.

Both decisions are made locally by your BOINC client: the project cannot force work on you that you haven't requested, and cannot set the priority at which it runs.

There are, however, sporadic reports that - variously - the client keeps asking, and asking, and asking, for new work, when it should already have enough: and/or the server allocates more work than needed to satisfy the request being made. If you can document either scenario, then we can work on getting it fixed.

I've made that same request for evidence at various projects down the years, and nobody has ever come up with the goods yet.
ID: 24772 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile jujube

Send message
Joined: 25 Jan 11
Posts: 179
Credit: 83,858
RAC: 0
Message 24773 - Posted: 3 Sep 2012, 3:05:42 UTC - in response to Message 24771.  

A long as none of your tasks from any of your projects are missing deadline, what's wrong with tasks running at high priority? Yes, it suspends tasks from other projects but in the end, over the longterm, all your projects will get the resource share you specify.

If you cannot stand seeing tasks run at high priority then decrease your work cache to 0.1 days.
ID: 24773 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Roberts

Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 05
Posts: 72
Credit: 3,962,626
RAC: 0
Message 24777 - Posted: 4 Sep 2012, 0:50:31 UTC - in response to Message 24771.  

... This is an arrogant behaviour, more akin to bullying ....

If you are going to make such inflammatory statements, it really pays to get your facts straight. Since your main project seems to be Seti, you should try to understand the consequences of your decision to choose LHC as a secondary project.

I'm guessing you have a fairly large cache setting in order to cope with periods of no work from Seti. I'm also guessing that you have given Seti the bulk of the resource share so that when Seti work is available, your host will prefer that work. If those are both true, you will make it very difficult for BOINC to cope if you have very short deadline secondary project(s). When Seti can't supply, your client will probably try to load up with extra work from a project that can supply. With a low resource share for the secondary project, BOINC will need to use high priority to get this extra work done by deadline if you subsequently get plenty of Seti work at a later stage.

If you really need to 'blame' somebody, try Seti. If they always supplied work when requested, you wouldn't need an excessive cache and BOINC would rarely need to panic.

Cheers,
Gary.
ID: 24777 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : Number crunching : Why, oh why, oh why??


©2022 CERN