Message boards :
News :
Heavy I/O on Windows WUs
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 4 May 07 Posts: 250 Credit: 826,541 RAC: 0 |
John, I noticed the same slowdown when "w-" Tasks start to overwhelm the system. The approach I took was to use BOINC Manager Tasks to selectively suspend two or three of them which allows other Projects to run Tasks. I'll Resume these Suspended Tasks after a few hours and non-"w" Tasks are running on LHC. Yeah, it's a pain to have to manually manage these things but it got me through the terrible "w"s. Tom95134 |
Send message Joined: 12 Jul 11 Posts: 857 Credit: 1,619,050 RAC: 0 |
Fascinating Carolina; I believe we buffer and flush only when doing a checkpoint. 30 files is correct but we have a plan to use only one file. The actual records are small about one hundred bytes. Thanks. Eric. (NOT a Windows expert.) |
Send message Joined: 4 May 07 Posts: 250 Credit: 826,541 RAC: 0 |
Eric, FYI. The new version of BOINC (7.4.27) includes the ability to set which debug information is included in the BOINC Log. I haven't tried it but it looks like there are a number of settings that include disk info. I just loaded 7.4.27 late this afternoon to see how it runs. vLHC and Enigma seem to be okay. Hopefully we'll have some more LHC work soon. SETI has gone quiet. Tom |
Send message Joined: 9 May 07 Posts: 10 Credit: 848,664 RAC: 0 |
I'm glad that I got the number of "fort" files per task correct. The problem I have is that my system tends to be running more than one SixTrack job at a time and the impact of the I/O is crippling. The "fort" files are not normally soooo chopped up either. I was astounded to find five SixTrack tasks had ~240 file in over 360,000 fragments. It particularly impacts job creation (when there is heavy use of the swap file). How often does SixTrack checkpoint? Is it possible that it is somehow checkpointing inappropriately? What controls when SixTrack checkpoints? Thanks for the response! -- CCW |
Send message Joined: 16 Oct 13 Posts: 59 Credit: 342,408 RAC: 0 |
It depends on your settings. If you refer to disk writing instead (not all disk writing is due to checkpointing), in my Linux boxes it writes every 10 seconds or so (too much, IMO). |
Send message Joined: 12 Aug 05 Posts: 2 Credit: 168,453 RAC: 0 |
I just started runing these wu on my 8 core home computer with Win7. I can still use my computer if I cut back to 2 cpu's. If I use 4 of 8, you go nowhere. I have 16gb ram, and a Nvidia 275 gpu. I can run Seti on 6 cpu's, and no real slowdown on anything else I do. |
Send message Joined: 22 Oct 07 Posts: 27 Credit: 808,821 RAC: 0 |
Maybe I can provide a bit more information. I am running on Windows XP Sp3, running SixTrack 451.07 on a "w-" work unit. As I write this, BOINC shows that the WU has been running for 14:32 and is 93.491% complete. Attaching a monitor to the process shows that it has used the following CPU User time: 00:14:00 Kernel time: 11:22:18 I/O Reads: 1,990 and not increasing Writes: 1,805,531 Write Delta: 82 per 5 secs Write Bytes Delta: 7000 Calculated Write Size: 85 bytes Other: 5,228,924 Other Delta: 241 per 5 secs Other Delta Bytes: 320 It appears that an ioctl is doing a lot of 1 byte writes 1 active thread accounts for almost all of the CPU time. Pulling a stack traces for this thread gives (3 examples) ntkrnlpa.exe!KiUnexpectedInterrupt+0x121 ntdll.dll!KiFastSystemCallRet sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x24b141 sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x190069 sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x1796b4 sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x1790e4 sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x62c6d sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x2cc842 sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x295970 kernel32.dll!RegisterWaitForInputIdle+0x49 ntkrnlpa.exe!ZwYieldExecution+0x1d3a sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0xa12254 ntkrnlpa.exe!IoBuildPartialMdl+0xed fltMgr.sys!FltPerformSynchronousIo+0xb9 fltMgr.sys!FltFlushBuffers+0x314 fltMgr.sys!FltFsControlFile+0x26 fltMgr.sys!FltRequestOperationStatusCallback+0x5bd fltMgr.sys!FltGetIrpName+0x57a fltMgr.sys!FltGetIrpName+0xaa9 fltMgr.sys!FltGetIrpName+0x113b fltMgr.sys!FltGetIrpName+0x12ad ntkrnlpa.exe!IoBuildPartialMdl+0xed ntkrnlpa.exe!KeReleaseInStackQueuedSpinLockFromDpcLevel+0xb80 ntdll.dll!KiFastSystemCallRet sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x25cb8b Seen this address a lot sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x23bece sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x19003e sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x1796b4 sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x1790e4 sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x62c6d sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x2cc842 sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x295970 kernel32.dll!RegisterWaitForInputIdle+0x49 ntkrnlpa.exe!KiUnexpectedInterrupt+0x121 ntkrnlpa.exe!ZwYieldExecution+0x1d3a ntkrnlpa.exe!KiDeliverApc+0x12c ntdll.dll!KiFastSystemCallRet sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x24b141 sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x190069 sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x1796b4 sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x1790e4 sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x62c6d sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x2cc842 sixtrack_win32_4517_pni.exe+0x295970 kernel32.dll!RegisterWaitForInputIdle+0x49 I haven't dug deeper. I can if it's useful but I'll need the program source. To be honest, I think running this is a waste of time. My CPUs are spinning their wheels in a system call, not doing computation. I've set this project to "no new work" until I hear there is a fix. Please let me know if you want me to do more. ++PLS |
©2025 CERN