1) Message boards : Number crunching : no more work? (Message 23649)
Posted 4 Nov 2011 by Amauri
Post:
Something is wrong calculated with the turnaround time. Because none of my 2 hosts had more than 1.5 days for returning the task (Check here) , but they have 2.07 and 2.17). 2 Days before they had 2.07 and 1.81 with 3 pending. 2 pending are done by slower users and that gave for that computer then 2.17 (before it was 1.81). Why?

It seems to me that the turnaround time is calculated when both tasks are returned ((Time from last WU returned(of the 2 crunchers)) - (Time when the WU was sent)) and that is incorrect!

My correct turnaround Time is ((time when it is back)-(time when it was sent))

Sorry it's hard for me to explain, I hope you unterstand what I want to say^^

greetz littleBouncer
BTW: both machines have now work to crunch^^


Your computer with turnaround of 2.17 days had it's last task validated in Nov. 2, and this task had been returned by your computer in almost 3 days. So the average turnaround has increased (only already validated WU's are used in this calculation).
2) Message boards : Number crunching : no more work? (Message 23630)
Posted 2 Nov 2011 by Amauri
Post:
Reducing the deadline to 5 days would not eliminate hosts with a 6.6 day turnaround time as Gary R. seems to think. Those hosts would still receive tasks if the scheduler thinks they are able to complete the tasks before the deadline. I doubt that any of the hosts attached to this project needs more than 4 days to crunch a Sixtrack task so there is no reason a 5 day deadline wouldn't work for everybody.


You'd be correct if all computers run 24/7... With a deadline of 5 days and a turnaround of 6.6 days, you'll have a lot more tasks to resend, and the scheduler won't send any new task to those computers that run, e.g. 12 hs 5 days a week. If someone downloads a task in a Friday, and doesn't run it Saturday and Sunday, will have only 3 days to the deadline. A bigger chance to not get it completed in time... And one more task to resend. And another user excluded.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : no more work? (Message 23628)
Posted 2 Nov 2011 by Amauri
Post:
If the scientists really need to finalise a run quickly, why not reduce the deadline a little (to, say, 5 days) to prevent the last primary tasks issued from potentially hanging around for up to 7 days before any 'deadline miss' resends for them could be sent out? Sure, some people will complain, but probably will get used to it when they understand the needs of the project.


Why not send each WU to 3 computers instead of 2, with a minimum quorum of 2, keeping the deadline at 7 days? Yes, there will be some wasting of computational resources, but with less resends and faster finalisation.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Requesting new tasks for NVIDIA GPU? (Message 23499)
Posted 14 Oct 2011 by Amauri
Post:
It's a BOINC feature, it does these requests to all projects, except for those projects that have a specific GPU option in Preferences.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Long delays in jobs (Message 23388)
Posted 7 Oct 2011 by Amauri
Post:
I agree with jujube. I read a message in SETI's forum, otherwise I wouldn't know that LHC was again active.



©2021 CERN