1) Message boards : Number crunching : Result from early July still pending... (Message 9933)
Posted 5 Sep 2005 by Pete49

2) Message boards : Number crunching : Deadlines extended again? (Message 9873)
Posted 2 Sep 2005 by Pete49
I suspose it would be too much to hope for LHC to have extended the 4 day deadline with the USA having a 3 day holiday.

3) Message boards : Number crunching : Network connection interval greater than wu deadline (Message 9708)
Posted 29 Aug 2005 by Pete49
<blockquote>Can you zip up your TXT files in the BOINC directory? I would like to look at them, I don't think I have an example of this error ...</blockquote>

They are on their way Paul. Let me know if you get them.


4) Message boards : Number crunching : Network connection interval greater than wu deadline (Message 9703)
Posted 29 Aug 2005 by Pete49
8/29/2005 1:23:00 PM|LHC@home|Requesting 3611 seconds of work, returning 0 results
8/29/2005 1:23:01 PM|LHC@home|Scheduler request to http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi succeeded
8/29/2005 1:23:01 PM|LHC@home|Message from server: No work sent
8/29/2005 1:23:01 PM|LHC@home|Message from server: (won't finish in time) Computer on 97.4% of time, BOINC on 100.0% of that, this project gets 100.0% of that
8/29/2005 1:23:01 PM|LHC@home|Message from server: (Your network connection interval is longer than WU deadline)

How is this possible with a 1 day connect interval?

5) Message boards : Number crunching : Even shorter deadlines? (Message 9520)
Posted 21 Aug 2005 by Pete49
<blockquote>Just curious here. Why not make the deadline for LHC WUs even shorter? 3-4 days? I guess there might be technical reason for not making it that short, but that would be interesting to hear too.

As we have seen there are those who would compalin about not being able to keep a big cacheof WUs. However, since LHC is really a throughput project wouldn't it be best for the project with many users and more or less no caches? No caches at all might of course lead to higher load on the servers and not be practical for that reason.</blockquote>

Unless the general preference "maximum days to connect" is reduced as well, I foresee work actually taking longer as results expire before return and the WU takes forever to validate.

Shorter cues would result but, all projects must accommodate dial-up volunteers. They need a moderately long cue to minimize the use of their line.

6) Message boards : Number crunching : BOINCstats and number of users (Message 8766)
Posted 21 Jul 2005 by Pete49
> I have noticed that altough LHC@Home reached 8000 users, on boincstats.com we
> can see only 6,704, and this number is rising every day =). How can this be?
> Is it some XML statistics lag? Thanks.

Number of users with credit vs number of users signed up?

Plus LHC exports only once per day... around 8am EST (0000UTC?)
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Project Server rejects Version 5 Core Client (Message 8417)
Posted 13 Jul 2005 by Pete49
> Hopefully all that will be fixed before we run out of developement version
> numbers.

Are they limited to only 2 digits for the minor version? That seems a little restrictive.

8) Message boards : Number crunching : Surely a pointless request (Message 8341)
Posted 7 Jul 2005 by Pete49
> > This behavior is an artifact of LHC's lousy time estimate.
> 5.00 has code that slowly corrects for lousy time estimates. Every time that
> a WU takes less time than expected, a correction factor is reduced a little.
> (If the WU takes more time than expected, the correction factor is increased a
> great deal).

Unfortunatly, V5.0 is a major version change that is supported by SETI Alpha only.

That feature is in pre-alpha V4.49. I've given it a try and was not happy with it.

9) Message boards : Number crunching : Surely a pointless request (Message 8339)
Posted 6 Jul 2005 by Pete49
> So what's the use of sending a request to the scheduler then?
> And what's the benefit of this new solution? I can't see any...
> I only see that there are two requests sent to the scheduler, most of the time
> only half a minute separated, where the old 4.19 client only sent one
> request.

Your messages deal with requests to LHC. LHC is OVERESTIMATING the time to completion by a factor fo 3 to 4 times depending upon local computer.

What's happening is this...

V4.45 defaults to return (report) work immediatly. That's the "request 0, return 1"

The new workunit begins to crunch and, in a couple of minutes, 13 hour to completion becomes 3 or 4 hours very quickly. Now your queue is short so the scheduler requests the appropriate number of seconds to fill the queue again but has no completed work to return. that's the "request xxx seconds, returning 0"

This behavior is an artifact of LHC's lousy time estimate.

10) Message boards : Number crunching : Surely a pointless request (Message 8338)
Posted 6 Jul 2005 by Pete49
> Hi All
> Peter your right 1 hour before it made a request.
> 05/07/2005 22:49:15|The Lattice Project|Sending scheduler request to
> http://aspartate.umiacs.umd.edu/lattice_public_cgi/cgi
> 05/07/2005 22:49:15|The Lattice Project|Requesting 345600 seconds of work,
> returning 0 results
> 05/07/2005 22:49:16|The Lattice Project|Scheduler request to
> http://aspartate.umiacs.umd.edu/lattice_public_cgi/cgi succeeded
> 05/07/2005 22:49:16|The Lattice Project|Message from server: No work
> available
> 05/07/2005 22:49:16|The Lattice Project|No work from project
> 05/07/2005 22:49:18|The Lattice Project|Deferring communication with project
> for 2 hours, 16 minutes, and 20 seconds

> Why wasn't it honoured and deferred communications for 2 Hours and 16mins 20
> seconds
Lattice is in Alpha Test. There is no work for any one! I suspect summer hiatus at the University for the lack of work.

Someone better than I (Paul?) would have to explain how the BOINC Client decides just how much to defer a request. On my home cruncher, I have seen Lattice get defered for upwards of 2 days! It's SOP, nothing to worry about.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Surely a pointless request (Message 8336)
Posted 6 Jul 2005 by Pete49
> I seem to have few more curious log events.
> 05/07/2005 23:49:18|The Lattice Project|Deferring communication with project
> for 1 hours, 16 minutes, and 19 seconds
> Note a communication to lattice was sent in the middle of an extremely breif
> overcommited cycle.

That is not a scheduler request to Lattice. Rather, it is a locally generated line of information. Some time before that a request WAS made to Lattice and no work was available. Communication was then defered for an extensive period of time. Every hour after that request, the Client will let you know how much time is left on the defered request to Lattice. If you look one hour earlier you will find a 2:16:19 message and an hour later a 00:16:19 message.

12) Message boards : Number crunching : New work?? Sort of...... (Message 8137)
Posted 20 Jun 2005 by Pete49
> yes.
> the intel 2.66 GHz 4.19 cc m$ got 95 as measured maximum.
> They complete sooo fast. The amount is srinking :(

They Broke IT! Server is going kputt.

13) Message boards : Number crunching : Looks like they broke it (Message 8136)
Posted 20 Jun 2005 by Pete49
All these short WU's seem to have overloaded or corrupted the results server.

Really weird looking at results.

Hey all my pending disappeared!

14) Message boards : Number crunching : New work?? Sort of...... (Message 8133)
Posted 20 Jun 2005 by Pete49
> How much credit do they claim, generally speaking? I've finished downlading
> them. Time to completion it says 43 seconds.

Looks like a tenth of a credit.

Given the appearance of "err" twice in the WU names, I believe they are testing.

Testing what, who knows. Is it the difference between XP and 2000's value of zero? Or perhaps the discontinuity area of some equation?
15) Message boards : Number crunching : Old work still stuck in (Message 8117)
Posted 19 Jun 2005 by Pete49
These go way back!

Is there anyway 0 credit can be manually granted just to clear these from my pending list.


16) Message boards : Number crunching : Time to Completion (Message 7957)
Posted 4 Jun 2005 by Pete49
Time to completion is being over estimated by almost a factor of 3 on all my crunchers.

Is this a deliberate effort to "spread" the work amongst the users or an error?

17) Message boards : Number crunching : Will this test stop next?-No, ... ? (Message 7666)
Posted 13 May 2005 by Pete49

> exceeding the science goals with only 5104 active users,

Looking at the exported user stats, in the last 30 days only 2600 users returned results.

In the last 7 days 2400 and yesterday only 2000.

There are in excess of 5000 host computers.

18) Message boards : Number crunching : v64lhc.D1-D2-MQonly-inj-no-skew-1s6_8588.2693_1_sixvf_51.zip...??? (Message 7134)
Posted 21 Apr 2005 by Pete49
> Got 29 wu's on a Linux (FC3) machine over the last few hours, non for XP. The
> first three have completed in 10, 15 and 45 mins. The first 2 have shown up as
> pending but the claimed credit is small. I noticed the app has also updated
> from 4.64 to 4.66. No sign of a graphic in cc4.35.

Strange, all mine are 4.67
19) Message boards : Number crunching : running out of work (Message 6542)
Posted 13 Mar 2005 by Pete49
> >
> > > Perhaps we should write a petition to make them individual
> projects? ;-)
> >
> > You can TRY, but Dr. Anderson was quite firm when I pointed out the
> issues
> > last year ...
> >
> Well, they should be a little bit more open minded and realize that
> Astropulse and SETI are two different things. Maybe if they do not want
> to accept that, they will end up with plenty of people dismissing the SETI
> project.
> To me personally it would be a lack of respect to those that have participated
> in the initial steps of Astropulse and that if we made our interest for it,
> was for Astropulse, not for Seti to be intermixed with it.
> It is also too bad by the way, that we are running so soon out of work, here
> in LHC!!

Unless someone is willing to donate a duplicate hardware setup for Berkeley, I don't see how they cannot run SETI and Astro as a single project.

Then again, with the increase in database size, I don't see how they can.

Catch 22.

20) Message boards : Number crunching : Note to my team (Message 6248)
Posted 2 Mar 2005 by Pete49
I am curtailing my LHC resources due to the credit problems at that project. WU's continue to be reported with 0 cpu time / 0 credit regardless of the fact that hours and hours of work has been crunched.

I feel I have a fiduciary responsibility to the team to generate credits regardless how I personally feel about the project.

9 machines averaging 8 hours per day is yielding only a third of the RAC that other projects with equal share are generating on the same machines.

Resolving this problem does not appear high on their list of things to fix.

Next 20

©2024 CERN