Posts by Ian Thompson

1) Message boards : Number crunching : New Version of Boinc (Message 9958) Posted 7 Sep 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi All I have tried the 5.1.x Client and have found the following issues. Upgrading my 4.72 Client everything appears to work. What I did notice was that No new work appears not to work. This was an issues as I was clearing out the cache to reinstall my OS. so I downgraded back to 4.72. This did cause minor issues but a reboot resolved them and a repair install. After I reloaded my OS I installed the client a fresh. It did not want to connect to LHC it did to einstein & seti It asked me for an email address and password. which I don't have. also if you type garbage it comes up with same not successfully connected message. So I downgraded again. I think they should sort out these issues for the next release. More detailed error messages would be useful.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : 64-Bits, Help or Hinderance (Message 8580) Posted 15 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi I did mention if the core client was 64Bit it would have a slight benefit. If it has a great benefit - The programmer's need shooting. I would sincerely hope that the the project switching overhead is a very small % less than 1%. If a new generation of the FPU unit on the CPU was developed you could expect a significant improvement. 80Bits is just a register size of the FPU. Loading the data into the register 2 operation (64Bit) and I am guessing here shall we say 60 clock cycles as opposed to 90 cycles 3 Load operations for (32Bit) gets a bit lost in 4000-5000 cycles the muliplication takes. As for using the power for other functions yes they could benefit performance, but not the science. I am not complaing I was just pointing out where benefits could be achieved. The statement is a general one and applies to all the the projects. I didn't consider the non science parts of the project. These could benefit signifcantly, but have little value as far as the science is concerned. I have no doubt that in the fulness of time we will see some projects taking advantage of 64Bit power. I understand the basic function of the core client if it can switch projects faster access the disk faster comminicate faster their is more project processing time.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : 64-Bits, Help or Hinderance (Message 8578) Posted 15 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi All Here are my thoughts on the subject. I have an Intel 640 CPU on a ASUS PH3 Chassis Not top notch but a nice ultra stable config. I have tried both Win XP and Win XP 64Bit. I fully understand the implication of 64bit computing its benefits and its disadvantages. From a BOINC point of view. if a 64Bit Core client was available their would be a small benefit. Some projects might gain advantages if require large integer math ops. But at the moment their is very little between the 2 OS's running BOINC if anything the 64Bit is running marginally slower. However, the system as a whole seems more responsive with a 64Bit OS this is due most likly to 2 factors, 64Bit code for the OS and all drivers for hardware must be 64Bit. If you have a pure 64Bit app you will definately benefit. Their is little benefit from running 32Bit apps under the 64Bit OS. I needed to evaluate the potentual of the 64Bit OS as it is likly to become a part of product range in the near future. As we support everything we do. (Well almost everything) I had to get some hands-on experence. I like my 64Bit setup. I can't fault it, but it might have been nicer if went just a tad faster.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Project Server rejects Version 5 Core Client (Message 8410) Posted 12 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi All I have download 4.70 a few days ago. It seems to work fine. It has some odd behaviour problems with the update all button. Seems to get hung up on a non responsive project server. My impression - could be wrong are: THe WU crunching is concurrent, but the comms queues are not.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : LHC Wish List (Message 8409) Posted 12 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi folks If this is a wish list. #8 - I would like like to see the atoms smash into to something at the end. Why not You could even simulate the path the resultant particals take.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : ADMIN - WU 264822 Needs Attention (Message 8358) Posted 9 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi This work unit has been pending since 9 June 2 have completed lots have errored and are showing unsent no one is working on the unit according to the web page.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Surely a pointless request (Message 8337) Posted 6 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: 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 05/07/2005 23:20:07\|\|request_reschedule_cpus: process exited 05/07/2005 23:20:07\|SETI@home\|Computation for result 29ja04ab.18903.13649.4826.40_1 finished 05/07/2005 23:20:07\|SETI@home\|Starting result 18se03aa.24250.28097.204836.94_0 using setiathome version 4.18 05/07/2005 23:20:08\|SETI@home\|Started upload of 29ja04ab.18903.13649.4826.40_1_0 05/07/2005 23:20:13\|SETI@home\|Sending scheduler request to http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/cgi 05/07/2005 23:20:13\|SETI@home\|Requesting 16047 seconds of work, returning 0 results 05/07/2005 23:20:14\|SETI@home\|Scheduler request to http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/cgi succeeded 05/07/2005 23:20:15\|SETI@home\|Started download of 15au03aa.8379.26353.786080.118 05/07/2005 23:20:24\|SETI@home\|Finished upload of 29ja04ab.18903.13649.4826.40_1_0 05/07/2005 23:20:24\|SETI@home\|Throughput 75392 bytes/sec 05/07/2005 23:20:26\|SETI@home\|Sending scheduler request to http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/cgi 05/07/2005 23:20:26\|SETI@home\|Requesting 0 seconds of work, returning 1 results 05/07/2005 23:20:29\|SETI@home\|Scheduler request to http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/cgi succeeded 05/07/2005 23:20:32\|SETI@home\|Finished download of 15au03aa.8379.26353.786080.118 05/07/2005 23:20:32\|SETI@home\|Throughput 22914 bytes/sec Why wasn't it honoured and deferred communications for 2 Hours and 16mins 20 seconds
8) Message boards : Number crunching : new work is here!!!! (Message 8335) Posted 6 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi Again No my fault looks like we have got the errors back now to process. Most of todays WU have been going down in sequence not up.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : new work is here!!!! (Message 8334) Posted 6 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi All I reckon we are crunnching nearer 10,000 a day. Me also thinks that we are going to be processing the errors in 2 weeks, thier seems to be a few around.
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Surely a pointless request (Message 8332) Posted 6 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi All I mean thier seems to be a lot of thinking and requesting going on. I accept that a request for work could be 1 second long but it it appeared to take a lot longer to decide. why not just wait an hour before loading more work, set a min cache level as well as max. I not sure the schedule is working the way you expect. I seem to have few more curious log events. 05/07/2005 23:20:24\|SETI@home\|Finished upload of 29ja04ab.18903.13649.4826.40_1_0 05/07/2005 23:20:24\|SETI@home\|Throughput 75392 bytes/sec 05/07/2005 23:20:26\|SETI@home\|Sending scheduler request to http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/cgi 05/07/2005 23:20:26\|SETI@home\|Requesting 0 seconds of work, returning 1 results 05/07/2005 23:20:29\|SETI@home\|Scheduler request to http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/cgi succeeded 05/07/2005 23:20:32\|SETI@home\|Finished download of 15au03aa.8379.26353.786080.118 05/07/2005 23:20:32\|SETI@home\|Throughput 22914 bytes/sec 05/07/2005 23:20:32\|\|request_reschedule_cpus: files downloaded 05/07/2005 23:20:32\|SETI@home\|Pausing result 18se03aa.24250.28097.204836.94_0 (removed from memory) 05/07/2005 23:20:32\|LHC@home\|Starting result wjun2A_v6s4hvpac_mqx__8__64.268_59.278__10_12__6__45_1_sixvf_boinc11281_1 using sixtrack version 4.67 05/07/2005 23:20:36\|\|Suspending work fetch because computer is overcommitted. 05/07/2005 23:20:36\|\|Using earliest-deadline-first scheduling because computer is overcommitted. 05/07/2005 23:49:18\|The Lattice Project\|Deferring communication with project for 1 hours, 16 minutes, and 19 seconds 06/07/2005 00:08:28\|\|request_reschedule_cpus: process exited 06/07/2005 00:08:28\|LHC@home\|Computation for result wjun2A_v6s4hvpac_mqx__11__64.259_59.269__6_8__6__5_1_sixvf_boinc14911_2 finished 06/07/2005 00:08:28\|\|Allowing work fetch again. 06/07/2005 00:08:28\|\|Resuming round-robin CPU scheduling. 06/07/2005 00:08:28\|SETI@home\|Resuming result 18se03aa.24250.28097.204836.94_0 using setiathome version 4.18 06/07/2005 00:08:29\|\|May run out of work in 2.00 days; requesting more 06/07/2005 00:08:29\|SETI@home\|Sending scheduler request to http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/cgi 06/07/2005 00:08:29\|SETI@home\|Requesting 17248 seconds of work, returning 0 results 06/07/2005 00:08:29\|LHC@home\|Started upload of wjun2A_v6s4hvpac_mqx__11__64.259_59.269__6_8__6__5_1_sixvf_boinc14911_2_0 06/07/2005 00:08:30\|SETI@home\|Scheduler request to http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/cgi succeeded 06/07/2005 00:08:31\|SETI@home\|Started download of 15au03aa.8379.26785.934666.124 06/07/2005 00:08:32\|LHC@home\|Finished upload of wjun2A_v6s4hvpac_mqx__11__64.259_59.269__6_8__6__5_1_sixvf_boinc14911_2_0 06/07/2005 00:08:32\|LHC@home\|Throughput 19849 bytes/sec 06/07/2005 00:08:34\|LHC@home\|Sending scheduler request to http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi 06/07/2005 00:08:34\|LHC@home\|Requesting 0 seconds of work, returning 1 results 06/07/2005 00:08:36\|LHC@home\|Scheduler request to http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi succeeded 06/07/2005 00:08:40\|SETI@home\|Finished download of 15au03aa.8379.26785.934666.124 06/07/2005 00:08:40\|SETI@home\|Throughput 41535 bytes/sec 06/07/2005 00:08:40\|\|request_reschedule_cpus: files downloaded 06/07/2005 00:08:40\|LHC@home\|Pausing result wjun2A_v6s4hvpac_mqx__8__64.268_59.278__10_12__6__45_1_sixvf_boinc11281_1 (removed from memory) 06/07/2005 00:08:40\|SETI@home\|Starting result 18se03aa.603.30737.698572.235_1 using setiathome version 4.18 06/07/2005 00:08:41\|\|request_reschedule_cpus: process exited 06/07/2005 00:08:48\|SETI@home\|Sending scheduler request to http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/cgi 06/07/2005 00:08:48\|SETI@home\|Requesting 14352 seconds of work, returning 0 results 06/07/2005 00:08:50\|SETI@home\|Scheduler request to http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/cgi succeeded 06/07/2005 00:08:50\|SETI@home\|Message from server: Not sending work - last RPC too recent: 19 sec 06/07/2005 00:08:50\|SETI@home\|No work from project 06/07/2005 00:08:51\|SETI@home\|Deferring communication with project for 10 minutes and 4 seconds 06/07/2005 00:08:51\|LHC@home\|Sending scheduler request to http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi 06/07/2005 00:08:51\|LHC@home\|Requesting 15420 seconds of work, returning 0 results 06/07/2005 00:08:53\|LHC@home\|Scheduler request to http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi succeeded 06/07/2005 00:08:54\|LHC@home\|Started download of wjun2A_v6s4hvpac_mqx__11__64.26_59.27__4_6__6__70_1_sixvf_boinc14975.zip Note a communication to lattice was sent in the middle of an extremely breif overcommited cycle. Quite why it thinks I am over-commited is just another question. Better still if 1 second of work is all I needed to collect a work unit what will the scheduler think if I got 1000hours of work back.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Surely a pointless request (Message 8314) Posted 5 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi everyone I have just been checking my logs and found this. 05/07/2005 18:14:02\|LHC@home\|Finished upload of wjun2A_v6s4hvpac_mqx__1__64.264_59.274__4_6__6__85_1_sixvf_boinc970_0_0 05/07/2005 18:14:02\|LHC@home\|Throughput 20453 bytes/sec 05/07/2005 18:14:04\|LHC@home\|Sending scheduler request to http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi 05/07/2005 18:14:04\|LHC@home\|Requesting 0 seconds of work, returning 1 results 05/07/2005 18:14:05\|LHC@home\|Scheduler request to http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi succeeded 05/07/2005 18:31:29\|LHC@home\|Sending scheduler request to http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi 05/07/2005 18:31:29\|LHC@home\|Requesting 1 seconds of work, returning 0 results 05/07/2005 18:31:31\|LHC@home\|Scheduler request to http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi succeeded 05/07/2005 18:31:32\|LHC@home\|Started download of wjun2A_v6s4hvpac_mqx__11__64.258_59.268__6_8__6__40_1_sixvf_boinc14850.zip Surely you could set a minimum level of work to be requested this request was a waste of time and resources.
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Old Work Units not being deleted. (Message 8305) Posted 5 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi I have 3 WU showing in the results table which all are from the previous batch and have not been deleted. They appear to be stuck. WU Numbers 264822 - Pending 177148 - Completed and granted credit 237382 - Completed granted credit - can't find work unit file error. You might have a table corruption here.
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Project Server rejects Version 5 Core Client (Message 8282) Posted 2 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi again THis client going to get really hard to debug Extract from log. 20:24:13\|\|request_reschedule_cpus: exit_tasks 20:24:13\|SETI@home\|Detaching from project 20:32:08\|http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/\|Master page download succeeded 20:32:09\|http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/\|Sending scheduler request to http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/EinsteinAtHome_cgi/cgi 20:32:09\|http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/\|Requesting 345600 seconds of work, returning 0 results 20:32:10\|http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/\|Scheduler request to http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/EinsteinAtHome_cgi/cgi succeeded 20:32:10\|Einstein@Home\|Message from server: Need major version 4 of the BOINC core client. You have 5. 20:32:10\|Einstein@Home\|Resetting project 20:32:10\|\|request_reschedule_cpus: exit_tasks 20:32:10\|Einstein@Home\|Detaching from project 20:37:20\|http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/\|Master page download succeeded 20:37:21\|http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/\|Sending scheduler request to http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta_cgi/cgi 20:37:21\|http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/\|Requesting 345600 seconds of work, returning 0 results 20:37:22\|http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/\|Scheduler request to http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta_cgi/cgi succeeded 20:37:22\|SETI@home Beta Test\|Message from server: Need major version 4 of the BOINC core client. You have 5. 20:37:22\|SETI@home Beta Test\|Resetting project 20:37:22\|\|request_reschedule_cpus: exit_tasks 20:37:22\|SETI@home Beta Test\|Detaching from project It only appears to work with CPDN Mind you I have found one error. It tells me wrong account ID used. clearly not true from the log.
14) Message boards : Number crunching : Project Server rejects Version 5 Core Client (Message 8281) Posted 2 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi Have just download BOINC Version 5 The project rejects the client is thier a reason.
15) Message boards : Number crunching : BOINC Project Server Error report CPU details (Message 8280) Posted 2 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi Ric Thanks for the information I have adjusted this and rebooted. I am going to investigate further.
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Appearing twice in the Top Participants Table (Message 8269) Posted 2 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi Iam appearing at positions 89 and 105 in the top participants table, when viewed with RAC view I only have one account
17) Message boards : Number crunching : BOINC Project Server Error report CPU details (Message 8263) Posted 1 Jul 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi Everyone Nice to be crunching units again. I have just commissioned a new box Small compact with a hungry heart A Beast with an Intel P4 640 as it's core. works fine. I have commited 2 cardinal sins thou. The unit uses an ASUS 915GL Barebone Chassis. (I need the space.) I put some Performance Memory to compensate for this thou. The second sin is I havn't got round to sorting out a 64Bit Operating System. I am using Win XP PRO 32Bit The issue I have noticed is that the server reports the cache memory as only having 976.56Kb. This processor has 2048Kb THen I decided to check my old Unit It show 976.56Kb even stranger as it only has 512Kb. I jyust checked all my boxes They all seem to have nearly a Megabyte of cache. including Celeron and AMD.
18) Message boards : Number crunching : Post your Estimated vs Actual Completion Times Here. (Message 8010) Posted 8 Jun 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi My Times are P42.8GHz-512C H/T 1249/1048 13:14:46 actual 4:30-5:00 I have noticed that my computer details show my CPU on the host details is 10% faster than it is and it takes an average of 13.89 days to turn a result around. My system could probale return 13.89 results in a day.
19) Message boards : Number crunching : Possible Issues with core client 4.3x and MCE2005 (Message 7653) Posted 12 May 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi Your taking a risk > I agree, but after twenty years of working with Windows & Microsoft I have > learned not to pressurize Microsoft products until about version 5 ;-) It took Microsoft 6 attempts at DOS excluding the sub releases
20) Message boards : Number crunching : Possible Issues with core client 4.3x and MCE2005 (Message 7632) Posted 12 May 2005 by Ian Thompson Post: Hi Yes I should have posted this to berkeley sometimes I don't think they have their hearing aid on. I was rhoping somebody might shed some light on as to wether you need to manually configure the boinc.exe for this type of operation. I can live with the bugs. It seems happy. I have noted that the issues regarding the update button. But I have found I get response when clicked that appears same as before. (That might be a depper meaning thou to this issue.)

Next 20

LHC@home