|
41)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
30 hours of work availability - did u get some?
(Message 15753)
Posted 1 Dec 2006 by  FalconFly
Post: A look at the pending WorkUnits will reveal the next batch (workunits expiring deadline). How many will be re-issued remains in question (I assume around ~5%). Based on my few still pending, I expect them to be re-issued between : 02 Dec 2006 2115Z and 03 Dec 2006 0400Z (Z=Zulu, equals GMT) Since I wasn't the first to connect for the last batch and not the last, extend the time window accordingly if you have earlier and later WorkUnit deadlines from your pending list. It'll be a good idea to have some machines check for work in that Time Window... it should span the same ~30h Window we had when the batch was issued, just alot less in numbers :) |
|
42)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
30 hours of work availability - did u get some?
(Message 15717)
Posted 28 Nov 2006 by FalconFly
Post: Yup, got only 72 WorkUnits (mainly because Caches were filled with other Projects and LHC suspended as usual), but those were my first after 18 Jun 2006 ;) |
|
43)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Saying good bye for now, to many problems with project.
(Message 15646)
Posted 24 Nov 2006 by FalconFly
Post: I agree, just as people frequently come by and say "Hello, I'm here" when they join, they may just as well leave their reasons when leaving. Having only the positive Comments "allowed" and rejecting negative ones would be ignorant and dangerous. Kudos when Kudos are due, but critique just as well when it is in order. (what happens if things go wrong is e.g. SETI, which lost many of their best people over a self-sufficient Community that did not accept any critique with similar [but usually worse] comments) |
|
44)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Thinking about our new admins
(Message 15605)
Posted 20 Nov 2006 by FalconFly
Post: All those changes spark one big question in my mind : Will this still be the same Project that we joined a long time ago ? Same Philosophy, same goals and policies ? |
|
45)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Did everyone get work 02 Nov UTC?
(Message 15339)
Posted 3 Nov 2006 by FalconFly
Post: I missed it because I have a 2-3 day backoff myself and all machines have LHC on "Suspended" for the obvious problems with LTD. Unless I manually get to know or change the Status of LHC, I won't even notice there is work until it really flows normal again (so far I haven't seen anything from the Project that would earn it to be un-suspended again). IMHO there should be an additional BOINC error code ;) -error 9220 : Staff disconnected from Project - come back later |
|
46)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
When you see work is around ...
(Message 15210)
Posted 27 Oct 2006 by FalconFly
Post: It is more likely boinc Client behaviour rather than user behaviour. No, since the Clients auto-pause, using ever-longer Time periods. Given the speed the current small batches are sent out, the majority of Clients won't even know there was work available (since they connect a day or eventually even a whole week too late in many cases). When there is work, the Clients (which are lucky) to send their - by now weekly - request at the right moment connect only once and retrieve the work, that's it. When machines get credit, the actual Clients won't even notice until (again) connecting once a while, it does not affect Client behaviour in any way. It's entirely a Server issue, nothing more... |
|
47)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
When you see work is around ...
(Message 15190)
Posted 27 Oct 2006 by FalconFly
Post: AFAIK, the whole server always begins to buckle at around 70-80 concurrent connections (never saw it being higher). IMHO, that is a hughe server problem indeed, as good (busy) BOINC servers/pipes must handle 100 times those connections numbers at peak times. Just my 2 cents from 2 years of various BOINC Project server observations. It is not unusual for small projects to suffer when attemting to feed a work-depleted community as a worst-case scenario (which by design happens all the time at LHC ever since its main Project was completed). Larger Projects easily hit their natural Network limitations that way, but's that due to logical sheer mass (SETI comes to mind) and no Project can financially afford a 24/7 GigaBit Pipe so far (AFAIK) BOINC by itself will prevent Users from requesting more than 1 Update per Host and Minute, but that's as good as it gets Client-side (assuming everone involved would jump the train of a fresh Batch of work at the very same time), meaning that even I could request not more than 24 Updates per Minute (if I was noting it at the right time and be crazy enough about it - which never happens and requires alot of luck as well). Given the extremely tight connection limit though, that would be 1/3 of Scheduler/Connection capacity for the time of the request already - which indicates how little bandwidth/capacity their Hardware/Pipe apparently has to offer (my thinking might be wrong and miss some detail tough). |
|
48)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Boinc farms.
(Message 15148)
Posted 20 Oct 2006 by FalconFly
Post: My Alienware laptop has a desktop Pentium 4 in it. It is 2.9A AC-In with a 300W requirement for inverter for a car dapter. That is 180 W (20V, 9A) DC-out and 300W AC-In (probably actually 100V @ 2.9A = 290W). 180/290=0.621 - 62.1%. So Consumer devices (excluding ultra-light travel adapters) are probably really 50-70% efficient. Using the same pattern for Dell - 1.5A @ 100V (150W) in, 20V 4.5A out (90W) - 60% efficiency. My Dell Inspiron has a Penitum 4-M. These figures are outright insane, I seriously doubt any of these Notebooks actually draws significantly more than 100W of Power. Reason being, cooling off >100W of Thermal power in a Notebook is about impossible without the entire Notebook reaching 60+ Deg Temperatures even with Turbine-level cooling all the time. It still shows how terribly inefficient and unsuitable the Pentium 4 ever was for Notebooks (I assume the Alienware especially takes the bite with a fast GPU as well) The Car adapter is absolutely not representative for any consumer device, the 300W requirement is way out of proportion. The only way to get the real figures is to plug it into the Wall and measure the actual consumtion. If that was to be 180W, your Notebook would be (literally) melting at >100 Deg Celsius and a 100dB Noise level cooling. Plus, the AC/DC converter would have to come in at 5-10lbs of weight to assure safe operation at 180W output. |
|
49)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Fairer distribuiton of work(Flame Fest 2007)
(Message 15118)
Posted 17 Oct 2006 by FalconFly
Post: I'm periodically checking with LHC to see how it is doing. Looking at the last months, I'd say : There is basically no "fair" distribution of work possible, given the tiny amount of Work that pops up once a while. Even if every User was to be handed one exclusive WorkUnit, it would still leave others without work... Therefor, the whole discussion got a bit obsolete IMHO, as the current Project needs stand versus a Community with over 100-fold the required computing power... My bet is, once the change in infrastructure are complete and new goals are set (and some actual staff getting back to it), the whole 'problem' will simply vanish as fast as it arised. Ironically (while I always liked LHC), other Projects - established and emerging - are literally dying for more computing power as we speak, plus people can witness a direct line to the staff that actually realizes Community inputs where possible. Just a point to consider. |
|
50)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Boinc farms.
(Message 15078)
Posted 12 Oct 2006 by FalconFly
Post: @GreatInca That's not correct. Typical (modern) Power Supplies operate at approx. 70-85% efficiency (where >80% is very good). In the past, these efficiently levels were known to be only reached unter ~75-80% load conditions, something which has recently changed to the better. A 300W PSU can never pull more than ~300W from the Plug (exact specs and safety circuits usually cut in slightly below that, depending on which supply lines hit their individual Ampere limit first). It is a common error to believe e.g. a 500W PSU would actually draw 500W of power all the time. In fact, a good 500W PSU can operate at a sustained 40W with a power-saving Hardware setup attached to it. The attached Hardware is what defines the power consumption (minus a factor of the PSU's efficiency). I'm running modern Systems with way overpowered PSU's (300-420W, since it's sheer impossible to get e.g. a 150W ATX 2.0 PSU nowadays), and they're effectively using 75W to 115W in total (depending on Hardware Setup) from the Plug (measured). A good Laptop with crunching in mind should not use more than 45-50W unter full CPU load. Something in the figures of 100W or more are power-wasting Desktop replacement Notebooks and terribly inefficient when crunching comes into play; 180W for any Laptop would be completely unacceptable. (A well setup crunching Desktop uses far less than that and offers higher performance at the same time) A Pentium4 is about the worst-case scenario (highly inefficient and by now comparably slow when compared to other architectures)... The only CPU to be less efficient than the P4 was the P4 based Celeron (which marks the rock bottom of poor efficiency in the whole x86 field). |
|
51)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Versions for x86_64 platforms avaible ?
(Message 15069)
Posted 11 Oct 2006 by FalconFly
Post: Thinking about it, that's correct of course... Not sure when Berkeley will start creating official 64bit BOINC Binaries, but I would assume they'd start looking more into it when there are enough Windows Vista users asking for 64bit support. That might take another year, however. |
|
52)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Versions for x86_64 platforms avaible ?
(Message 15038)
Posted 10 Oct 2006 by FalconFly
Post: Not sure if it helps, but : I run all AMD64 Systems on full native 64bit Linux (Fedora Core 3, 4 and 5). So far, all Projects worked just perfect with their 32bit Clients, if that was in question. |
|
53)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Boinc farms.
(Message 15033)
Posted 9 Oct 2006 by FalconFly
Post: Despite sticking to AMD to reduce my Power consumption while increasing computing power, I've been watching the Core 2 Duo as well. Seems (until AMD releases their new K8L based chips - let's see how well those will do) the Core 2 Duo is the way to go, those things pack a hefty punch of power while consuming very little indeed. I would imagine buying and maintaining e.g. 2 separate Dual Cores will be quite a bit cheaper in the forseeable future than getting one expensive 4-way monster (at least that's how it always has been). |
|
54)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Fairer distribuiton of work(Flame Fest 2007)
(Message 14925)
Posted 1 Oct 2006 by FalconFly
Post: If a single user can download 50 or 100 WU, where's the power of distributed computing?? We all have to wait that user to complete his queue for having another batch of WU. A point for consideration : Some users can finish a batch of 100 WU's within a matter of hours, not days or even weeks. Technically, that's the power of Distributed Computing as well. IMHO, the System is 'fair' enough as it is, as it doesn't matter who does the job. Once Project admins decide it becomes a problem, they can easily reduce the deadline, but so far that's not the case. |
|
55)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Bye all!
(Message 14606)
Posted 28 Aug 2006 by FalconFly
Post: No, I don't test because in case of Problems I'd have way too much work to cope with. I'm very dependent on stable production code, everything else is nothing for me. I used to file bug reports in the early days of BOINC but as they were either never acknowledged or implemented halfheartedly until a full year later or so, I stopped investing time into that. |
|
56)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Bye all!
(Message 14601)
Posted 28 Aug 2006 by FalconFly
Post: Basically the Queue will be reduced downto 0 (Zero), eventually requiring 24/7 online Connection in order not to starve all Systems. With LTD easily exceeding two Million Seconds, the entire Scheduling and Cache System is basically becoming corrupted. LTD also has effect across all attached Projects, even e.g. when resetting Projects will lead to insane LTD quirrels as the Scheduler re-assigns the cumulative LTD across all attached Projects (in plain : resetting LHC at 2M LTD will add some 500k LTD to 2 other attached Projects, sending them into deep trouble, as this can't simply be compensated in a few hours crunching) Having no 24/7 online connection and a mandatory Cache size of at least 1.5 days to cover my standard offline periods, having LHC attached without setting it to "Suspended" will quickly result in severe loss of CPU power (I've seen my entire Network run dry after as little as 30 Minutes, which normally holds some cumulative ~1000 hours CPU time worth of work to cover 1.5 days) and is overall just painful. Same problem case arises, when unattaching from such a Project; the LTD Delta will be re-assigned across the active Projects, sending their (until then normal ) LTD skyrocketing. And that's not what I keep a ~$20k Network running for... So far, I'm not aware of a newer BOINC Version that fixes this bug, that would make life with LHC alot easier. |
|
57)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Bye all!
(Message 14594)
Posted 26 Aug 2006 by FalconFly
Post: Yeah, those tricks will also work, but I'll have a hard time manually editing those files two times a day on 24 Systems (Debtviewer is not Network capable). All in all, way too painful just to 'hang on' onto a Project that hasn't any work anyway. (and in the first place, none of this should be needed but maybe that's just me) If the overall Situation doesn't change by end of next month, LHC will finally have to make room for an active Project. |
|
58)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Bye all!
(Message 14580)
Posted 21 Aug 2006 by FalconFly
Post:
If I hadn't put LHC fully suspended, I'd have lost upto 75% of my computing power long ago, thanks to the associated Scheduler Bug. My point was, if you look closer at the MessageBoards, you'll hardly find any Staff answering the old questions here... and the News Update was only one in a long time, which I find disappointing (considering how much support the Project got in the past and even today after an average of 98% No-Work Phases). In other Projects I participate, there's much more Interaction by Staff, which makes the whole thing much more enjoyable (it just shows that they care and stay involved); that's something I find quite important and I just miss it here (used to be different in the early days IMHO) |
|
59)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Bye all!
(Message 14577)
Posted 20 Aug 2006 by FalconFly
Post: I can understand the moaning, as there's very little Updates coming from the Staff these days. I mean (without further Information given) what use is an Attached Project if there's hardly ever work ? Considering what Problems this causes on the BOINC Scheduler's Long Term Debt increasing issue, I'm also thinking that 'it might be complete but noone has made the final decision yet'... |
|
60)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14293)
Posted 12 Jul 2006 by FalconFly
Post: IMHO there's only one Solution to the "WorkUnit starvation problem" : Have and make people understand that a LHC WorkUnit is not a 'Holy Grail' that every participant has the 'right to touch and embrace'. I mean get over it, if there's work... do it... if there's none... work for other Projects in the meantime and periodically check back. Option 2 : Install a premium service for 5$ per month that reads the "WorkUnits available" Counter from the Website every hour and immediately EMail/Message/Phone all customers when the Counter is like >1000 or so *g* Someone ought to be able to make money off all those greedy WorkUnit-Starved folks 
|
Previous 20 · Next 20
©2024 CERN