Posts by mikey

1) Message boards : News : Should the fixed credits be higher? (Message 2834)
Posted 18 Jun 2020 by mikey
Post:
Short answer: Yes, credits are too small here.

Longer answer: Try doing come crunching with your own machines on other projects. PrimeGrid is a good baseline, a good place to start. Run your CPUs there against one of their LLR sub-projects, and run your GPUs on their PPS sub-project. That should give you a good benchmark to compare to what you generate against this project. Then consider offering bonus rates for unusual things that you may require for your project, for example large memory requirements, or long running times without checkpoints, etc.


I agree 100%!!!

Too few credits and people will come tocheck things out and leave, too many credits and you will get the hackers trying to cheat the system. PrimeGrid seems to have found a happy medium by not giving out too many nor too few credits. They also have tasks that can run from 10 minutes to over 100 hundred hours. To me the idea of a project is to attract enough users to get thru the work without attracting so many users that you are constantly spending time and money to keep up with all of their needs, credits can and do affect that.
2) Message boards : News : Not enough available work (Message 2785)
Posted 25 May 2020 by mikey
Post:
I have been suspending jobs because there appears to be many of them all estimated to run at least 9 hours and all hogging the work from all other projects, Many of these other projects
have tasks running for less than 2 minutes.

One of the NumberFields@home jobs is even reporting that it will take
410 days 5 hrs. 22 mins and 45 seconds to complete (over a year!)

Every other job is showing 9 days 11 hours and 11 minutes estimated completion time

Surely this project should not be stopping other tasks (such as Coronavirus research) from running.


It is not the Project doing it's Boinc doing it, it's running the workunits that need to be run first so they do not exceed the deadlines for each workunit. Setting a smaller will give more flexibility for Boinc to run your Project choices, most people with always on internet, and no charges for different times of the day, run anything from a zero cache to something like 0.5 in both boxes or even 0.5 in the first box and 0.25 in the second box. That will give you around one days worth of workunits depending on how long the tasks are. Another way to affect things is the Resource Share you have set for each Project, the ones with the higher resource share will get more cpu time than ones with a lower resource share. BUT you will often still see all of the cores tied up on one Project instead of 3 cores on Project and 1 core on another Project, on a 4 core cpu. Boinc does not have the ability to set that project a uses 1 cpu core and project b uses 3 cpu cores, in that same 4 cpu core example. There are some 3rd party apps that can help with that but they require alot of manual attention and I don't recommend that for new crunchers. Try and use the built in settings and Boinc will be easier to use in the long run.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Too much credit ? (Message 2512)
Posted 27 Jul 2019 by mikey
Post:
Personally I think you, like Seti, will come to regret that decision. Seti has by far the most number of people signing up to crunch for it, they do the most PR stuff so why wouldn't people start there? BUT they are also the project that most people then leave for other projects too!! Seti has numerous problems such as not being able to get the grants like they have in the past etc and are now shut down at least 2 days per week every week, this has also affected their ability to retain people who pay to crunch too. The people that do crunch there are aware of that and work around it but since people are leaving the project it also means they no longer have as many people doing the crunching and their time frame to analyze the data is reduced as a result. In short it's your decision and your project and your decisions will affect how long it keeps going at the current rate.

Some projects pay a lot of credits for the crunching power users bring, some projects pay much less, it all depends on your goals and your ability to keep people crunching and projects such as Collatz, they currently pay the most of any gpu project, sometimes struggle to keep things running smoothly and cheater free. If your desires are to get thru the data faster then pay more credits, if your ability to expand or keep your existing hardware running is reduced then reducing the amount of credits you pay is the easiest way to keep users away.

Mikey, I agree. A few months ago the team standings on this project were turned upside down due to a huge credit anomaly. It also had the effect of singlehandedly reordering a good portion of the DC-Vault standings. Now the credits are so low here that it's folly to even think that the credit totals can be brought back into reality. GPU credits are ridiculously low. Maybe it's partly due to an inefficient GPU application. Back on topic, the crazy high credits that were spewed out for a few days were never rolled back and that's a problem. I'm sure that the people/teams that benefited are happy but no one else is. The apparently unrealized upshot is that those teams that benefited can quit work here because no one can realistically ever catch them and the teams that missed the few days of insane credits have no reason to run this project anymore as the possibility of upward mobility is virtually nonexistent. Not rolling back those crazy credit days are akin to shooting oneself in the foot as far as project participation is concerned.


I agree it's a balancing thing and if a Project doesn't do anything when 'things happen' they aren't destined to be a multi-year Project. Users remember when they've been 'wronged' and will refuse to crunch for a Project again once bad 'things happen'. EVERY Project has 'things happen' how they handle them is key to their long term survival.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Too much credit ? (Message 2504)
Posted 23 Jul 2019 by mikey
Post:
Yep, CreditNew. Seems to be the only way to fairly handle both CPU and GPU tasks.


Personally I think you, like Seti, will come to regret that decision. Seti has by far the most number of people signing up to crunch for it, they do the most PR stuff so why wouldn't people start there? BUT they are also the project that most people then leave for other projects too!! Seti has numerous problems such as not being able to get the grants like they have in the past etc and are now shut down at least 2 days per week every week, this has also affected their ability to retain people who pay to crunch too. The people that do crunch there are aware of that and work around it but since people are leaving the project it also means they no longer have as many people doing the crunching and their time frame to analyze the data is reduced as a result. In short it's your decision and your project and your decisions will affect how long it keeps going at the current rate.

Some projects pay a lot of credits for the crunching power users bring, some projects pay much less, it all depends on your goals and your ability to keep people crunching and projects such as Collatz, they currently pay the most of any gpu project, sometimes struggle to keep things running smoothly and cheater free. If your desires are to get thru the data faster then pay more credits, if your ability to expand or keep your existing hardware running is reduced then reducing the amount of credits you pay is the easiest way to keep users away.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : scheduler problem (Message 2503)
Posted 22 Jul 2019 by mikey
Post:
You may have noticed the server scheduler has been very fickle of late.

I think part of the problem is related to how WUs have been segregated into batches (1 for normal app and 1 for GPU app). Since the GPU app has been relatively stable and has agreed with the CPU version on every WU tested (over 400), I have decided to remove the batch descriminator (this will open up the DS14x12 WUs to the GPU app).

I now have over 100 GPU WUs. Interestingly enough they are all of the DS14x12 variety (batch 0) and all have a higher priority (due to accelerated retry mechanism). Ironically, I think this points to the root cause of the scheduler problem...

I think this may have fixed the problem, at least for me it has. Please let me know if you still have problems receiving tasks.


Are there about equal numbers of both cpu and gpu workunits being created or you focusing on gpu workunits right now? I ask because I have some cpu cores that can't get work here right now and if I should be trying the gpu workunits instead.


The same WUs work on both cpu and gpu, so you should be able to get tasks for either.


Thank you, it seems to be working now, your idea in the other thread about reissued workunits, was hopefully the problem.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : How do I get WUs (Message 2502)
Posted 22 Jul 2019 by mikey
Post:
Did this start working for you? I checked about half of your computers and they have tasks in progress. If there are specific hosts with problems let me know which ones and I can troubleshoot it.

I noticed earlier all my hosts had 2nd hand tasks. It seems like a ton of tasks expired simultaneously and were reissued at the higher priority - when this happens the scheduler will only give them to hosts it deems are "reliable". I think this may have been the problem, and you are probably not the only one affected.


Yes it started working for me overnight, I'm on the East Coast of the US, thank you. I'm hoping that was the problem, which makes sense as most have never been here before.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : scheduler problem (Message 2499)
Posted 21 Jul 2019 by mikey
Post:
You may have noticed the server scheduler has been very fickle of late.

I think part of the problem is related to how WUs have been segregated into batches (1 for normal app and 1 for GPU app). Since the GPU app has been relatively stable and has agreed with the CPU version on every WU tested (over 400), I have decided to remove the batch descriminator (this will open up the DS14x12 WUs to the GPU app).

I now have over 100 GPU WUs. Interestingly enough they are all of the DS14x12 variety (batch 0) and all have a higher priority (due to accelerated retry mechanism). Ironically, I think this points to the root cause of the scheduler problem...

I think this may have fixed the problem, at least for me it has. Please let me know if you still have problems receiving tasks.


Are there about equal numbers of both cpu and gpu workunits being created or you focusing on gpu workunits right now? I ask because I have some cpu cores that can't get work here right now and if I should be trying the gpu workunits instead.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : How do I get WUs (Message 2498)
Posted 21 Jul 2019 by mikey
Post:
Thanks for telling me that. I will run them when you have them.

I would run CPU wus except that I have heat problems that I can't overcome.

AT Hiker


Another thing to keep in mind is this app requires openCL 1.2, and it looks like your video driver only supports 1.1. You might be able to upgrade the driver.


I'm trying to run the cpu apps here but the cache won't stay full and some pc's just aren't getting any workunits sent to them at all.I am running a zero resource share project and do have this Project set higher so it should be getting workunits. And yes I have all the boxes checked except the 'use gpu' ones and even the 'send me a different kind of workunit if the kind I have checked isn't available'. SOME of my computers are getting tasks but not all of them, I have over a dozen pc's with over 100 cpu cores total here and am trying to increase my stats a bit.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Massive drop of credits per CPU hour (Message 239)
Posted 7 Oct 2011 by mikey
Post:
Well I can't work out why my faster computer (by only 200 MHz, an AMD Phenom II 1100T @ 3.3 GHz, my other is AMD Phenom II 955 @ 3.2 GHz), is getting consistently much lower results than my slower machine.
...


I really don't understand how the credit system works but I gather is is all based on these benchmarks that run initially. Perhaps there was something else running during the benchmark phase which is lowering the scores on your Phenom. I believe you can force the manager to re-run them. Can you give that a try before you bail on your AMD?



I am sure that almost any other Boinc Project Admin will help you if they can, you might try Collatz although it is mostly a gpu project but some people use their cpu too. He gives more than the average credits per workunit and seems to be almost one guy handling everything. He is very responsive to the message boards.





Main page · Your account · Message boards


Copyright © 2021 Arizona State University