|
21)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Massive drop of credits per CPU hour
(Message 380)
Posted 22 Nov 2011 by ChertseyAl Post:
I know which group I fall into :) Al. |
|
22)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Massive drop of credits per CPU hour
(Message 379)
Posted 22 Nov 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: Hot news! Hold the front page! A new winner! http://stat.la.asu.edu/NumberFields/result.php?resultid=573572 41 credits for 49 hours! Rejoice! Rejoice! For CreditNew hath shown us The New Way! Let the first-born child of every family bring a goat for sacrifice to to sacred altar of Fairness! Al. |
|
23)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Massive drop of credits per CPU hour
(Message 375)
Posted 21 Nov 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: Al, is it possible your benchmarks are screwy? Maybe you could try re-running them to see if that helps. I could try, but the other project that I'm running alongside this one (AlmereGrid Boinc Grid) is working perfectly. I think this project doesn't like me. I got so depressed earlier that I threw myself off of the top of a 100 foot tall building. Unfortunately the <rsc_fpops_est> were wrong for the building and I fell 2 inches. Nearly broke a fingernail ;) Al. p.s. For the imperial measurement 'challenged', 100 foot is about 30 metres. Or, under CreditNew either 37Km or 2mm, but never the same twice :) |
|
24)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Massive drop of credits per CPU hour
(Message 370)
Posted 21 Nov 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: New record! http://stat.la.asu.edu/NumberFields/result.php?resultid=573116 49 credits for 41 hours crunching :) They'll be dancing in the streets of London, throwing their hats in the air while quaffing ale and praising the All New CreditNew, our saviour in these dark times! Hoorah for CreditNew! Al. |
|
25)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Massive drop of credits per CPU hour
(Message 368)
Posted 21 Nov 2011 by ChertseyAl Post:
Hehe. This one just finished: http://stat.la.asu.edu/NumberFields/result.php?resultid=605522 Yes, that's right. 55 credits for 36 hours. Oh how we laughed. Al. |
|
26)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Massive drop of credits per CPU hour
(Message 364)
Posted 20 Nov 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: Most (probably all) of my hosts are now clogged up with long running 2.03 WUs - The short ones seem to have gone. Still got some ultra-long 2.02's - Hoping they'll pay a decent credit. Knowing my luck with this project they'll all error out after several days crunching ;) Al. |
|
27)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Use of HIGH PRIORITY
(Message 359)
Posted 20 Nov 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: Other than that, I'm not sure what else could cause this. In my case the cause is that the initial estimate of time to completion is way too high 99% of the time. All my WUs come in with estimatates of 60-120 hours and often go into panic mode. Once they've crunched a bit, the estimated remaining run time drops to a sensible time and they drop out of hi pri (apart from a couple of WUs that really do look likely to run for 4 or 5 days). Al. |
|
28)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Massive drop of credits per CPU hour
(Message 358)
Posted 20 Nov 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: I don't know what happened... I think what happened was V2.03 of the application :) V2.02 was giving higher (although still inconsistant) credit. Way back in the beginning the credit was about half of the 'standard' BOINC granting level. I think it was probably the lowest granting project for a while. Also we had all of the computation errors, which didn't help. I came back to the project a few days ago and the credit seemed to be on average about 6 times higher than 'standard'. Not the highest granting project, but certainly up there in the top 6 for CPU projects. Which was nice ;) Currently the credit seems about 'standard' - I hesitate to use the word 'right' ;) Maybe it's still a little high, I need to get some more results to be sure. At least things are still better than they were in the beginning :) Al. |
|
29)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Massive drop of credits per CPU hour
(Message 172)
Posted 7 Sep 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: Credit wars belong in the same category as Father Christmas, the tooth fairy and unicorns. They don't exist, so don't worry about it :) OK, unicorns do exist, but the argument is still valid ;) Al. |
|
30)
Message boards :
News :
New and Improved executable now available.
(Message 171)
Posted 7 Sep 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: Bad news: I got another computation error - After only 13 hours this time ;) http://stat.la.asu.edu/NumberFields/result.php?resultid=49570 http://stat.la.asu.edu/NumberFields/workunit.php?wuid=31816 It's a different problem this time though: segmentation fault: bug in PARI or calling program Al. |
|
31)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Massive drop of credits per CPU hour
(Message 164)
Posted 6 Sep 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: Hmmm, there was a brief spike when the credit became reasonable, but now it's dropping again. It's so low that I've only got 3 machines left getting enough credit to 'justify' (hehe!) the electricity costs, and those are still dropping. Don't know what to suggest. Fixed credit is obviously not viable, and whatever scheme is in place now seems even more random/arbitrary than the delightful (sic) CreditNew. I guess you could take an average runtime for all WUs so far and grant a fixed credit and hope that it averages out, but some WUs are going to be way over or way under :/ Al. |
|
32)
Message boards :
Science :
Authorization for BOINCstats
(Message 163)
Posted 6 Sep 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: Not yet, already discussed here: http://stat.la.asu.edu/NumberFields/forum_thread.php?id=26 Al. |
|
33)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
MQ=1, IR=1 but 2 hosts running a WU?
(Message 123)
Posted 5 Sep 2011 by ChertseyAl Post:
And it did get credited :) Al. |
|
34)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
MQ=1, IR=1 but 2 hosts running a WU?
(Message 114)
Posted 4 Sep 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: This one of mine for instance: http://stat.la.asu.edu/NumberFields/workunit.php?wuid=20380 For some reason, 2 of us got this WU, so presumably I won't get any credit as the other one has been returned. Ah, thinking about it, it's because the first one was returned after the deadline, so mine was sent after it had notionally timed out, but then it was returned and credited due to the increased grace period that you introduced. Be interesting to see if I get any credit :) Al. |
|
35)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Computation error after 31 hours
(Message 112)
Posted 4 Sep 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: Ouch! http://stat.la.asu.edu/NumberFields/result.php?resultid=49117 http://stat.la.asu.edu/NumberFields/workunit.php?wuid=23218 All three of us got errors on this WU :( Al. |
|
36)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Longer deadline possible?
(Message 103)
Posted 2 Sep 2011 by ChertseyAl Post:
Actually it's only 1 day, and mostly I'm NNW on all projects.
I'm in the UK - Go figure. To be fair, this cable connection is actually very good on speed and uptime :) Way too expensive for what it is though :( If you want to make it easy on yourself then keep a small cache and let BOINC do its thing. Been doing that for years and it works just fine. OK. I will! Actually, I don't babysit and micromanage - Probably only look at the machines twice a day - Don't have the time. Just like to keep an eye out for WUs that won't complete on time or projects with faulty WUs that I'd be shredding :) Al. |
|
37)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
one wu at a time
(Message 89)
Posted 30 Aug 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: Nate/Eric - FYI, I just saw this this over at the BOINC forums: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_thread.php?id=6848#39718 Al. |
|
38)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
one wu at a time
(Message 87)
Posted 30 Aug 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: @NATE1 - I think it's something 'different' with this projects server setup. I always run with a 1 day cache, so am unfamiliar with the 0 day cache method. Presumably other projects only send one WU in this case? @Eric - I think *all* client versions correctly reported the number of cores. I guess your server is set up to always send 4 WUs minimum per core - In NATE1's case he's asking for 1 seconds work (I think) and getting more than one WU which is probably wrong. It's like when attaching to the project, when it inits it should receive just one WU. Might be worth enquiring on the BOINC messages boards or via the mailing list. Al. |
|
39)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Longer deadline possible?
(Message 86)
Posted 30 Aug 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: Thanks Eric. I guess in general I get more work than I could crunch in time, but that's because I seem to get long running WUs - Occasionally I get a batch of short ones which I can complete on time :) The 'short' deadlines and long predicted runtimes force the project into panic mode and stop any other projects from running, which is why I only let one at a time run to give the other core a chance to do something else. Al. Edit p.s. I'd really like crunching maths projects, it's just that this one takes a fair bit of 'babysitting' at the moment. I generally don't like having to abort WUs (although it makes no difference to the project as they get resent anyway), but even time I abort a WU a kitten dies (I made that part up). Be nice if the credit granting settled down too - It's all over the place at the moment :) /Edit |
|
40)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Longer deadline possible?
(Message 75)
Posted 29 Aug 2011 by ChertseyAl Post: Normally I find a 3-day deadline fine for WUs from other projects, but the sometimes very long run times mean that I can't complete a one day cache within 3 days most times and have to abort a lot of WUs that won't finish in time. Can't afford to risk letting more than one WU run at the moment as I 'lost' a 42 hour WU that got reported 11 minutes late :( If you need to keep to 3 days that's fine, I'll just have to keep aborting work, but 5 or 7 days would be helpful as I'd be more confident in letting more than one WU run as they'd have a good chance of completing :) Cheers, Al. |