23 hours for a WU???

Richard Haselgrove
Richard Haselgrove
Joined: 10 Dec 05
Posts: 2139
Credit: 2752966905
RAC: 1385904

RE: Apparently I had the

Message 47467 in response to message 47466

Quote:

Apparently I had the same problem on my last work unit. :( I've turned on the leave applications in memory option and will see if that helps. I may increase the application switch time later if this alone doesn't work. But I have another question. I can understand how the error would increase the computing time. But the current work unit I have in my queue has an estimated time of just over 1 day. Shouldn't the initial estimate still be 12-15 hours or something? It shouldn't assume there will be an error that will double the computing time. I thought the estimated time was based basically on the size of the work unit and that was it. Is there something else going on here that I'm missing? Thanks.

P.S. -- I'm running on a Windows machine.


You're right that the estimated computing time is based on the size of the workunit and the speed of your computer.

But there are so many weird and wonderful computers out there, that it's impossible for the project to predict it exactly, and not worth anyone's time writing a program to do so.

Instead, there's an automatic fiddle-factor called the "Result duration correction factor", which is used to fine-tune the estimate. You can see it on the page of details about your computer on this website, right at the bottom just above the computer location.

If a WU takes less time than expected, then the DCF is reduced a bit, and future estimates will be shorter. But it does this gradually - if it gets it wrong, there would be a danger that you could download too much work at once and not be able to finish it in time.

On the other hand, when a WU runs slow for whatever reason, as yours just has, it immediately assumes that every future WU is going to run just as slowly - again, to prevent you downloading more work than you can handle if the speed change turns out to be permanent.

Assuming you don't get any more errors, you'll find that the estimates gradually sort themselves out, and should be accurate again after about 20-30 completed WUs.

Dronak
Dronak
Joined: 21 Mar 05
Posts: 28
Credit: 10402879
RAC: 0

RE: Assuming you don't get

Message 47468 in response to message 47467

Quote:
Assuming you don't get any more errors, you'll find that the estimates gradually sort themselves out, and should be accurate again after about 20-30 completed WUs.

OK, your description makes sense. I have seen estimated completion times ajust themselves as work units progress, and my current one has dropped down to about 17 hours at the moment. But it also seems like needing an additional 20-30 points to recognize one anomalous point is a bit much, especially when that result contains an error that's the obvious cause of the increased time. I guess nothing can be done about it because, like you said, there are so many varying factors among computers that it's not worth working on a more sophisticated solution. But I hope that when all future results come in at about half the time of the problem work unit, the DCF adjusts faster. Otherwise it will take a few months before things get back to normal, all because of one freak error that the system can't easily identify as such (even though humans can). Oh well, nothing to do but keep crunching and let things fix themselves over time. I just hope it doesn't take too long. Thanks for the information.

darkclown
darkclown
Joined: 27 Sep 06
Posts: 5
Credit: 236903
RAC: 0

Yea, I just added a quad-xeon

Yea, I just added a quad-xeon 2.8 to my mix, and saw 24 hour workunit estimates. I didn't think it was THAT slow of a system...

marvinvwinkle
marvinvwinkle
Joined: 24 Feb 05
Posts: 1444
Credit: 85585
RAC: 0

I just finished a 36 hour WU

I just finished a 36 hour WU and my next one says it will take 36 hours. It just seems to get slower and slower. I don't play games or movies. I was paired with an individual that finished in 30 thousand seconds. I'm tired of making people wait and getting lower credits(I'm not really a credit w----). Any suggestions other than buying a new computer?

TFFE

Pooh Bear 27
Pooh Bear 27
Joined: 20 Mar 05
Posts: 1376
Credit: 20312671
RAC: 0

RE: I just finished a 36

Message 47471 in response to message 47470

Quote:
I just finished a 36 hour WU and my next one says it will take 36 hours. It just seems to get slower and slower. I don't play games or movies. I was paired with an individual that finished in 30 thousand seconds. I'm tired of making people wait and getting lower credits(I'm not really a credit w----). Any suggestions other than buying a new computer?


You did not tell us what type of computer. You have your computers hidden, so we can not see what you have, and can not read your mind (-:

It would be interesting to know the details of your system, to see if it's on par with others, and what suggestions we can make to have it run faster.

marvinvwinkle
marvinvwinkle
Joined: 24 Feb 05
Posts: 1444
Credit: 85585
RAC: 0

Sorry about that, I didn't

Sorry about that, I didn't realize I had the computer hidden. The following is my system:

GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.40GHz Microsoft Windows XP
Home Edition, Service Pack 2, (05.01.2600.00)

I might also add that I have had some errors recently that I haven't had in the past.

TFFE

Annika
Annika
Joined: 8 Aug 06
Posts: 720
Credit: 494410
RAC: 0

Not very fast, but not very

Not very fast, but not very slow either... your PC I mean, because the WU times seem indeed a bit long to me... let's compare: I have an Intel Celeron M (Banias) which runs at 1300 MHz but should be a bit more efficient than a desktop CPU with the same clock speed, and that takes about 11 or 12 hours for a long WU. So that should give you an estimate of what your machine should theoretically be able to do- I know that AMDs tend to do a bit better at Einstein then Intels but mine is an Intel too... and hey, it's a celeron ;-) If all, your PC should be faster than my laptop, not slower. I'd like to know your floating point and integer benchmark scores, Marvin. Are they also too low or do they look normal?

Pooh Bear 27
Pooh Bear 27
Joined: 20 Mar 05
Posts: 1376
Credit: 20312671
RAC: 0

Are you using the screen

Are you using the screen saver? Some machines this slows down the work.

You are having definate issues. My P4 Xeon 1.5M is slower than your machine (according to the benchmarks), yet doing work twice as fast. I am averaging 55K for the same units you are taking 110-120+ on.

I would start with testing your box. Using Memtest86+ and Prime95 to see if you have either some memory issues, or heat/processing issues.

marvinvwinkle
marvinvwinkle
Joined: 24 Feb 05
Posts: 1444
Credit: 85585
RAC: 0

Here is what you

Here is what you requested.

Measured floating point speed 1076.45 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 2119.31 million ops/sec

I also had another compute error today. I haven't had those until the last couple of weeks.

I also want to tell you that I know very little about computers so be kind, please. Thanks

TFFE

Lt. Cmdr. Daze
Lt. Cmdr. Daze
Joined: 19 Apr 06
Posts: 756
Credit: 82361
RAC: 0

RE: Here is what you

Message 47476 in response to message 47475

Quote:

Here is what you requested.

Measured floating point speed 1076.45 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 2119.31 million ops/sec

I also had another compute error today. I haven't had those until the last couple of weeks.

I also want to tell you that I know very little about computers so be kind, please. Thanks


Perhaps you have other (unkown) running processes that take a lot of CPU? Strange, you have three compute errors, one completed in about 24 hrs, and two lasting even longer...

Perhaps this thread applies for you in case you're running a screensaver. That might also explain the longer crunching times as screensavers take a lot of CPU.

HTH,
Bert

Somnio ergo sum

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.