About lack of time to finish workunits until deadline

Brian Silvers
Brian Silvers
Joined: 26 Aug 05
Posts: 772
Credit: 282,700
RAC: 0

RE: My RDCF is currently

Message 75829 in response to message 75792

Quote:
My RDCF is currently 0.525797. This means it takes approximately 52.6% of the estimated time based on the benchmark. Due to SETI being down over the next day, I'm going to run some Einstein results. I'll check the variance with respect to RDCF and post follow-up...

Current RDCF after running some tasks: 0.530585

So, now it's 53.1%... No major variance in RDCF. The results are indeed taking slightly longer to complete, so the increase seems reasonable as well.

metalius
metalius
Joined: 29 Dec 05
Posts: 44
Credit: 172,967,207
RAC: 7,658

RE: The RDCF is only

Message 75830 in response to message 75828

Quote:
The RDCF is only displayed to you...


I understood eventually, what RDCF is. :) With Your help, of course. :) RDCFs are: on Pentium III - 1.88, on Pentium IV that is missing deadlines - 0.95...

Quote:
The Pentium III-S did actually take 100 hours. Based on the observations by others, it should not be taking that long on that system. There is some kind of problem with that system that is causing it to be slower than what it should be.


Probably incorrect complement of hardware. Thanks to God :), this system is working now 24/7. If situation will change to 8/5, I will need to detach this system from Einstein.

Quote:
As for increasing the resource allocation to Einstein on the system that missed by only 3 hours: To gain 3 hours of time across 2 weeks "office hours" (80 hours) that was at a 50/50 split, all you'd need to do is increase shares by 1,875%. To be more cautious, you should probably increase by 3%. So, set SETI as 47% and Einstein at 53%.


Maybe, I will do this, especially, if this machine will miss deadline next time.

Quote:
As for EDF, it should automatically happen...


I understood, thank You.

metalius
metalius
Joined: 29 Dec 05
Posts: 44
Credit: 172,967,207
RAC: 7,658

@Brian Silvers RE: The

Message 75831 in response to message 75804

@Brian Silvers

Quote:
The "simple answer" for you right now is if you are running another BOINC project on the same machine with Einstein, you can go to your BOINC preferences and increase the resource allocation for Einstein to give more time to the Einstein task. If this is not something you wish to do, then for right now the situation is not going to change. That said, I am trying to see if I can convince the project team here to temporarily increase deadlines by a week because of what I mentioned before about the application optimization being missing from all platforms except Intel Mac OS X. However, they are not going to increase out to several months like SETI or CPDN... As Alinator mentioned, deadlines are set by project goals. SETI does not have an actual immediate goal. The results there are just being stored. There is no post-processing being done. Here, the results are being stored AND there is post-processing of the results that we have submitted. As such, Einstein is well within their rights to ask that tasks be completed sooner than SETI does.
Sorry I cannot give you an answer that I think you want to hear...


Every answer is welcome, because it helps to understand situation - project's needs, politics etc.
But I hope, there is not prohibited to ask naive questions. :)
For example, I take part in LHC too. I don't know, of course, but it is possible that goals, tactics, politics of LHC are similar to Einstein. LHC asks that tasks be completed sooner than Einstein does - 1 week only until deadline!!! But there is an important "BUT" - WUs from LHC are approximately 20 times smaller as from Einstein (I hope, I will have no problems with reporting results for LHC, at least in the near future). As result, we can see a big disproportion between these 2 projects too.
I may be wrong, but looks like earlier WUs from Einstein were smaller. Why these WUs are so big today?
P.S. Sorry, if I ask questions that are answered already...

Bikeman (Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein)
Bikeman (Heinz-...
Moderator
Joined: 28 Aug 06
Posts: 3,522
Credit: 692,137,310
RAC: 27,643

RE: I may be wrong, but

Message 75832 in response to message 75831

Quote:

I may be wrong, but looks like earlier WUs from Einstein were smaller. Why these WUs are so big today?

Depends on how far in the past "earlier" means to you. Workunits in the previous experiment (S5R2) took on average much longer (twice as much and more) time to complete, and had only up to 3 weeks deadline. So the ratio (deadline)/(avg CPU time) has improved when comparing the current and the previous run.

There were experiments before S5R2 that had even shorter WUs, but you can't really compare those earlier runs to the current one because a different algorithm was used (the current "Hierarchical Search" shifted some more work into the client app that was previously done in post-processing).

CU
Bikeman

Brian Silvers
Brian Silvers
Joined: 26 Aug 05
Posts: 772
Credit: 282,700
RAC: 0

RE: For example, I take

Message 75833 in response to message 75831

Quote:

For example, I take part in LHC too. I don't know, of course, but it is possible that goals, tactics, politics of LHC are similar to Einstein.

The "goal" of LHC@Home, at least speaking of the current scientific goal, is to run simulations of particles moving at high relativistic velocities around the "track" of the "finished" LHC (it is still under construction) to make sure that the magnets are able to contain the particle beam. The long-term goals of the LHC are to hopefully address these questions.

Quote:

LHC asks that tasks be completed sooner than Einstein does - 1 week only until deadline!!! But there is an important "BUT" - WUs from LHC are approximately 20 times smaller as from Einstein (I hope, I will have no problems with reporting results for LHC, at least in the near future).

The scientific goal and the algorithm used by the two projects are different, thus you cannot compare an "apple" to an "orange". One other aspect that is a "BUT" is that since the LHC is not fully constructed, scientists are testing simulations to go towards the remaining construction.

Quote:

I may be wrong, but looks like earlier WUs from Einstein were smaller. Why these WUs are so big today?
P.S. Sorry, if I ask questions that are answered already...

As Bikeman mentioned, the tasks from S5R2 were generally substantially longer than S5R3. The S5R2 run was primarily this year, so, indeed, it has been brought up before, you just missed it for some reason... :)

metalius
metalius
Joined: 29 Dec 05
Posts: 44
Credit: 172,967,207
RAC: 7,658

@Bikeman RE: Depends on

Message 75834 in response to message 75832

@Bikeman

Quote:
Depends on how far in the past "earlier" means to you.


How far? When I started, for example - Einstein's application at that moment was Albert (if I remember good)...

Quote:
So the ratio (deadline)/(avg CPU time) has improved when comparing the current and the previous run.


I understand and I agree - this situation is more cruncher-friendly on 24/7 scenario. But... what will happen after "Merry Christmas" (genau 2 Wochen)? :-)
Thank You for answer and explanation...

metalius
metalius
Joined: 29 Dec 05
Posts: 44
Credit: 172,967,207
RAC: 7,658

@Brian

Message 75835 in response to message 75833

@Brian Silvers

Quote:
Quote:

For example, I take part in LHC too. I don't know, of course, but it is possible that goals, tactics, politics of LHC are similar to Einstein.

The "goal" of LHC@Home, at least speaking of the current scientific goal, is...


Yes... The language barrier is much more higher as I expected...
I tried to say - it is possible that LHC@home have similar goals in practice - they need post-processing, their goals are immediate... (similar to Einstein@home)
So... Brian, thank You very much for Your patience! :)

Quote:
The scientific goal and the algorithm used by the two projects are different, thus you cannot compare an "apple" to an "orange"...


I understand and I don't speak about science goals at all. A little bit about algorithms... Some time ago, somewhere I found an article. There was written approximately: "...only SETI code is published on the net, it can be downloaded an studied, if You want..." If this is truth, then every doubter can say about BOINC projects (excluding SETI) - "I don't know, what they are calculating, maybe, playing chess or searching for new weapons..." :))
An example - somewhere on the CPDN site I found question about code. Answer was - "what You will do with thousands of lines, written in FORTRAN?.." (yes, for me this would to be a kind of exotic, and forgotten long time ago...) :)

Quote:
As Bikeman mentioned, the tasks from S5R2 were generally substantially longer than S5R3. The S5R2 run was primarily this year, so, indeed, it has been brought up before, you just missed it for some reason... :)


For very simple reason... :) I follow this (like most volunteers, IMHO) - "The current version of the application will be downloaded to your computer. This happens automatically; you don't have to do anything." :))

Comment viewing options

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