Large number of WU stays in pending credits

roadrunner_gs
roadrunner_gs
Joined: 7 Mar 06
Posts: 94
Credit: 3369656
RAC: 0

RE: RE: Why are there so

Message 82726 in response to message 82714

Quote:
Quote:

Why are there so called overreplications (Zuvielfachauslieferungen ^^)

WUID 41168115
WUID 41165172
WUID 41162167
WUID 41157579

Two results are reported in, one other was replicated without need.
One would not get any credit albeit the work is done and could be used.
Just curious...

I hope you don't mind but I've made your links clickable.

Normally, if an unneeded task is sent out, you would expect it to be awarded credit as well, as long as it was returned within the deadline. I notice in the second example above that not only was the third task unnecessary, but also all three were returned well within the deadline and the third to return was denied credit. Your task was the third to be returned but it was denied credit with the explanation, "Task was reported too late to validate".

Of the above four, you were denied credit on two and were granted credit on the other two. It appears that whoever is the last to return will be denied credit, even though all are well within the deadline. When I look at the full results list for your computer, there are actually 7 tasks where you have been denied credit so this is a bigger problem than just 4 isolated tasks.

There is something weird about the way the scheduler is dishing out the tasks. If you look at the second quorum in your list above, your task (for which you were given no credit) had the lowest resultID and is also flagged as the _0 task. In other words you would expect it to have been distributed first. However, the _1 task was distributed on 06 July and your _0 task wasn't sent to you until 11 July. It's almost as if the _0 task got lost for five days before the scheduler sent it out quite belatedly. Then the scheduler suddenly thought this belated task was overdue and so sent out a third. Only the first two back will win the prize if the scheduler thinks the deadline has already expired.

I think what is happing here also needs to be drawn to the attention of an Admin so I'll go do that now.

Going back on this one i found out there were some WUs with "client detached" and resent WU whereas my client wasn't detached.
I think this was the reason for sending out the WU again or am i wrong?
To spare the client with the resent WU the annoyance of unhonored work i aborted the resent WUs.

Gundolf Jahn
Gundolf Jahn
Joined: 1 Mar 05
Posts: 1079
Credit: 341280
RAC: 0

RE: I think there's a

Message 82727 in response to message 82718

Quote:
I think there's a latent database problem around here as well, as it happens that I try to load forums or individual threads and end up on a white page only. Reloading the same link will usually fix that, but in case of threads they're then set to 'already read' so I have to find the newest posts myself.


If I get those "white pages" (usally on BoincStats, though), I use menu Ansicht/Schriftgrad and select the currently chosen item again. (Sorry, German Windows: 3. from the left, 7. from top in IE6 :-) That reveals the content without reloading and thus retains the (un)read flags.

Gruß,
Gundolf

Computer sind nicht alles im Leben. (Kleiner Scherz)

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6588
Credit: 314128678
RAC: 259895

RE: So, is anybody else

Message 82728 in response to message 82725

Quote:
So, is anybody else having performance problems for the web frontend? Pages not loading, time-outs, blank pages? Because on my end everything is OK! Go figure...


I think it's been a bit 'laggy' the last few weeks, but I'd assumed it was the 'school holiday effect' jagging up local ISP servers. But now that I think harder about it non-E@H sites were pretty OK. But don't hold my experience too closely as my local exchange is getting a considerable upgrade for an ADSL2 rollout. Of course, technically that shouldn't matter, but we're talking Telstra here. :-)

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...

... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal

Gary Roberts
Gary Roberts
Moderator
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 5872
Credit: 117411100959
RAC: 35593999

RE: Doh! Yeah .... still ~

Message 82729 in response to message 82721

Quote:
Doh! Yeah .... still ~ 20 % drop in a couple of days.

If you look at the long term graph, the previous drop was even bigger. There have been quite significant up and down swings going on for a couple of months now.

Quote:
Unless it's related to your Windoze -> Linux conversion idea, with those reborn boxes now calling back in from their first units.

It's possible that may be part of it. A single box, newly transitioned to linux will be reported as two active hosts for about a week and then it will drop back to one. So if a bunch of machines is being converted this could give swings up and down.

However, having looked at the longer term graphs, I reckon the swings are probably being caused by clusters of machines being switched between E@H and their normal post processing duties. Each time they come back to E@H, they are being give a new hostID. Each time they leave, a week later they drop out of the active hosts list. The BOINC directory isn't being preserved between visits.

Cheers,
Gary.

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6588
Credit: 314128678
RAC: 259895

RE: .. Each time they come

Message 82730 in response to message 82729

Quote:
.. Each time they come back to E@H, they are being give a new hostID. Each time they leave, a week later they drop out of the active hosts list. The BOINC directory isn't being preserved between visits.

Sigh, it's that effect that would negate any sensible micro-analysis ( my 'cohort' ideas ) of user trends. Maybe this is what economists and market analysts have to put up with ...

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...

... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6588
Credit: 314128678
RAC: 259895

Well it looks like we're

Well it looks like we're really topping out to record TFlops, and yet only recovered to under half way back up the recent dip! That speaks of some rather higher end machines coming in, or aliases thereof. Am I reading that right?

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...

... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal

roadrunner_gs
roadrunner_gs
Joined: 7 Mar 06
Posts: 94
Credit: 3369656
RAC: 0

RE: Well it looks like

Message 82732 in response to message 82731

Quote:

Well it looks like we're really topping out to record TFlops, and yet only recovered to under half way back up the recent dip! That speaks of some rather higher end machines coming in, or aliases thereof. Am I reading that right?

Cheers, Mike.

Yep

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6588
Credit: 314128678
RAC: 259895

RE: RE: Well it looks

Message 82733 in response to message 82732

Quote:
Quote:

Well it looks like we're really topping out to record TFlops, and yet only recovered to under half way back up the recent dip! That speaks of some rather higher end machines coming in, or aliases thereof. Am I reading that right?

Cheers, Mike.

Yep


Nice one! :-)
Looks like it's been benchmarked rather low though ?

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...

... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal

roadrunner_gs
roadrunner_gs
Joined: 7 Mar 06
Posts: 94
Credit: 3369656
RAC: 0

RE: Nice one! :-) Looks

Message 82734 in response to message 82733

Quote:

Nice one! :-)
Looks like it's been benchmarked rather low though ?

Cheers, Mike.

No idea, it is that slow.
Intel Atom 230 SLB6Z 1.6 GHz ~100000 s/WU (guessed from current runtime of 2 units); 948 MIPS/ 368 MFLOPS w/HT; TDP 4 W
Intel Pentium 4 630 SL7Z9 3.0 GHz ~123000 s/WU; 728 MIPS/ 325 MFLOPS w/HT; TDP 84 W
Intel Pentium M 755 SL7EL 2.0 GHz ~22700 s/WU; 3155 MIPS/ 1544 MFLOPS; TDP 21 W

Maybe the Pentium 4 is throttling, i set the fan to "silent" - but i second that idea because the runtimes are consistent.
It is sad the Motherboard/Chipset-combo drains that much energy (45 W with 80 GB 3.5" SATA-disk and 1x2 GB PC533 RAM), the MSI Wind/Medion Akoya with Atom N270 sports Speedstep (under Linux) and consumes only 9-10 W running on accumulator providing the same speed.
The Atom is approximately as fast as a 1 GHz Pentium M with 2 MB L2, my Pentium M 1.2 ULV SL6NB took the same time as the Atom 230 as far as i remember.

Sorry for off-topic...
Back to the three WUs sent out to clients: this one got credit granted for all three clients?

Comment viewing options

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