S5R1 and beyond

DanNeely
DanNeely
Joined: 4 Sep 05
Posts: 1,358
Credit: 2,483,952,749
RAC: 3,189,877

First successful S5RI

First successful S5RI results, are validating at 50% higher credit/hour than the s5R1 units they're replacing.

A64x2 @ 2.5gig

S5R1 23 credits/hour
S5RI 34 credits/hour

I make two predictions:
1. In the near future credit will be significantly nerfed back in line with S5R1 and the other major projects.
2. There will be a mass of howling credit whores furious at being robbed.

Annika
Annika
Joined: 8 Aug 06
Posts: 720
Credit: 494,410
RAC: 0

Sounds very logical, Dan. But

Sounds very logical, Dan. But to both points- who cares? ;-)

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4,034
Credit: 220,191,565
RAC: 44,403

RE: First successful S5RI

Message 59527 in response to message 59525

Quote:
First successful S5RI results, are validating at 50% higher credit/hour than the s5R1 units they're replacing.

The first few hundred Workunits have been accidentally generated with a higher credit (factor was 1.6 IIRC). We thought it wasn't worth the hazzle to manually dig them out of the DB and fix it. Seems you were just lucky. Credit should be back to what you expect from S5R1 with later charges of WUs.

BM

BM

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,233
Credit: 137,511,057
RAC: 7,524

RE: It looks like a wrong

Message 59528 in response to message 59522

Quote:
It looks like a wrong version of the validator had been installed.
The one responsible for this had been found and shot. Now there's no way to fix it anymore.


Well done. I've always been partial to summary justice. Fair trials should always be followed by executions ...... :-)

Quote:
Sorry for the inconveninance, we're all a bit short on sleep.


Keep the revolver loaded at the bedside then .... :-)

Keep up the good work!!

Cheers, Mike

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

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,233
Credit: 137,511,057
RAC: 7,524

RE: 2. There will be a mass

Message 59529 in response to message 59525

Quote:
2. There will be a mass of howling credit whores furious at being robbed.


Ahh ...... Dan my man, you meant, of course:

'There will be a mass of howling credit hunters furious at being robbed'

Big smile :-)

Cheers, Mike.

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

DanNeely
DanNeely
Joined: 4 Sep 05
Posts: 1,358
Credit: 2,483,952,749
RAC: 3,189,877

RE: RE: 2. There will be

Message 59530 in response to message 59529

Quote:
Quote:
2. There will be a mass of howling credit whores furious at being robbed.

Ahh ...... Dan my man, you meant, of course:

'There will be a mass of howling credit hunters furious at being robbed'

You give them too much credit.

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,233
Credit: 137,511,057
RAC: 7,524

RE: You give them too much

Message 59531 in response to message 59530

Quote:
You give them too much credit.


Absolutely!! :-)

Cheers, Mike.

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

Bob Guy
Bob Guy
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 12
Credit: 58,059
RAC: 0

Now that we are crunching

Now that we are crunching S5RI, does that mean that S5R1 is officially done? Does that mean that there are no more S5R1 WUs left to crunch aside from some unreported/unreturned WUs?

I've noticed that the (long) S5RI WUs seem to have a complicated command line. Am I wrong in thinking that that is just a kludge to force the WUs to do more work than is necessary in order to extend the time it takes to do a WU? I'm imagining that that was done only to lessen the stress on the servers caused by the short return times of the short(er) WUs. Or, are we now re-crunching interesting WUs using a higher degree of sensitivity?

This is not a complaint or criticism, it's just an idle speculation.

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,233
Credit: 137,511,057
RAC: 7,524

RE: Now that we are

Message 59533 in response to message 59532

Quote:
Now that we are crunching S5RI, does that mean that S5R1 is officially done?


No, it's still washing up time.

Quote:
Does that mean that there are no more S5R1 WUs left to crunch aside from some unreported/unreturned WUs?


Basically yes. It's tying up the loose quorums, reconciling missed stuff due to server wobbles etc.

Quote:
I've noticed that the (long) S5RI WUs seem to have a complicated command line. Am I wrong in thinking that that is just a kludge to force the WUs to do more work than is necessary in order to extend the time it takes to do a WU? I'm imagining that that was done only to lessen the stress on the servers caused by the short return times of the short(er) WUs. Or, are we now re-crunching interesting WUs using a higher degree of sensitivity?


I'd say the former, though I guess it could be the latter.

Quote:
This is not a complaint or criticism, it's just an idle speculation.

Please, speculate away.... :-)

Cheers, Mike.

( edit ) Upon closer inspection, ie. I put my reading glasses on, my work units are labelled eg. 'h1_0374.0_S5R1__1503_S5RIa_0' - or spoken 'aych one underline zero three seven four point zero underline ess five arr ONE underline underline one five zero three underline ess five arr EYE ay underline zero' :-)

So that'd make the 'S5RI' units a subset of 'S5R1' .....

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

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4,034
Credit: 220,191,565
RAC: 44,403

RE: I've noticed that the

Message 59534 in response to message 59532

Quote:
I've noticed that the (long) S5RI WUs seem to have a complicated command line. Am I wrong in thinking that that is just a kludge to force the WUs to do more work than is necessary in order to extend the time it takes to do a WU?


Yes you are.

I don't know why the command line looks more complicated to you than the ones of S5R1. We are using a newer framework for our workunit generator, which may result in more options given on the command line than being hidden in the config file or in program defaults, but in priciple the program shouldn't do something different.

Quote:
I'm imagining that that was done only to lessen the stress on the servers caused by the short return times of the short(er) WUs. Or, are we now re-crunching interesting WUs using a higher degree of sensitivity?


Not really with a higher sensitivity, which would be something like a closer look. We're rather looking at a certain part from a different angle, or with a different focus, but from the more or less same distance. We found that the spindown values we were looking for in S5R1 might not have been optimal for this frequency range (150-720Hz, I think), so we've changed that for this short run.

Originally the workunits resulting from this setup were a bit longer than the long S5R1 WUs, so we decided to cut them in a half to not exclude the slower computers.

BM

BM

Comment viewing options

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