Sighting of the legendary Monster Workunits (630 cr)

ohiomike
ohiomike
Joined: 4 Nov 06
Posts: 80
Credit: 6,453,639
RAC: 0

There's a lot of "monsters"

There's a lot of "monsters" out there. I've gotten 14 of them on my Mac Pro so far. The good news is that despite taking almost 24 hours to run, they all appear to be validating so far (said with fingers crossed: 9 of 13 complete have validated ok). I do feel a little sorry for a lot of people however though, it looks like these WUs are taking 75-80 hours on P4 uP's.


Gary Roberts
Gary Roberts
Moderator
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 5,210
Credit: 43,497,810,154
RAC: 44,383,979

RE: .... it looks like

Message 69501 in response to message 69500

Quote:
.... it looks like these WUs are taking 75-80 hours on P4 uP's.

Maybe they are dual processor machines so the box is effectively producing two results in that time.

This machine is a Tualatin Celeron 1100MHz running at 1466MHz. I use a simple socket mod to fool the motherboard into thinking the CPU is 133MHz rather than 100MHz. It works on most 1000MHz chips, a number of 1100's and even some 1200's. You can see that it's currently returning 660.19 credit results in around 68.5 hours.

Now I know Tualatins are good and can match it with low end single core P4's (eg 1.8GHz), but not that good so as to beat a more mid-range P4, like 2.4 - 2.6GHz for instance :).

So you don't need to feel too sorry for this type of "lesser hardware". It's doing quite nicely, thank you very much :).

Cheers,
Gary.

Ananas
Ananas
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 272
Credit: 2,500,681
RAC: 0

CPU time 472855.57 Granted

CPU time 472855.57 Granted credit = 645

P3 Coppermine 800 running Linux :-)

FJBJClauwens
FJBJClauwens
Joined: 11 Nov 06
Posts: 4
Credit: 2,134,335
RAC: 0

Of the last 50 results on my

Of the last 50 results on my Mac Pro, 49 were monsters.
Of these 49 there were 17 granted, whereas 32 are still pending,
for a total of 20963 pending credits!
All of them took between 83574 and 83919 seconds, i.e. between 23h 12min and 23h 19min.

Cheers, Frans

peanut
peanut
Joined: 4 May 07
Posts: 162
Credit: 9,644,812
RAC: 0

I recently finished two

I recently finished two 657.14 credit WU's. Core Duo's handle them well, Core 2 Duos likely do a bit better though.

I have three computers and it seems the slower computers (clock speed & processor combined) get higher credit WUs?@?!!. My speedy 1.83Ghz Core Duo mac mini tends to get 411 credit WUs, my slower 1.83Ghz G5 imac gets 448 credit WUs, and my 1.66Ghz Core Duo gets the monster 657 credit WUs. Though I must say I think my 1.66Ghz Core Duo out performs my 1.83Ghz G5.

archae86
archae86
Joined: 6 Dec 05
Posts: 2,822
Credit: 3,297,593,681
RAC: 2,541,896

RE: I have three computers

Message 69505 in response to message 69504

Quote:
I have three computers and it seems the slower computers (clock speed & processor combined) get higher credit WUs?@?!!.


Einstein is sticky. Once one of your machines downloads the big file, it will keep getting results from that same for quite a while if available which tend to be very nearly the same credits/work. That is what is going on, not a perverse intention to send big processing tasks to slow machines.

Sometimes luck pushes things the other way. I just turned on a new Q6600 Core 2 Quad build last Wednesday. Right out the chute it is getting nothing but 655+ monsters. I was annoyed at first, as it greatly delayed initial validation that my machine was working--but better this machine get them than something so slow as my old PIII Coppermine.

Dave Burbank
Dave Burbank
Joined: 30 Jan 06
Posts: 275
Credit: 1,548,376
RAC: 0

My Q6600 has been patiently

My Q6600 has been patiently waiting for a monster WU. On either Linux or Windows, the biggest WU I've seen is 449 credits (data pack 515.35).

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman

kbstewart
kbstewart
Joined: 29 Mar 06
Posts: 1
Credit: 49,866
RAC: 0

I agree. I have turned off

I agree. I have turned off accepting new work because of them. I have one computer that has had 3 in a row. A wu that takes 70+ hours of cpu on a 2400 AMD is really unacceptable.

Bikeman (Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein)
Bikeman (Heinz-...
Moderator
Joined: 28 Aug 06
Posts: 3,516
Credit: 455,893,439
RAC: 45,696

RE: I agree. I have turned

Message 69508 in response to message 69507

Quote:
I agree. I have turned off accepting new work because of them. I have one computer that has had 3 in a row. A wu that takes 70+ hours of cpu on a 2400 AMD is really unacceptable.

Then again, why is that less acceptable than (say) 6 WUs in a row each taking 35 h for the same total credit? You should not have any problems meeting the deadline with that kind of CPU.

CU

BRM

RandyC
RandyC
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 2,862
Credit: 111,139,797
RAC: 2,827

RE: My Q6600 has been

Message 69509 in response to message 69506

Quote:
My Q6600 has been patiently waiting for a monster WU. On either Linux or Windows, the biggest WU I've seen is 449 credits (data pack 515.35).

I bought an AMD X2 4600 in late May/early June. It has crunched exactly ONE datapack since I connected it to Einstein (498.70). BORING! It gets a steady 426.33 in just over 24 hrs/CPU. It's worked it's way down from #256 until now it's on #57. It should get something new sometime later this month (I hope).

It DID get one compute error on 20 July, but it's been steady as a rock for everything else.

Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.

Comment viewing options

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