Sudden lurch in remaining work display

ForumsCruncher's Corner

archae86
archae86
Joined: 6 Dec 05
Posts: 1868
Credit: 404420412
RAC: 807071
Topic 193460

The S5R3 search progress pane on the server status page suddenly changed from saying we had well over 300 days of work to go to claiming on 6.2 days.

Bug, or news item?

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 3633
Credit: 133742818
RAC: 105699

Sudden lurch in remaining work display

Actually news, but I didn't come to write the details yet. We found we had to break the current run in two parts at 800Hz frequency. The display shows the work remaining below 800Hz. We'll have set up the upper half in a few days.

BM

BM

th3
th3
Joined: 24 Aug 06
Posts: 208
Credit: 2208434
RAC: 0

I noticed all the WUs i had

I noticed all the WUs i had above 800 gives way too much credit, will future WUs in that range give lower credits?

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 3633
Credit: 133742818
RAC: 105699

RE: I noticed all the WUs i

Message 77622 in response to message 77621

Quote:
I noticed all the WUs i had above 800 gives way too much credit, will future WUs in that range give lower credits?


Apn unexpected side-effect of the problems we have found with the >=800Hz WUs is that they run shorter as intended. The new ones will get the same credit, but run noticeably longer.

BM

BM

DanNeely
DanNeely
Joined: 4 Sep 05
Posts: 1122
Credit: 206193615
RAC: 268537

RE: RE: I noticed all the

Message 77623 in response to message 77622

Quote:
Quote:
I noticed all the WUs i had above 800 gives way too much credit, will future WUs in that range give lower credits?

Apn unexpected side-effect of the problems we have found with the >=800Hz WUs is that they run shorter as intended. The new ones will get the same credit, but run noticeably longer.

BM

Would it be possible to keep the runtime unchanged and adjust the credit instead? This would reduce alot of the grumbling from people with older machines that aren't on 24/7.

Brian Silvers
Brian Silvers
Joined: 26 Aug 05
Posts: 772
Credit: 282700
RAC: 0

RE: RE: RE: I noticed

Message 77624 in response to message 77623

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I noticed all the WUs i had above 800 gives way too much credit, will future WUs in that range give lower credits?

Apn unexpected side-effect of the problems we have found with the >=800Hz WUs is that they run shorter as intended. The new ones will get the same credit, but run noticeably longer.

BM

Would it be possible to keep the runtime unchanged and adjust the credit instead? This would reduce alot of the grumbling from people with older machines that aren't on 24/7.

If the official Windows app becomes 4.26, there may be enough of a speed boost to help the GUM (Great Unwashed Masses). If not, then boosting deadlines up to 16-18 days until SSE can be implemented in the Windows app may also help...

Donald A. Tevault
Donald A. Tevault
Joined: 17 Feb 06
Posts: 439
Credit: 73513404
RAC: 0

RE: RE: RE: RE: I

Message 77625 in response to message 77624

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I noticed all the WUs i had above 800 gives way too much credit, will future WUs in that range give lower credits?

Apn unexpected side-effect of the problems we have found with the >=800Hz WUs is that they run shorter as intended. The new ones will get the same credit, but run noticeably longer.

BM

Would it be possible to keep the runtime unchanged and adjust the credit instead? This would reduce alot of the grumbling from people with older machines that aren't on 24/7.

If the official Windows app becomes 4.26, there may be enough of a speed boost to help the GUM (Great Unwashed Masses). If not, then boosting deadlines up to 16-18 days until SSE can be implemented in the Windows app may also help...

Hmmm. . .

I don't know. If I understand Bernd correctly, it sounds like these >= 800Hz workunits don't run long enough to complete all of the needed calculations. Thus, the need to create new workunits with longer runtimes.

Brian Silvers
Brian Silvers
Joined: 26 Aug 05
Posts: 772
Credit: 282700
RAC: 0

RE: RE: RE: RE: Quote

Message 77626 in response to message 77625

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I noticed all the WUs i had above 800 gives way too much credit, will future WUs in that range give lower credits?

Apn unexpected side-effect of the problems we have found with the >=800Hz WUs is that they run shorter as intended. The new ones will get the same credit, but run noticeably longer.

BM

Would it be possible to keep the runtime unchanged and adjust the credit instead? This would reduce alot of the grumbling from people with older machines that aren't on 24/7.

If the official Windows app becomes 4.26, there may be enough of a speed boost to help the GUM (Great Unwashed Masses). If not, then boosting deadlines up to 16-18 days until SSE can be implemented in the Windows app may also help...

Hmmm. . .

I don't know. If I understand Bernd correctly, it sounds like these >= 800Hz workunits don't run long enough to complete all of the needed calculations. Thus, the need to create new workunits with longer runtimes.

Yes, and what I stated does depend on the runtime staying consistent between the =. If >= 800 takes longer than < 800, then there is definitely going to be some need for panic...

DanNeely
DanNeely
Joined: 4 Sep 05
Posts: 1122
Credit: 206193615
RAC: 268537

RE: I don't know. If I

Message 77627 in response to message 77625

Quote:

I don't know. If I understand Bernd correctly, it sounds like these >= 800Hz workunits don't run long enough to complete all of the needed calculations. Thus, the need to create new workunits with longer runtimes.

Depends on what Bernd meant. The way i read it was that the WUs were completing all the work they needed to do in significantly less time than was expected.

Donald A. Tevault
Donald A. Tevault
Joined: 17 Feb 06
Posts: 439
Credit: 73513404
RAC: 0

RE: RE: I don't know.

Message 77628 in response to message 77627

Quote:
Quote:

I don't know. If I understand Bernd correctly, it sounds like these >= 800Hz workunits don't run long enough to complete all of the needed calculations. Thus, the need to create new workunits with longer runtimes.

Depends on what Bernd meant. The way i read it was that the WUs were completing all the work they needed to do in significantly less time than was expected.

If that's the case, then I don't understand what the problem is.

Hopefully, we'll get some more amplifying info on this later.

Brian Silvers
Brian Silvers
Joined: 26 Aug 05
Posts: 772
Credit: 282700
RAC: 0

RE: RE: RE: I don't

Message 77629 in response to message 77628

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

I don't know. If I understand Bernd correctly, it sounds like these >= 800Hz workunits don't run long enough to complete all of the needed calculations. Thus, the need to create new workunits with longer runtimes.

Depends on what Bernd meant. The way i read it was that the WUs were completing all the work they needed to do in significantly less time than was expected.

If that's the case, then I don't understand what the problem is.

Hopefully, we'll get some more amplifying info on this later.

The way I translated it, the workunits ran much faster than anticipated. What isn't stated is why they ran faster than anticipated. Another related message here was about how tasks at the 799.xx frequency were erroring out immediately...

I unno... I've asked multiple times about deadline extensions. I was considering not asking again based upon the increase in speed by Windows 4.26. Will have to wait and see...

Comment viewing options

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