Suggest assiging WU based on average reponse time

jay
jay
Joined: 2 Aug 06
Posts: 21
Credit: 27,748
RAC: 0
Topic 192019

Here is a suggestion that might improve the pending credit wait time.

As I understand, WUs are assigned to two different users - in order to validate results.

There can be a mismatch in the average response time
of the two users. For example, user 'A' may have a small respnse time - with a few number of WUs cached on his machine. User 'B' may have a much longer response time with many WUs cached. With two users per WU, One will always finish before the other - but when the response is different in the order of days, the user may get impatient, want to see credit.

Could WU's be assigned based on the average response time??
Perhaps, an aritrary distinction of one day could be used to filter WUs to users. Thus, having WUs assingen to compatible users - based on average response time.

Thank,
Jay

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 3,946
Credit: 201,651,333
RAC: 47,695

Suggest assiging WU based on average reponse time

I understand this is a wish.

However actually implementing this would take quite some effort. When assigning work the current scheduler only knows about the host requesting work. With your proposal it would need to know of other hosts, a larger selection of workunits, keep track of a lot more information. This would make it slower to respond, more complicated and possibly less reliable, and also put more load on the database. For the server side and thus for the whole project it would make things rather worse than better.

Sorry.

BM

BM

Ziran
Ziran
Joined: 26 Nov 04
Posts: 194
Credit: 60,800
RAC: 0

Aren’t you already doing

Aren’t you already doing something along this lines by having long and short results?

Does the scheduler check if the host should get long or short results every time a host ask for work, or only then its time to assign a new data file to the host?

If its only then a new data file is needed, couldn’t you make the scheduler also look at average turnaround time if it decides the host should get long results? So if the host should get long results and average turnaround time is:
3 & 6 days, it gets a data file in the 2000.0 - 2499.0 range.

Then you're really interested in a subject, there is no way to avoid it. You have to read the Manual.

Bruce Allen
Bruce Allen
Moderator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 1,110
Credit: 172,125,663
RAC: 0

RE: Aren’t you already

Message 49413 in response to message 49412

Quote:

Aren’t you already doing something along this lines by having long and short results?

Does the scheduler check if the host should get long or short results every time a host ask for work, or only then its time to assign a new data file to the host?

If its only then a new data file is needed, couldn’t you make the scheduler also look at average turnaround time if it decides the host should get long results? So if the host should get long results and average turnaround time is:
3 & 6 days, it gets a data file in the 2000.0 - 2499.0 range.

This is an interesting idea. The next time I look closely at the scheduler I will try to understand if it is practical to implement this idea, or something similar.

Cheers,
Bruce

Director, Einstein@Home

Comment viewing options

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