??? Switch between applications every

marnediv
marnediv
Joined: 23 Feb 05
Posts: 3
Credit: 49,998,640
RAC: 10,388
Topic 193191

I am wondering about this setting, I have two projects running per machine, and the default setting did not seem to be cutting it... So I have been playing with this setting to increment how my machines allocate time... Currently I have it set to 1440 minutes, any input would be greatly appreciated... What would be an optimum setting and why?

Michael Karlinsky
Michael Karlinsky
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 888
Credit: 22,245,334
RAC: 0

??? Switch between applications every

Quote:
I am wondering about this setting, I have two projects running per machine, and the default setting did not seem to be cutting it...

Please elaborate.

Quote:

So I have been playing with this setting to increment how my machines allocate time... Currently I have it set to 1440 minutes, any input would be greatly appreciated... What would be an optimum setting and why?

The best strategy would be sticking with the default value. A good idea is also to set it a little higher than the runtime of short WUs. E.g. if you have projects with approx. runtime of a) 30 min b) 40 min c) 3h d) 1 month. I would set the value to 1h, so a) and b) would finish without interruption.

HTH

Michael

marnediv
marnediv
Joined: 23 Feb 05
Posts: 3
Credit: 49,998,640
RAC: 10,388

RE: RE: I am wondering

Message 73671 in response to message 73670

Quote:
Quote:
I am wondering about this setting, I have two projects running per machine, and the default setting did not seem to be cutting it...

Please elaborate.

Quote:

So I have been playing with this setting to increment how my machines allocate time... Currently I have it set to 1440 minutes, any input would be greatly appreciated... What would be an optimum setting and why?

The best strategy would be sticking with the default value. A good idea is also to set it a little higher than the runtime of short WUs. E.g. if you have projects with approx. runtime of a) 30 min b) 40 min c) 3h d) 1 month. I would set the value to 1h, so a) and b) would finish without interruption.

HTH

Michael

On one machine I am running SETI and Climate Prediction, and on the other I am running SETI and Einstein, and it always seems that because of SETI and the time to crunch the WU, it was always getting almost to the end and it would switch, it just did not seem efficient. Also with Einstein, at the time some of the WU's were taking 19-22 hours to complete, so with it switching every hour, and it not completing one WU in SETI, and then breaking up Einstein also, I deduced that it would be most practical to allow each application a 24 hour period each...

Thanks

Bikeman (Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein)
Bikeman (Heinz-...
Moderator
Joined: 28 Aug 06
Posts: 3,515
Credit: 438,403,159
RAC: 81,081

I'm still not sure I

I'm still not sure I understand the problem, if there is any. There's nothing really inefficient in the apps switching before they are completed. You can configure BOINC in the preferences to keep an app in memory while suspended (if you are concerned about the overhead of re-starting it) or remove it from memory (in case you are concerned about the memory (more accurately: swap file space) used, which is not a likely concern on modern systems like yours).

I'd leave the setting at 1h , 3 h max. Trust BOINC :-)

CU
H-BE

Nothing But Idle Time
Nothing But Idl...
Joined: 24 Aug 05
Posts: 158
Credit: 289,204
RAC: 0

My 2 cents worth: What does

My 2 cents worth:
What does it matter what the switch interval is? A short interval will cause the debts for your projects to cluster closer to zero; longer switch intervals cause the debts to swing further from zero. Either way BOINC will always force the debts to zero otherwise it cannot comply with your resource share allocations.

And a switch will not occur except at a check point or task completion, so it will not switch exactly on your switch interval anyway. Some projects checkpoint infrequently (Rosetta checkpoints when a model is completed), while Einstein checkpoints as often as you allow it.

So the bottom line is that you just don't like the way BOINC is switching and would prefer something else; especially you don't like it switching when a task is very close to completion. You are not alone.

Fine, pick a switch interval (as M Karlinsky eluded to) that makes you happy. For example, I run Rosetta with a pre-selected WU run time of 8 hours, my Cosmology tasks generally run between 4-8 hours in length, and recent Einstein WUs ran several days but I didn't want to dedicate more than about 8 hours to Einstein per day (based on my Einstein resource share). So I set my switch interval to 8.5 hours. As a result, Rosetta and Cosmology tasks always ran to completion before switching,and Einstein would get exactly 8.5 hours per day.

So analyze your particular projects and associated run times and pick a switch interval that you like. 24 hours seems long but if that's what meets your needs then do it and be happy. More than likely you will have to compromise. Just remember, the longer the switch interval the longer it takes and the more difficult it is for BOINC to gravitate toward your resource share allocations.

Keck_Komputers
Keck_Komputers
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 376
Credit: 5,744,455
RAC: 0

I agree that keeping the

I agree that keeping the default switch interval is probably the best choice. If you want to change it I can recommend some limits. It should be no shorter than half of the longest checkpoint time. A switch interval longer than 1440 minutes divided by the number of projects attached may cause the CPU scheduler to get confused. (Yes I know these guidelines can produce conflicting answers, that's why I recommend sticking to the default.)

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8

Comment viewing options

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