Apparently I had the same problem on my last work unit. :( I've turned on the leave applications in memory option and will see if that helps. I may increase the application switch time later if this alone doesn't work. But I have another question. I can understand how the error would increase the computing time. But the current work unit I have in my queue has an estimated time of just over 1 day. Shouldn't the initial estimate still be 12-15 hours or something? It shouldn't assume there will be an error that will double the computing time. I thought the estimated time was based basically on the size of the work unit and that was it. Is there something else going on here that I'm missing? Thanks.
P.S. -- I'm running on a Windows machine.
You're right that the estimated computing time is based on the size of the workunit and the speed of your computer.
But there are so many weird and wonderful computers out there, that it's impossible for the project to predict it exactly, and not worth anyone's time writing a program to do so.
Instead, there's an automatic fiddle-factor called the "Result duration correction factor", which is used to fine-tune the estimate. You can see it on the page of details about your computer on this website, right at the bottom just above the computer location.
If a WU takes less time than expected, then the DCF is reduced a bit, and future estimates will be shorter. But it does this gradually - if it gets it wrong, there would be a danger that you could download too much work at once and not be able to finish it in time.
On the other hand, when a WU runs slow for whatever reason, as yours just has, it immediately assumes that every future WU is going to run just as slowly - again, to prevent you downloading more work than you can handle if the speed change turns out to be permanent.
Assuming you don't get any more errors, you'll find that the estimates gradually sort themselves out, and should be accurate again after about 20-30 completed WUs.
Assuming you don't get any more errors, you'll find that the estimates gradually sort themselves out, and should be accurate again after about 20-30 completed WUs.
OK, your description makes sense. I have seen estimated completion times ajust themselves as work units progress, and my current one has dropped down to about 17 hours at the moment. But it also seems like needing an additional 20-30 points to recognize one anomalous point is a bit much, especially when that result contains an error that's the obvious cause of the increased time. I guess nothing can be done about it because, like you said, there are so many varying factors among computers that it's not worth working on a more sophisticated solution. But I hope that when all future results come in at about half the time of the problem work unit, the DCF adjusts faster. Otherwise it will take a few months before things get back to normal, all because of one freak error that the system can't easily identify as such (even though humans can). Oh well, nothing to do but keep crunching and let things fix themselves over time. I just hope it doesn't take too long. Thanks for the information.
I just finished a 36 hour WU and my next one says it will take 36 hours. It just seems to get slower and slower. I don't play games or movies. I was paired with an individual that finished in 30 thousand seconds. I'm tired of making people wait and getting lower credits(I'm not really a credit w----). Any suggestions other than buying a new computer?
I just finished a 36 hour WU and my next one says it will take 36 hours. It just seems to get slower and slower. I don't play games or movies. I was paired with an individual that finished in 30 thousand seconds. I'm tired of making people wait and getting lower credits(I'm not really a credit w----). Any suggestions other than buying a new computer?
You did not tell us what type of computer. You have your computers hidden, so we can not see what you have, and can not read your mind (-:
It would be interesting to know the details of your system, to see if it's on par with others, and what suggestions we can make to have it run faster.
Not very fast, but not very slow either... your PC I mean, because the WU times seem indeed a bit long to me... let's compare: I have an Intel Celeron M (Banias) which runs at 1300 MHz but should be a bit more efficient than a desktop CPU with the same clock speed, and that takes about 11 or 12 hours for a long WU. So that should give you an estimate of what your machine should theoretically be able to do- I know that AMDs tend to do a bit better at Einstein then Intels but mine is an Intel too... and hey, it's a celeron ;-) If all, your PC should be faster than my laptop, not slower. I'd like to know your floating point and integer benchmark scores, Marvin. Are they also too low or do they look normal?
Are you using the screen saver? Some machines this slows down the work.
You are having definate issues. My P4 Xeon 1.5M is slower than your machine (according to the benchmarks), yet doing work twice as fast. I am averaging 55K for the same units you are taking 110-120+ on.
I would start with testing your box. Using Memtest86+ and Prime95 to see if you have either some memory issues, or heat/processing issues.
Measured floating point speed 1076.45 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 2119.31 million ops/sec
I also had another compute error today. I haven't had those until the last couple of weeks.
I also want to tell you that I know very little about computers so be kind, please. Thanks
Perhaps you have other (unkown) running processes that take a lot of CPU? Strange, you have three compute errors, one completed in about 24 hrs, and two lasting even longer...
Perhaps this thread applies for you in case you're running a screensaver. That might also explain the longer crunching times as screensavers take a lot of CPU.
RE: Apparently I had the
)
You're right that the estimated computing time is based on the size of the workunit and the speed of your computer.
But there are so many weird and wonderful computers out there, that it's impossible for the project to predict it exactly, and not worth anyone's time writing a program to do so.
Instead, there's an automatic fiddle-factor called the "Result duration correction factor", which is used to fine-tune the estimate. You can see it on the page of details about your computer on this website, right at the bottom just above the computer location.
If a WU takes less time than expected, then the DCF is reduced a bit, and future estimates will be shorter. But it does this gradually - if it gets it wrong, there would be a danger that you could download too much work at once and not be able to finish it in time.
On the other hand, when a WU runs slow for whatever reason, as yours just has, it immediately assumes that every future WU is going to run just as slowly - again, to prevent you downloading more work than you can handle if the speed change turns out to be permanent.
Assuming you don't get any more errors, you'll find that the estimates gradually sort themselves out, and should be accurate again after about 20-30 completed WUs.
RE: Assuming you don't get
)
OK, your description makes sense. I have seen estimated completion times ajust themselves as work units progress, and my current one has dropped down to about 17 hours at the moment. But it also seems like needing an additional 20-30 points to recognize one anomalous point is a bit much, especially when that result contains an error that's the obvious cause of the increased time. I guess nothing can be done about it because, like you said, there are so many varying factors among computers that it's not worth working on a more sophisticated solution. But I hope that when all future results come in at about half the time of the problem work unit, the DCF adjusts faster. Otherwise it will take a few months before things get back to normal, all because of one freak error that the system can't easily identify as such (even though humans can). Oh well, nothing to do but keep crunching and let things fix themselves over time. I just hope it doesn't take too long. Thanks for the information.
Yea, I just added a quad-xeon
)
Yea, I just added a quad-xeon 2.8 to my mix, and saw 24 hour workunit estimates. I didn't think it was THAT slow of a system...
I just finished a 36 hour WU
)
I just finished a 36 hour WU and my next one says it will take 36 hours. It just seems to get slower and slower. I don't play games or movies. I was paired with an individual that finished in 30 thousand seconds. I'm tired of making people wait and getting lower credits(I'm not really a credit w----). Any suggestions other than buying a new computer?
RE: I just finished a 36
)
You did not tell us what type of computer. You have your computers hidden, so we can not see what you have, and can not read your mind (-:
It would be interesting to know the details of your system, to see if it's on par with others, and what suggestions we can make to have it run faster.
Sorry about that, I didn't
)
Sorry about that, I didn't realize I had the computer hidden. The following is my system:
GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.40GHz Microsoft Windows XP
Home Edition, Service Pack 2, (05.01.2600.00)
I might also add that I have had some errors recently that I haven't had in the past.
Not very fast, but not very
)
Not very fast, but not very slow either... your PC I mean, because the WU times seem indeed a bit long to me... let's compare: I have an Intel Celeron M (Banias) which runs at 1300 MHz but should be a bit more efficient than a desktop CPU with the same clock speed, and that takes about 11 or 12 hours for a long WU. So that should give you an estimate of what your machine should theoretically be able to do- I know that AMDs tend to do a bit better at Einstein then Intels but mine is an Intel too... and hey, it's a celeron ;-) If all, your PC should be faster than my laptop, not slower. I'd like to know your floating point and integer benchmark scores, Marvin. Are they also too low or do they look normal?
Are you using the screen
)
Are you using the screen saver? Some machines this slows down the work.
You are having definate issues. My P4 Xeon 1.5M is slower than your machine (according to the benchmarks), yet doing work twice as fast. I am averaging 55K for the same units you are taking 110-120+ on.
I would start with testing your box. Using Memtest86+ and Prime95 to see if you have either some memory issues, or heat/processing issues.
Here is what you
)
Here is what you requested.
Measured floating point speed 1076.45 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 2119.31 million ops/sec
I also had another compute error today. I haven't had those until the last couple of weeks.
I also want to tell you that I know very little about computers so be kind, please. Thanks
RE: Here is what you
)
Perhaps you have other (unkown) running processes that take a lot of CPU? Strange, you have three compute errors, one completed in about 24 hrs, and two lasting even longer...
Perhaps this thread applies for you in case you're running a screensaver. That might also explain the longer crunching times as screensavers take a lot of CPU.
HTH,
Bert
Somnio ergo sum