Sudden lurch in remaining work display

Forums › Cruncher's Corner

archae86
archae86
Joined: 6 Dec 05
Posts: 3157
Credit: 7213814931
RAC: 987004
23 Jan 2008 17:39:36 UTC
Topic 193460
(moderation:
    )

    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
    Moderator
    Administrator
    Joined: 15 Oct 04
    Posts: 4312
    Credit: 250172020
    RAC: 34705

    Sudden lurch in remaining work display

    23 Jan 2008 17:47:45 UTC
    Message 77620
    (moderation:
      )

      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

      23 Jan 2008 18:11:40 UTC
      Message 77621
      (moderation:
        )

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

        Team Philippines

        Bernd Machenschalk
        Bernd Machenschalk
        Moderator
        Administrator
        Joined: 15 Oct 04
        Posts: 4312
        Credit: 250172020
        RAC: 34705

        RE: I noticed all the WUs i

        23 Jan 2008 18:17:50 UTC
        Message 77622 in response to message 77621
        (moderation:
          )

          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: 1364
          Credit: 3562358667
          RAC: 0

          RE: RE: I noticed all the

          24 Jan 2008 1:19:53 UTC
          Message 77623 in response to message 77622
          (moderation:
            )

            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

            24 Jan 2008 1:25:11 UTC
            Message 77624 in response to message 77623
            (moderation:
              )

              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: 73516529
              RAC: 0

              RE: RE: RE: RE: I

              24 Jan 2008 1:32:36 UTC
              Message 77625 in response to message 77624
              (moderation:
                )

                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

                24 Jan 2008 1:40:45 UTC
                Message 77626 in response to message 77625
                (moderation:
                  )

                  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: 1364
                  Credit: 3562358667
                  RAC: 0

                  RE: I don't know. If I

                  24 Jan 2008 11:43:43 UTC
                  Message 77627 in response to message 77625
                  (moderation:
                    )

                    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: 73516529
                    RAC: 0

                    RE: RE: I don't know.

                    24 Jan 2008 12:42:58 UTC
                    Message 77628 in response to message 77627
                    (moderation:
                      )

                      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

                      24 Jan 2008 13:09:50 UTC
                      Message 77629 in response to message 77628
                      (moderation:
                        )

                        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.

                        Forums › Cruncher's Corner