Unusually short crunch time
25 Apr 2008 12:47:10 UTC
Topic 193641
(moderation:
Here's something that's strange. One of my old P-III machines got a workunit that only took about half as long as it should have to crunch. My wingman, running an Athlon64 3500+, took only about 5000 seconds less than I did with the P-III. Yet, the results validated okay.
Something just doesn't seem right with this.
Unusually short crunch time
)
If possible, dig through the client logs and see when this task was started and finished ("wall clock time"). Correctly counting the CPU time isn't that trivial on Linux, and problems on that are common.
BM
BM
Bernd, Have a look at the
)
Bernd,
Have a look at the stderr for Donalds anomalous result.
He did the first 550 skypoints at one per app checkpoint, then the second 654 skypoints all within a single checkpoint interval.
His wingmate restarted at exactly the same skypoint 550. Coincidence?
I just looked at AKOSF's
)
I just looked at AKOSF's machine in the top 20 list and I saw he had some barely over 1000 times that did say valid.
Either he has a great new app in development or he has some short times as well.
RE: If possible, dig
)
Okay, I can try that. In the meantime, here's another one that looks abnormal. This time, my wingman finished first, and has an unusually short runtime for his 3500+ machine. (Mine in this case is the Xeon, which hasn't started crunching that one yet.)
A second strange one.
RE: If possible, dig
)
Okay, I found the information.
According to the log, this task started at 08:55 on 23 April, and finished computation at 00:44 on 24 April. That's a bit over 15 hours, which is about half what it should take on this P-III 667.
RE: I just looked at
)
Yeah, I just saw that. It looks like he's kicked in the afterburners on that machine.
RE: RE: I just looked at
)
Not exactly. I tried to set up a PC with a Wolfdale CPU, but it doesn't want to run Einstein@Home...
I found some '1155.00 sec'
)
I found some '1155.00 sec' time in the results of my Kentsfield.
But the BOINC Manager showed about 2,5-3 hours for them.
I didn't find the reason of this behaviour yet.
RE: RE: If possible, dig
)
I think this "second strange one" can be neglected, look at the other results from that host: most claim 0 seconds crunch time, and it's also using a very old BOINC client.
But that first result looks strange indeed.
CU
Bikeman
RE: I found some '1155.00
)
Darn, you had us hoping that you had found a miracle. ;)