Problem with BOINC 4.25
17 Mar 2005 20:39:02 UTC
Topic 188584
(moderation:
I just upgraded to 4.25 from 4.19. All of a sudden, my credit request is 20 points lower (although the CPU usage is relatively equivalent).
Also, the first request for a new work unit (according to the message facility) asked for 1.21 seconds of work. I can't tell how much work was actually downloaded, but 1.21 seconds isn't going to cut it!!!
Help!!
Problem with BOINC 4.25
)
> I just upgraded to 4.25 from 4.19. All of a sudden, my credit request is 20
> points lower (although the CPU usage is relatively equivalent).
As you are running windws, the benchmarks were too high with the 4.1x clients. Billy somehow managed to bypass some of the steps in the calculation and got higher marks. This was fixed with 4.2x,
As claimed cerdit it calculated in this way:
claimed credit = ([whetstone]+[dhrystone]) * wu_cpu_time_in_sec / 1728000
you claimed too much in the past.
> Also, the first request for a new work unit (according to the message
> facility) asked for 1.21 seconds of work. I can't tell how much work was
> actually downloaded, but 1.21 seconds isn't going to cut it!!!
That's a strange behaviour I've also noticed. Ithink it DL one WU, what is a wee bit more than the amount asked for ;)
Don't know any solution, don't even now, whether it's really a bug.
Grüße vom Sänger
It appears that there was
)
It appears that there was considerably more than 1.21 seconds of work, so that turns out to be a non-problem.
However, I'm still concerned about the credit. I was concerned before that the credit was too low. I'm running a top-of-the-line laptop, with two processors, with a net 3.2 GHz. Before, I was claiming about 78-80 credits per work unit -- and doing some spot checking on what other machines (with similar configurations and operating systems) were getting on the website, that was too low. Now, I'm getting 59 credits per work unit -- which doesn't make any sense.
Based on the descriptions of what credits are supposed to represent, I should be getting considerably more. A full day's work (nothing else processing), by a top-of-the-line PC, should be averaging close to 1000 credits. If I have this calculated right, I would average about 222. Even a "Windows penalty" can't take that discrepancy into account.
Maybe the benchmarks are off?
A one second request will
)
A one second request will normally get one workunit since you can't get part of a workunit.
You can try manually rerunning the benchmarks, it may help. The benchmark code still has some problems with hyperthreaded CPUs and to a lesser extent multiple CPUs. The current code was deemed good enough until more pressing problems are fixed, since the validator mostly corrects the bad requests. The long term goal is that any number of computers that process the same workunit will request very nearly the same credit.
BOINC WIKI
BOINCing since 2002/12/8
A full day's work (nothing
)
A full day's work (nothing else processing), by a top-of-the-line PC, should be averaging close to 1000 credits.
==========
I don't know where you are getting that 1000 a day figure from but I hardly think anybody is going to get that, there may be some super computers out there that can achieve that figure but the normal top of the line desktop PC is only going to see maybe something in the 350-550 range a day for credit, depending if it is a Single CPU or Dual CPU Computer ...
My fastest Computer running at 3.8 GHZ can only do a little over 5 WU's a day running in HT Mode, so even if I get 70 Credits Per WU I'm still only getting 350 Credits Per Day from that Computer.
The people that are showing RAC Figures in the Thousands are doing nothing more than combining computers that are not the same but the server thinks they are to achieve those figures ... If you watch a lot of those Computers that suddenly show up at the Top of the RAC list after 4-6 days they won't have halve that RAC amount anymore, so it's pretty plain to see what they are doing ...
> A full day's work (nothing
)
> A full day's work (nothing else processing), by a top-of-the-line PC, should
> be averaging close to 1000 credits.
> ==========
>
> I don't know where you are getting that 1000 a day figure from but I hardly
> think anybody is going to get that, there may be some super computers out
> there that can achieve that figure but the normal top of the line desktop PC
> is only going to see maybe something in the 350-550 range a day for credit,
> depending if it is a Single CPU or Dual CPU Computer ...
>
> My fastest Computer running at 3.8 GHZ can only do a little over 5 WU's a day
> running in HT Mode, so even if I get 70 Credits Per WU I'm still only getting
> 350 Credits Per Day from that Computer.
>
> The people that are showing RAC Figures in the Thousands are doing nothing
> more than combining computers that are not the same but the server thinks they
> are to achieve those figures ... If you watch a lot of those Computers that
> suddenly show up at the Top of the RAC list after 4-6 days they won't have
> halve that RAC amount anymore, so it's pretty plain to see what they are doing
> ...
>
>Thanks for your response; it gave me a clearer picture of reality. However, I'm at 3.2 GHz, and I'm doing a little less than 4 WUs per day (about 12.75 hours per WU, two at a time). By comparison to your figures, I should be getting about 280 -- and I'm lucky if I average 222. I'm still low.
Thanks for your response; it
)
Thanks for your response; it gave me a clearer picture of reality. However, I'm at 3.2 GHz, and I'm doing a little less than 4 WUs per day (about 12.75 hours per WU, two at a time). By comparison to your figures, I should be getting about 280 -- and I'm lucky if I average 222. I'm still low.
==========
It all depends on how many Pending WU's you have, I looked in your Account & at your Computer. I see you have 17 Pending WU's, thats the main reason your RAC is low. Plus the fact you say your taking 12.75 hours with your 2.8 Ghz @ 3.2 Ghz to run 2 WU's in HT Mode. The lone 3.2 Ghz Computer I have running at stock speed only takes 10.5 hours to do 2 WU's in HT MOde, so your times are a little slow also. The times can depend a lot on how much you use your computer for other things.
I'm also running 5 other PC's over 3.7Ghz & run them 24/7 & the highest one right now is only around 220 RAC, and they all have around 17 Pending WU's too. Thats what drags down your average, once those WU's start to get Validated your RAC will go way up, probably higher than it should be then it will come down some and level off to about where it should be as long as you run the same amount of time each day ...
> Thanks for your response;
)
> Thanks for your response; it gave me a clearer picture of reality. However,
> I'm at 3.2 GHz, and I'm doing a little less than 4 WUs per day (about 12.75
> hours per WU, two at a time). By comparison to your figures, I should be
> getting about 280 -- and I'm lucky if I average 222. I'm still low.
> ==========
>
> It all depends on how many Pending WU's you have, I looked in your Account
> & at your Computer. I see you have 17 Pending WU's, thats the main reason
> your RAC is low. Plus the fact you say your taking 12.75 hours with your 2.8
> Ghz @ 3.2 Ghz to run 2 WU's in HT Mode. The lone 3.2 Ghz Computer I have
> running at stock speed only takes 10.5 hours to do 2 WU's in HT MOde, so your
> times are a little slow also. The times can depend a lot on how much you use
> your computer for other things.
>
> I'm also running 5 other PC's over 3.7Ghz & run them 24/7 & the
> highest one right now is only around 220 RAC, and they all have around 17
> Pending WU's too. Thats what drags down your average, once those WU's start to
> get Validated your RAC will go way up, probably higher than it should be then
> it will come down some and level off to about where it should be as long as
> you run the same amount of time each day ...
Well, I was just basing my average on what I expect to get, not what I'm actually getting. I'm actually getting about 150, but figuring what I actually produce, it should be about 222.
The 12.75 hour figure was based on the computer doing nothing else. I'm not sure why it's running 12.75 hours for 2 WUs -- it has run as high as 15 hours, and as low as 12 hours even.
Oh, well, I just have to live with it, I guess.