Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Boinc sadness.

Reply
Thread Tools

Boinc sadness.

 
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
Well, my 20 day cache of WUs that I thought would be enough, just
isnt... althouth I suspect that this PC churns through them a tad
quicker, as I dont think I have had it going for 20 days yet.

I'd work through more, but I just cant, there not letting me get anymore.

--
Dave Hall
http://www.dave.net.nz
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dogg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 16:47:51 +1200, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
<dave@no_spam_here_dave.net.nz> wrote:

>Well, my 20 day cache of WUs that I thought would be enough, just
>isnt... althouth I suspect that this PC churns through them a tad
>quicker, as I dont think I have had it going for 20 days yet.
>
>I'd work through more, but I just cant, there not letting me get anymore.


I've run out also. No point putting more machines on the job yet as
the current ones are starving most of the time. I also have heaps of
WU's waiting to return.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
Dogg wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 16:47:51 +1200, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
> <dave@no_spam_here_dave.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, my 20 day cache of WUs that I thought would be enough, just
>>isnt... althouth I suspect that this PC churns through them a tad
>>quicker, as I dont think I have had it going for 20 days yet.
>>
>>I'd work through more, but I just cant, there not letting me get anymore.

>
>
> I've run out also. No point putting more machines on the job yet as
> the current ones are starving most of the time. I also have heaps of
> WU's waiting to return.


heh, I have 76 to return, just crunching my last WUs now.

--
Dave Hall
http://www.dave.net.nz
 
Reply With Quote
 
Divine
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 17:02:16 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

>>>Well, my 20 day cache of WUs that I thought would be enough, just
>>>isnt... althouth I suspect that this PC churns through them a tad
>>>quicker, as I dont think I have had it going for 20 days yet.
>>>
>>>I'd work through more, but I just cant, there not letting me get anymore.

>>
>>
>> I've run out also. No point putting more machines on the job yet as
>> the current ones are starving most of the time. I also have heaps of
>> WU's waiting to return.

>
> heh, I have 76 to return, just crunching my last WUs now.


I'm gonna be extending my cache by another 3 weeks. SetiBoinc is just too
unreliable at the moment to work with only a 7 day cache...

And I ran out about 4 days ago!!


Divine

--
Micro$oft Knowledge Base: "When you try to shut down your Microsoft Windows
XP-based or Microsoft Windows 2000-based computer, the computer may stop
responding, and you may receive the following error message: It is now safe
to turn off your computer."

 
Reply With Quote
 
steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

> Well, my 20 day cache of WUs that I thought would be enough, just
> isnt... althouth I suspect that this PC churns through them a tad
> quicker, as I dont think I have had it going for 20 days yet.
>
> I'd work through more, but I just cant, there not letting me get anymore.


There has been an error in the cache calculation....

The WUs do process much faster than the cache assumes.

The project has been down for several days due to a database error.

Most of my caches are empty....and the systems are just waiting for work to
resume.

I'm not fussed. Maybe tomorrow.....maybe the next day.

I'm just lookin' fer E.T.



 
Reply With Quote
 
steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
Divine wrote:

> I'm gonna be extending my cache by another 3 weeks. SetiBoinc is just too
> unreliable at the moment to work with only a 7 day cache...
>
> And I ran out about 4 days ago!!


If *actual* download-to-return time exceeds 2 weeks you won't be getting any
credit for the WUs.

They are assumed lost....I think.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Divine
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:32:54 +1200, steve wrote:

> The project has been down for several days due to a database error.


Over a week now...

It went down on the 25th of July. It's now the second of August.


Divine

--
"Outlook is the security equivalent of wearing condoms with the ends cut
off - for greater comfort and ease of use."

 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
Divine wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:32:54 +1200, steve wrote:
>
>> The project has been down for several days due to a database error.

>
> Over a week now...
>
> It went down on the 25th of July. It's now the second of August.


It was up again briefly on the 28th-29th. Then they realised that there was
a bug where nobody was getting credit for WU's returned over the previous
week or 10 days so they stopped the system again to fix it. The latest news
is that the servers *should* be up in the next 24 hours or so.

As for cache size, as someone mentioned, WU's have an expiry date. It's
there on one of the 'work' tab. It's 14 days from when they were sent out.
If they haven't been returned by then the client will crunch them but you
won't get any credit for them nor will the result be treated as valid.

Each WU is sent out to three machines. (They have suffixes of _0, _1 or _2).
When all three units have been returned they are compared and, if the
results tally then all three 'crunchers' get credit for the WU. If one
result is radically different of if one (or more) iterations of the WU isn't
returned on time then another iteration, or more, of it will be sent out
(With the suffixes _3 upwards) until three units have been returned, by
their deadlines, with similar results. Only then will credit be handed out
for the WU.

So setting your cache for anywhere near 14 days or more is risky. Not only
may you not receive credit for the WU when you crunch it but the result
isn't used. The client isn't completely accurate at estimating completion
times yet so it pays to be conservative until you know what's happening. One
of my machines completes the WU in approxiamtely 80% of the estimated time
and another takes about 175% of the estimated time. So it's up to you to
work out how accutare the estimate is for your machine and how many hours
per day it's on and set your cache accordingly. Also, the larger your cache,
the longer it will take for your work to be validated (And the work of the
other two people who had the same WU).

It's a little more complicated than the previous system but the boffins at
Berkeley seem to think that this way will give better, more reliable
results. Also it will stop people who are only in it for the 'glory' from
cheating. Apparently there were several ways to cheat with the old system,
such as doing 95% of a WU and then copying it 1,000 times and letting the
client do the last 5% over and over again. (I don't know the details but it
was something like that).

It's a shame that the credits for the last heap of units we did won't be
assigned but them's the breaks I guess.

The servers *will* be up and running again soon, it's just a matter of time.

Here's a wee tip for anyone with no BOINC units who still wants to crunch
and is running XP. Download 'Easy SETI CLI' from:

http://members.home.nl/marcel.zuiderveld/

and install it. It installs the CLI version of the SETI classic client as
well as SETI Spy and SETI Driver. Classic WU's don't expire and, if you set
the client priority to 'idle' in SETI Driver it will only kick in when BOINC
stops as BOINC has a higher priority. Set the cache to whatever you like.

If you're using Win 9x then the CPU will be shared between the two with
approximately 75% going to BOINC and 25% going to Classic.

Sorry, I don't know anything about Linux clients.

Keep on crunchin'.
--
~misfit~


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2004
~misfit~ wrote:
> It was up again briefly on the 28th-29th.


I just sent and received a result... only one, but hey, it's one.

--
Dave Hall
http://www.dave.net.nz
 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2004
Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>> It was up again briefly on the 28th-29th.

>
> I just sent and received a result... only one, but hey, it's one.


The servers are up and running (or limping), trying to catch up. My fiancee
just got a unit 20 minutes ago, I still haven't got any new ones.
--
~misfit~


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My BOINC,LINUX,Parallel Computing related blog are.ehibou.com C Programming 2 03-02-2006 07:23 PM
BOINC - SetiatHome Mike Windows 64bit 2 05-29-2005 08:57 PM
SETI: "nz.comp" BOINC Team top in NZ and 146th in world steve NZ Computing 10 07-23-2004 08:14 AM
Boinc News ~misfit~ NZ Computing 16 07-16-2004 06:46 AM
Linux Usage in Top BOINC PCs (New Seti@Home) steve NZ Computing 13 06-29-2004 04:55 AM



Advertisments