Boinc sadness.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Dave - Dave.net.nz, Aug 2, 2004.

  1. 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
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Aug 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Dogg Guest

    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.
     
    Dogg, Aug 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Aug 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Divine Guest

    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."
     
    Divine, Aug 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    steve Guest

    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.

    :)
     
    steve, Aug 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    steve Guest

    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.
     
    steve, Aug 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Divine Guest

    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."
     
    Divine, Aug 2, 2004
    #7
  8. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    ~misfit~ Guest

    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~
     
    ~misfit~, Aug 2, 2004
    #8
  9. ~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
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Aug 4, 2004
    #9
  10. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    ~misfit~ Guest

    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~
     
    ~misfit~, Aug 4, 2004
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mike

    BOINC - SetiatHome

    Mike, May 29, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    425
    doddsy
    May 29, 2005
  2. steve
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    648
    steve
    Jun 29, 2004
  3. ~misfit~

    Boinc News

    ~misfit~, Jul 12, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    582
    ~misfit~
    Jul 16, 2004
  4. steve
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    473
    Divine
    Jul 23, 2004
  5. steve

    Orcon News Server.......sadness remains

    steve, Apr 15, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    887
    Brendan
    May 3, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page