| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Support
Forum: Website Support
Thread: Server maintenance?? |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 79
|
|
| Author |
|
|
twilyth
Master Cruncher US Joined: Mar 30, 2007 Post Count: 2128 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Well, things of fringe relevance will be overlooked (ignored). Even when your host "projects" them at 3.4 hours (riddled since my measly Q6600 does them in under 2 hours), guessing you run a CPU/GPU mix, you'd still be able to cache allot more if only you did what I proposed... set that cache/buffer to a saner level. A dual Octo with one day should have at 3.4 hours about 112 tasks queued. Others are getting their max, so what else is different? Sorry, but I don't have it set on a mix and all of my cpu's are fairly late model - either hex/octo core Xeons, 2600k's or a 1090T. Plus I have done it your way with a 1 day buffer and with a 10 day buffer and I still get no more than about an hour's worth of cache, so if you have any more suggestions, I'm happy to hear them.   |
||
|
|
twilyth
Master Cruncher US Joined: Mar 30, 2007 Post Count: 2128 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Since you don't seem to believe me about how the est. time is reported.
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Well, did you read my edit?
Signing off now or there will be a row in the house. |
||
|
|
twilyth
Master Cruncher US Joined: Mar 30, 2007 Post Count: 2128 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Hmm, didn't that min. work buffer used to be something like "connect at least every xxx days"? I've been completely ignoring that and just setting it the way I always have.
----------------------------------------That's the problem with having a partially eidetic memory I suppose. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Well, did you read my edit? ... ... and what edit is that? You ought to be explicit and clear first about what exactly the arguments you are referring to in whatever content of any edit thus referenced before using that argument as a basis for...... Signing off now or there will be a row in the house. [Emphasis by andzgrid] ... slamming the table.; ; andzgridPost#805 ; [Edit 2 times, last edit by Former Member at Jan 12, 2013 10:48:54 PM] |
||
|
|
OldChap
Veteran Cruncher UK Joined: Jun 5, 2009 Post Count: 978 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Sek, what you're overlooking is the fact that it calculates the estimated completion time based on what it would be for a CPU to complete the wu. I'm looking at the estimated time in my 'ready to start' queue and they are all listed at 3hrs, 40minutes. All of those will be done in under 60 seconds. edit: 30 sec.s on avg, but for any given wu - about 6-10 minutes. That cannot be true at least not for a gpu only rig. Let me show you a screenshot of my core2 quad with a 5850 fitted that has run for many weeks  Since 20:30 this evening (wcg time) the estimate is revised to 00:17:07 on new wu's re-starting BOINC has not changed any of these estimates displayed either before or after running benchmarks so I am not sure what one has to do to influence this number when running app_config. Although the average time to complete a wu on your machine is 30 seconds the true runtime for each is what needs to be calculated so your 6-10 mins figure is key.  |
||
|
|
twilyth
Master Cruncher US Joined: Mar 30, 2007 Post Count: 2128 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I don't know what to tell you. That screen print is from my 2600k that is running 2 7950 and which I haven't reconfigured in weeks - at least. So why it should be reporting something so different for estimated completion times, I don't know - but you've seen the evidence for yourself.
----------------------------------------And YES that is in fact a GPU-only rig. |
||
|
|
hendermd
Cruncher United States Joined: Apr 30, 2010 Post Count: 29 Status: Recently Active Project Badges: 
|
The difference in remaining time I think is based on Boinc version, I have 3 computers running 7.0.42 showing reduced time and 1 still running 7.0.28 that is using the cpu HCC times.
---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by hendermd at Jan 13, 2013 12:26:03 AM] |
||
|
|
twilyth
Master Cruncher US Joined: Mar 30, 2007 Post Count: 2128 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Thanks hendermd - yes, I think that must be the difference as I'm running version 7.0.31 and probably won't upgrade until the .42 version is listed on the boinc download site as being recommended.
----------------------------------------[Edit 1 times, last edit by twilyth at Jan 13, 2013 12:50:36 AM] |
||
|
|
OldChap
Veteran Cruncher UK Joined: Jun 5, 2009 Post Count: 978 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I wanted to try 7.0.42 too so all of mine are on that now.
----------------------------------------Earlier I changed 1 profile to run cpu too (forgot this same rig is on that profile) The pic below shows how the estimates for cpu and gpu are handled differently  [Edit 1 times, last edit by OldChap at Jan 13, 2013 1:19:56 AM] |
||
|
|
|