Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
![]() |
World Community Grid Forums
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
No member browsing this thread |
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 13
|
![]() |
Author |
|
BKraayev
Cruncher Joined: Mar 23, 2005 Post Count: 46 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Did anyone else notice the HCC tasks are taking 50%+ longer to run starting about 2 days ago?
----------------------------------------Not worried - just curious if that was by design or if it's just a batch of longer tasks. ![]() |
||
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
The tasks of HCC area relative constant, one set of images containing more detail than the other. My own plots show no appreciable change and the daily data below shows so too being the average runtime per job/day in hours:
----------------------------------------Nov.01-08 6.195875 Nov.02-08 6.202546 Nov.03-08 6.236802 Nov.04-08 6.322664 Nov.05-08 6.316348 Nov.06-08 6.276268 Nov.07-08 6.260695 Nov.08-08 6.220730 Nov.09-08 6.218377 Nov.10-08 6.297680 Nov.11-08 6.290797 Nov.12-08 6.328105 The data from one of my centrino duo does not show any change either: X0000055910471200508260132_ 0-- 95711 Valid 12-11-08 21:31:23 13-11-08 20:34:47 6.39 65.8 / 67.1 X0000055901119200508181415_ 0-- 95711 Valid 12-11-08 13:21:14 13-11-08 09:01:09 6.38 65.8 / 74.6 X0000055860669200509011754_ 1-- 95711 Valid 11-11-08 17:25:08 13-11-08 09:01:09 6.64 68.5 / 74.8 X0000055840279200508180722_ 1-- 95711 Valid 11-11-08 09:02:36 12-11-08 17:32:00 6.42 66.2 / 68.2 X0000055840083200508180726_ 1-- 95711 Valid 11-11-08 09:00:13 12-11-08 09:00:18 6.46 66.6 / 66.7 X0000055820502200508180736_ 1-- 95711 Valid 10-11-08 23:19:43 11-11-08 23:08:20 6.40 66.0 / 65.3 X0000055810940200508180702_ 1-- 95711 Valid 10-11-08 18:34:32 11-11-08 18:38:06 6.45 66.5 / 67.1 X0000055811291200509011534_ 1-- 95711 Valid 10-11-08 17:03:00 11-11-08 15:38:33 6.34 64.7 / 67.2 X0000055800700200508311739_ 0-- 95711 Valid 10-11-08 12:03:25 11-11-08 09:01:29 6.34 64.7 / 65.4 X0000055790636200508171015_ 1-- 95711 Valid 10-11-08 09:01:22 11-11-08 09:01:29 6.47 66.0 / 66.0 X0000055780695200508171258_ 0-- 95711 Valid 10-11-08 00:18:06 11-11-08 09:00:12 6.36 64.9 / 64.9 X0000055770153200508170924_ 1-- 95711 Valid 9-11-08 22:48:16 10-11-08 20:19:33 6.34 64.7 / 70.3 X0000055680111200508171743_ 0-- 95711 Valid 8-11-08 13:02:55 9-11-08 09:01:09 6.50 67.0 / 68.5 X0000055530964200508150924_ 0-- 95711 Valid 5-11-08 17:24:25 6-11-08 00:44:23 6.61 68.1 / 70.8 X0000052930885200507080824_ 1-- 95711 Valid 29-10-08 16:48:32 30-10-08 18:16:53 6.54 65.8 / 68.3 So, suggest a boot and an inspection in your Taskmanager of suspicious processes eating CPU time
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
BKraayev
Cruncher Joined: Mar 23, 2005 Post Count: 46 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I'll reboot tonight ... but it's not just the duration that is longer, it's also the amount of CPU time that has increased
----------------------------------------X0000055900735200508181422_ 0-- IBM-66B244B378A Valid 12/11/08 13:01:25 13/11/08 06:20:17 9.19 119.8 / 119.8 X0000053311533200507131140_ 2-- IBM-66B244B378A Valid 12/11/08 04:00:25 12/11/08 23:05:55 8.84 115.3 / 115.3 X0000055861512200508252308_ 0-- IBM-66B244B378A Valid 11/11/08 16:48:27 12/11/08 13:01:25 8.91 116.1 / 85.2 X0000055851389200508181221_ 0-- IBM-66B244B378A Valid 11/11/08 10:37:08 12/11/08 03:28:14 8.24 107.4 / 98.3 X0000055850583200508181238_ 0-- IBM-66B244B378A Valid 11/11/08 10:10:57 12/11/08 03:28:14 7.87 102.6 / 95.8 X0000055840455200508181331_ 0-- IBM-66B244B378A Valid 11/11/08 05:11:43 11/11/08 16:48:27 5.34 69.6 / 69.4 X0000055821032200509082150_ 0-- IBM-66B244B378A Valid 10/11/08 22:41:12 11/11/08 10:10:56 5.39 70.2 / 69.3 X0000055811131200509082123_ 1-- IBM-66B244B378A Valid 10/11/08 17:48:50 11/11/08 04:44:32 5.38 70.1 / 74.1 X0000055801483200508311726_ 1-- IBM-66B244B378A Valid 10/11/08 12:21:14 10/11/08 22:41:12 5.31 69.2 / 67.0 X0000055730541200509071706_ 2-- IBM-66B244B378A Valid 10/11/08 03:50:07 10/11/08 12:21:14 5.20 67.8 / 67.8 X0000055781371200508241213_ 1-- IBM-66B244B378A Valid 10/11/08 01:37:55 10/11/08 12:21:14 5.26 68.6 / 73.2 X0000055770198200508241207_ 0-- IBM-66B244B378A Valid 09/11/08 19:55:24 10/11/08 06:55:09 5.21 68.0 / 75.3 X0000055730357200508190808_ 1-- IBM-66B244B378A Valid 09/11/08 14:14:44 10/11/08 01:37:55 5.38 70.2 / 70.0 X0000055710254200508170605_ 0-- IBM-66B244B378A Valid 09/11/08 08:46:30 09/11/08 19:55:24 5.47 70.0 / 73.6 X0000052590717200507152345_ 2-- IBM-66B244B378A Valid 07/11/08 08:04:14 07/11/08 18:40:52 5.20 66.5 / 67.3 ![]() |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
My HCC jobs have been running consistantly like the pic below for a long time now.
![]() Noticed though, that the last few jobs that I just returned are taking a bit longer. Its not a problem, if that is what is required. Machine is fine BTW. ![]() |
||
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3715 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hi BKraayev!
----------------------------------------I have just browsed through about 120 HCC WUs which are still in my Results Status page and I do not see any abnormal variation vs what they used to last for months, except obviously when I happen to do something else which holds one core of my quad. Regarding your additional remark but it's not just the duration that is longer, it's also the amount of CPU time that has increased it is unfortunately normal in the PC world. What is abusively called CPU time is not what we called CPU time when I worked with mainframes at the end of the last century. On mainframes a given task was reporting the same CPU time whatever was runnning at the same time in the computer. I understand that system time induced by multitasking must be accounted in some way but I would appreciate that it is measured and reported separately. In the PC world a given task reports more or less twice more CPU time if it takes twice longer to get the resources it needs for completing.The only positive effect of this flaw is that I could use the Results Status page to answer you in my first paragraph above. Otherwise I would have needed the start and end times and that would have been more complicated or even impossible. ![]() Cheers. Jean. |
||
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
hmmm, it was patch day on Tuesday (here Wednesday). Longer CPU times reported for the results could imply lower CPU speed.
----------------------------------------
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3715 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
What do you mean?
----------------------------------------That the patch could have changed the speed of the CPU clock (?!?!?), or that applying the patch has taken some CPU time (one or two minutes in my case)? Cheers. Jean. |
||
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Reinstated energy savings features, speak throttle down
----------------------------------------![]()
WCG
----------------------------------------Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sekerob at Nov 14, 2008 8:21:16 AM] |
||
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3715 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Everything is possible in the MS world but that would be surprising considering the purpose of these patches.
----------------------------------------Personally I can't say yes or no, my quad speed is blocked in MANUAL mode at BIOS level. ![]() Cheers. Jean. |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
So is mine in the BIOS Jean. My clock speed hasn't changed. Still the same. Temps are still low. No CPU throttling. Water cooled. Machine is behaving otherwise as normal. 32 bit XP. All power management etc is disabled.
----------------------------------------Sent another 2 Jobs. First one took over 4.5 hours and the next seems to be back to what it usually does, a bit under 3 hours. Maybe it was just a small strange batch of jobs ? You would think with the image processing though that the Jobs would be pretty consistant unlike the other projects (apart from Rice for obvious reasons). I'm not complaining or anything like that, Just curious, as on this machine running HCC the times are usually pretty regular. ![]() ![]() [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Nov 14, 2008 9:01:08 AM] |
||
|
|
![]() |