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: 24
|
![]() |
Author |
|
I need a bath
Senior Cruncher USA Joined: Apr 12, 2007 Post Count: 347 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
From all comments: it appears that the full power of the Grid has not YET been harnessed by this particular project, but the wus-to-date may have been laying ground-work for the future. In any case, nothing has been lost, and there is certainly no problem, JmBoullier.
----------------------------------------Yours in crunching, INAB ![]() [Edit 1 times, last edit by I need a bath at Aug 10, 2010 12:41:58 AM] |
||
|
X-Files 27
Senior Cruncher Canada Joined: May 21, 2007 Post Count: 391 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
There's nothing to discuss; It has been used fully.
----------------------------------------The problem (or bottleneck - the correct word) is on the researchers side. That is because it needs HUMAN INTERVENTION between different types (A,B,C). If only the scientist (or humans per se) can process millions of instructions per second then we wont be discussing this. Stan Watowich (Project PI) In contrast to most World Community Grid projects where workunits are continuously available until a project ends, Phase 2 workunits may be periodically unavailable. This is because the Phase 2 calculations span three sequential programs, and manual analysis and intervention is required as this project switches between programs and/or target proteins. It is suggested that World Community Grid members allow other Grid projects to run whenever Phase 2 workunits are temporarily unavailable. Now, I think the discussions should be, how can we eliminate/minimize that human intervention? ![]() ![]() |
||
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3715 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
So correct people when they are wrong... skgiven, thank you for the invitation. So, what is wrong in my post? Or have you forgotten to start your post with a specific quote or by addressing someone(s) in particular? Also, why the reference to Linux? Aren't you confused with CEP2? Don't worry, I am not really upset, I am just showing that everybody may not be saying things exactly as they should be. ![]() ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by JmBoullier at Aug 10, 2010 4:36:41 AM] |
||
|
sk..
Master Cruncher http://s17.rimg.info/ccb5d62bd3e856cc0d1df9b0ee2f7f6a.gif Joined: Mar 22, 2007 Post Count: 2324 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Jean, only the first part was directed at your last sentence,
----------------------------------------So, there is no prejudice for anybody as far as WCG power is concerned. Not o/t ignorance, this time. Just suggesting the existence of a present inherent WCG "prejudice" - for another project(s) and WRT power; Linux users experience faster performances for most projects, can presently run all the WCG project, and were able to contribute during a past Beta round.X-Files 27 explained the DDDT2 intermittency, time consuming human intervention is presently required between runs, and suggested this be reduced. I don't think we crunchers can do much to automate the task analysis and creation procedure, but perhaps the scientists could, though I guess this is new ground for them and not something they have down to production line optimization. Of course we could return the tasks more quickly (by keeping a low task cache), and the technicians/scientist might be able to further refine task allocation. There has been excellent progress with this recently for the Beta tasks. So that might be a better template for the allocation of DDDT2 tasks (if it is not already employed) than the standard Active projects; with their 10day due time. If this was 5days, then it would expedite the project by 5days during every run, and move us closer to the expected longer runs (times when tasks become more available), where the allocation could be relaxed. So far there have been 5 sets of task releases, so we could have been 25days further on, and 25days closer to continuous task releases for more sustained time periods. [Edit 1 times, last edit by skgiven at Aug 10, 2010 9:09:56 AM] |
||
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3715 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
This short distribution summary might be useful for everybody interested with DDDT2.
----------------------------------------Currently, - type-A WUs are distributed in high priority with an 8-day deadline - to reliable devices only - - type-B WUs are distributed in normal priority with a 7-day deadline In addition, Type-A work is arranged in groups of 10 WUs (20 copies) for the techs to be able to return more completed groups earlier (to the scientists). Not sure if derived type B and C are organized the same, but that would be logical. **Edit: Actually I asked the techs if that could be done but I have never got an answer. ![]() ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by JmBoullier at Aug 10, 2010 1:45:40 PM] |
||
|
gb009761
Master Cruncher Scotland Joined: Apr 6, 2005 Post Count: 2982 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hi Jean,
----------------------------------------Obviously, the techs will be able to answer this categorically, but I'm not sure that the Type A's are distributed on a 1/core basis. I know it's been discussed many-a-time, but I don't recall seeing a comment that this has been implemented. Of course, it could well have been (and may still be) implemented, just don't recall seeing it... In fact, although my memory could well be playing tricks, on the last distibution of Type A's, I'm sure I got more WU's than just the 4 cores I've got available with this machine. ![]() |
||
|
Ingleside
Veteran Cruncher Norway Joined: Nov 19, 2005 Post Count: 974 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
This short distribution summary might be useful for everybody interested with DDDT2. Currently, - type-A WUs are distributed in high priority with an 8-day deadline - to reliable devices only - only one per thread at any given time, like betas There's no limitation on how many type-A-tasks you can get, as long as estimated run-time is within the deadline-constraints. Maybe they should be limited to 1 per core like beta, but atleast for now this isn't the case. Also, since A-tasks is now roughly 1/5 the run-time as initially, it can be an idea to cut-down the deadline some more, maybe 4 days would be more in line. ![]() "I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might." |
||
|
kateiacy
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Jan 23, 2010 Post Count: 1027 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
There's no limitation on how many type-A-tasks you can get, as long as estimated run-time is within the deadline-constraints. Maybe they should be limited to 1 per core like beta, but a tleast for now this isn't the case. Also, since A-tasks is now roughly 1/5 the run-time as initially, it can be an idea to cut-down the deadline some more, maybe 4 days would be more in line. Thank you for this information. My difficulty in the last round of B's was that the estimated times-to-completion were too short, so my slow machine was given more WUs than it could complete by the deadline, even though my cache was set to only 2.5 days. I aborted 3 WUs so they could get back out there, and it finished the rest on time and without error. I've taken DDDT2 off the list of projects for that machine, so it won't happen in the future. But this machine is a "reliable host," with enough memory, disk space, etc. per the system requirements for the project, so I didn't have reason to expect issues. I think at this point, the Bs were running longer and causing more problems than the A's. Maybe both should be assigned one-per-core. I love DDDT2, and am grateful for the chance to crunch it on my other machine, which charges through all kinds of DDDT2 WUs -- A's, B's, and C's. ![]() |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I said I wasn't judging. I don't prefer anything. I just don't see the Grid resource being used fully. I wonder if what is being done now could have been done off-Grid. Let me reiterate: I'm just wondering. I don't know and am not guessing. Just wondering... You still haven't explained what you mean. This thread is guessing and seems to be going no where. Explain |
||
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3715 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hi Jean, You are right. I have corrected my previous post... and I am bumping my April 2 post in the CA forum. Obviously, the techs will be able to answer this categorically, but I'm not sure that the Type A's are distributed on a 1/core basis. ![]() |
||
|
|
![]() |