| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: Computing for Sustainable Water Forum
Thread: Computing for Sustainable Water Problems Thread |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 254
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Yes, that's when 6.05 and 6.11 meet [and the fast with the now slow science app]. Had not expected for that to happen, with the app_plan under server 700, though not sure if this is also predicated on the client version. Might also be that it was disabled as the results of old and new science app are compatible, but strictly would have expected for the repair to be done with the 6.05 version.
------------------------------------------//-- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Jun 9, 2012 11:31:44 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
One of the CFSW 6.11 my i5-750 just downloaded has an estimated completion of over 60 minutes, whereas all the rest are very stable at 43 minutes (and always complete in that time). Any idea why the odd one out should occur?
----------------------------------------[Edit:] However, it still completed in 43 minutes: cfsw_ 3386_ 03386175_ 0-- 611 Pending Validation 09/06/12 20:38:40 09/06/12 21:33:32 0.71 20.1 / 0.0 [Edit:] Oh, really weird, my Athlon 64 has just picked up this one, with an estimated completion of over twice the norm. See the similar WU name? cfsw_ 3387_ 03387175_ 0-- - In Progress 09/06/12 20:55:17 19/06/12 20:55:17 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 Is someone playing games  And the i5 has 8 CFSW 6.11 in PV; would one of you wingmen please complete so that I can rack up my 5th Valid and go Zero Redundancy, please  .[Edit 2 times, last edit by Former Member at Jun 9, 2012 9:38:42 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Well , I'd say the speed-up of the CFSW has made a "slight" difference in my output...
  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
My machines are doing less than 45-minutes for a CFSW_v6.11 WUs:
a] Ubu: 38-43 minutes; Ave: ~ 40-minutes b] Win: 42-44 minutes; Ave: ~ 43-minutes Tight huddling for the runtimes of the machines centering at about 42minutes or 0.7hr. Compare this to about 3hrs from the earlier CFSW version: 3 / 0.7 = 4.28x decrease in runtime. Is that awesome or what?  I'm getting less PPH (points-per-hour) for the Win than the Ubu machine. No big deal here; the Ubu is more powerful of the two. P.S. tomast: I estimate 3.5x difference in output based from your graph. Not bad at all.  ; |
||
|
|
OldChap
Veteran Cruncher UK Joined: Jun 5, 2009 Post Count: 978 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
New is closer to 30pph for me from an old at around 40pph , in all about a 10 pph drop per core. (taken from a small sample)
----------------------------------------Maybe this will work out over the longer run but as a team player losing 1920ppd on a rig is reason to seek another project EDIT: checked older rig too.... 30pph down to 20pph so it seems it is not rig specific.  [Edit 1 times, last edit by OldChap at Jun 10, 2012 6:02:50 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
 Keeping me darkest donned, playing the weaknesses of the server 700 credit system for a few day, to proof a point.--//-- |
||
|
|
OldChap
Veteran Cruncher UK Joined: Jun 5, 2009 Post Count: 978 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Well, if the points system was correct for the previous version then it is broken now or at least it seems so to me.
----------------------------------------Going from ~7600ppd to ~5800ppd on the same 2600K rig is a little harsh. and the newer, faster, all singing, all dancing 3770K is getting LESS!! ...at least based on this sample of the last 50 wu's on each machine. Maybe I need a newer version of BOINC? ... That's the one thing I didn't think to check. EDIT: others here at XS are reporting half points since the change [Edit 1 times, last edit by OldChap at Jun 10, 2012 11:17:02 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Someone/something is definitely playing games with the estimated completion times on CFSW. At around 22:00 GMT/UTC, downloads to my i5-750 changed from 1h9m to 25m estimated completion, and simultaneously those to the Athlon64 changed from 2h25m to 52m; that's a factor of 2.8 in both cases. We'll see if the actual runtime stays the same (as was the case when there was an unexplained increase on 9 Jun). If so, it's going to cause havoc with the DCF.
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I have 6 machines showing the following message
These machines connect to the net from 0000 to 0600 local time. At 0000 they will upload just fine and then request and download 120+ new WU's. But for the rest of the night, the above message appears. These machines are set to receive CFSW and SN2S only and are not producing invalid results. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
There is no work for all of your selections but CFSW [just had 1]. If you limit the options to just CFSW, you can confirm that the quota message is specific to this science.
Why the quota message of 2 appeared... pass. Had it one time myself next day after the first batch download and seemed to have been only due to not having reported any completed. When done that, got immediately a whole swath. Whilst, hope there is really enough work in the feeder of CFSW. 208,768 validated yesterday. 2 Days after the switch to this 4x faster version already 3x more than before in daily returns. --//-- |
||
|
|
|