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: 14
|
![]() |
Author |
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
The things important are:
1. Checkpoints continue to be logged (you can see the last one and the time since in the task properties in BOINC Manager). 2. The CPU time in that same view continues to increase relative to the elapsed time. If Elapsed time goes up and CPU time does not, that's an indication of a locked up task. If both go up quasi in sync, things are 99.99% of the times fine. 3. The progress percent continues to go up. Some do this is fixed percent steps, others do this smoothly, but noting that progress % is relative. It can go backwards if the task hits a harder section to compute for then BOINC will assume that the remainder is also harder. You'd see the Time to Complete go up at the same time, rather than going down. When a task uploads and reaches a status on return other than "Error", and do not end in "Invalid" after verification, things are fine. HFCC is a very well established application. We've done 8 targets with success, 60 million results. Why would with target 9 and the exact same compound library, processing be problematic? --//-- |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Very "assuming", but with the given fixed compound library we've been docking against 8 targets, and now the 9th, carefully look at that earlier linked http://bit.ly/WCGART. Look at the red HFCC meantime curve and follow it back to the beginning for the Dec.15-Jan-15 section of Target 8. Compare that section to the last month at the end. See any similarities? If you do, then you'll have a *relative* indication of how the remainder will evolve.
Crunch On. --//-- |
||
|
deltavee
Ace Cruncher Texas Hill Country Joined: Nov 17, 2004 Post Count: 4891 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I took my P4 off this project because completion time was approaching 60 hours. It's back on c4cw for now.
|
||
|
johncmacalister2010@gmail.com
Veteran Cruncher Canada Joined: Nov 16, 2010 Post Count: 799 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I am glad this subject got brought up as I was starting to worry about my machines going odd on me. My times were around 4-6 hours per unit until a few days ago and have now shot up to 12-15 hours. I checked and all are being validated except for the usual PV percentage. I am going for the sapphire and have 20 more calendar days to attain it, so an anomaly like this got me worried. If it is system wide, I am less worried now. 13 - 15h per task for me....the longest I have seen in ages. Just happy it's not a SNAFU with my PCs- I've had enough of those recently. ![]() ![]() crunching, crunching, crunching. AMD Ryzen 5 2600 6-core Processor with Windows 11 64 Pro. AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core Processor with Windows 11 64 Pro (part time) ![]() |
||
|
|
![]() |