deadline too long
log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : deadline too long

Author Message
Wolfram1
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 09
Posts: 36
Credit: 94,882,264
RAC: 0
Message 934 - Posted: 5 Sep 2009, 11:06:03 UTC

The deadline in this Project is too lomg. It is the reason for very much pending WUs.
Look at milkyway, they have a deadline of 3 days.
I think here in this project 5 days should be the maximum. Thx

Profile Gipsel
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jul 09
Posts: 279
Credit: 77,354,864
RAC: 77,630
Message 935 - Posted: 5 Sep 2009, 11:16:13 UTC - in response to Message 934.
Last modified: 5 Sep 2009, 11:16:37 UTC

The deadline in this Project is too lomg. It is the reason for very much pending WUs.
Look at milkyway, they have a deadline of 3 days.
I think here in this project 5 days should be the maximum. Thx

As Collatz don't need the results of prior WUs to generate new ones (like Milkyway), it doesn't make sense to set a short deadline actually.
By the way, there was a discussion about the pros and cons of a longer deadline some weeks ago. Slicker settled then for the current 14 days.

That you see very high pendings may be also still a result of a recent WU generator glitch, which created a huge amount of WUs waiting in the queue. As resends go to the end of the queue, it takes a while until this completely settles.

Wolfram1
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 09
Posts: 36
Credit: 94,882,264
RAC: 0
Message 937 - Posted: 5 Sep 2009, 11:38:29 UTC - in response to Message 935.

Hi Gipsel,

I read the discussion und I think the decisiion from Slicker to the deadline to 14 days was as a first step ok. But it seems too long for me, I think the second step should set it to 7 days.
Some people here use Collatz only to try a new projekt and so they let there WUs in the queue und now you have to wait 14 days to reschedule these WUs.

Profile Logan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Jul 09
Posts: 124
Credit: 37,455,338
RAC: 0
Message 938 - Posted: 5 Sep 2009, 13:10:03 UTC - in response to Message 937.

Hi Gipsel,

I read the discussion und I think the decisiion from Slicker to the deadline to 14 days was as a first step ok. But it seems too long for me, I think the second step should set it to 7 days.
Some people here use Collatz only to try a new projekt and so they let there WUs in the queue und now you have to wait 14 days to reschedule these WUs.


Some people uses slow CPU machines and some projects at the same time. A short deadline only is operative if you only are joined to this project. If not, the tasks will running ever in high priority and the other projects that you have in your computer will never run.

Two weeks is a good deadline. (I think).
____________
Logan.

BOINC FAQ Service (Ahora, también disponible en Español/Now available in Spanish)

Wolfram1
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 09
Posts: 36
Credit: 94,882,264
RAC: 0
Message 940 - Posted: 5 Sep 2009, 13:18:59 UTC - in response to Message 938.

Hi Gipsel,

I read the discussion und I think the decisiion from Slicker to the deadline to 14 days was as a first step ok. But it seems too long for me, I think the second step should set it to 7 days.
Some people here use Collatz only to try a new projekt and so they let there WUs in the queue und now you have to wait 14 days to reschedule these WUs.


Some people uses slow CPU machines and some projects at the same time. A short deadline only is operative if you only are joined to this project. If not, the tasks will running ever in high priority and the other projects that you have in your computer will never run.

Two weeks is a good deadline. (I think).



Some people use GPU and very fast CPU and they have a very long pending-queu. And this people are crunching a very high number of WUs. And they are not hapyy of this high rate of pending WUs. I think therefor 7 is a better deadline.

Profile Logan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Jul 09
Posts: 124
Credit: 37,455,338
RAC: 0
Message 941 - Posted: 5 Sep 2009, 13:24:11 UTC - in response to Message 940.
Last modified: 5 Sep 2009, 13:34:20 UTC

Hi Gipsel,

I read the discussion und I think the decisiion from Slicker to the deadline to 14 days was as a first step ok. But it seems too long for me, I think the second step should set it to 7 days.
Some people here use Collatz only to try a new projekt and so they let there WUs in the queue und now you have to wait 14 days to reschedule these WUs.


Some people uses slow CPU machines and some projects at the same time. A short deadline only is operative if you only are joined to this project. If not, the tasks will running ever in high priority and the other projects that you have in your computer will never run.

Two weeks is a good deadline. (I think).



Some people use GPU and very fast CPU and they have a very long pending-queu. And this people are crunching a very high number of WUs. And they are not hapyy of this high rate of pending WUs. I think therefor 7 is a better deadline.


Yes, but that discriminate to the other people that I said. And anyway, you will be credited sooner or later...

For the fast crunchers, it's only a problem of patience... For the slower ones could be the impossibility of crunch in the project...
____________
Logan.

BOINC FAQ Service (Ahora, también disponible en Español/Now available in Spanish)

Profile Logan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Jul 09
Posts: 124
Credit: 37,455,338
RAC: 0
Message 942 - Posted: 5 Sep 2009, 15:01:30 UTC
Last modified: 5 Sep 2009, 15:04:11 UTC

Even, you can buy last generation computers and GPU cards for them, and then they will expend the same time like you crunching a WU, and then, sure your credits will be awarded immediatly...:D


Best regards.
____________
Logan.

BOINC FAQ Service (Ahora, también disponible en Español/Now available in Spanish)

Profile Paul D. Buck
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 09
Posts: 412
Credit: 185,735,226
RAC: 0
Message 943 - Posted: 5 Sep 2009, 15:07:04 UTC - in response to Message 940.

Some people use GPU and very fast CPU and they have a very long pending-queu. And this people are crunching a very high number of WUs. And they are not hapyy of this high rate of pending WUs. I think therefor 7 is a better deadline.

The deadline at GPU Grid, as an example is perfectly fine for me at 4 days for this very reason, all *MY* GPUs are 200 class (less one) with the slowest being GTX260s.

The problem at GPU Grid, as shown with short deadlines is that anyone that does not have a fast GPU cannot participate. The prject cannot extend the deadline because new work is generated from old and so they are forced to use short deadlines.

In that the only complaint is that my credit does not come fast enough is not a very good reason to prevent people that want to participate because they don't have the latest and greatest.

If you stick with the project for the ramp up you will get a pending list that will, barring validator glitches, will stabilize and after that you will get about the same amount of earnings per day ...

As an example, I am focused on WCG right now and the sub-project that I am in validates immediately. When I change to another sub-project my credit will fall off for a couple days and then slowly rise ... and would persist for several days even after I stopped contributing work there ... it is the other side of the coin. The same is true here. If I stopped tomorrow, I have 20-40 in the "bank" that will pay me later.

Even with fast returns I would not recommend changing the deadline to a shorter one ...

Profile Slicker
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 09
Posts: 2525
Credit: 740,580,099
RAC: 1
Message 944 - Posted: 5 Sep 2009, 18:04:01 UTC - in response to Message 934.

The deadline in this Project is too lomg. It is the reason for very much pending WUs.
Look at milkyway, they have a deadline of 3 days.
I think here in this project 5 days should be the maximum. Thx


The deadline in MW is set to 3 days because they use the output of the results to generate the next WUs.

It wouldn't matter if there were no quorum. However, OC'd GPU and CPU sometimes give invalid results, and ATI driver problems or invalid app_info files can trash a lot of WUs very quickly as well. Having a second person calculate the same 4 billion numbers and come up with the same max steps for the same number and also the same total steps greatly reduces the potential for bad results. Even with that, the server still double checks the number reported using a different large number library just in case there is a problem with the extremely optimized version used in the apps.

To get rid of the quorum, we would need to return all 4 billion results and having the server randomly spot check several of the numbers. That wouldn't necessarily keep people from hacking the app and reporting more total steps which is what is used to calculate the credit. Returning all results would also creates huge result files meaning more disk space used on the client, lots more disk space on the server, and more time to validate each WU on the server.

I've considered returning only values above a certain threshold, but picking the threshold isn't easy since the steps vary so much (e.g. the last version reported 1500 as the max and last week the max was around 2000 steps). I'm open to suggestions though if someone believes they have a method that will work.

But, for now, there is a quorum and that means either people don't like the number of pending WUs or they don't like the short deadlines, especially if they crunch multiple projects.

Profile kevint
Send message
Joined: 18 Jun 09
Posts: 34
Credit: 246,186,607
RAC: 0
Message 947 - Posted: 5 Sep 2009, 20:02:09 UTC



The current 14 day deadline is just fine.

Wolfram1
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 09
Posts: 36
Credit: 94,882,264
RAC: 0
Message 948 - Posted: 5 Sep 2009, 20:55:15 UTC

Hi slicker,

thank you for your long respons.

Profile STE\/E
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 09
Posts: 581
Credit: 761,710,729
RAC: 0
Message 949 - Posted: 5 Sep 2009, 20:58:37 UTC - in response to Message 947.
Last modified: 5 Sep 2009, 21:00:44 UTC

I have no problem with the Deadline or the Quorum, just as long as you give the Validator it's Daily Kick ... ;)

Profile Slicker
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 09
Posts: 2525
Credit: 740,580,099
RAC: 1
Message 953 - Posted: 6 Sep 2009, 0:04:08 UTC - in response to Message 949.

I have no problem with the Deadline or the Quorum, just as long as you give the Validator it's Daily Kick ... ;)


Kicking it is getting old real fast.

Profile mikey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Aug 09
Posts: 3244
Credit: 1,696,116,913
RAC: 5,240,530
Message 958 - Posted: 6 Sep 2009, 11:40:19 UTC - in response to Message 953.

I have no problem with the Deadline or the Quorum, just as long as you give the Validator it's Daily Kick ... ;)


Kicking it is getting old real fast.


There should be a way to give it a virtual kick, restarting it at a set time every day. As for the script I can't help you, but I have read that there is such a way.


Post to thread

Message boards : Number crunching : deadline too long


Main page · Your account · Message boards


Copyright © 2018 Jon Sonntag; All rights reserved.