when do these wu finish?

Message boards : SZTAKI Desktop Grid : when do these wu finish?

Author | Message |
---|---|

hello | |

ID: 5292 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

all 4 wu are now \'\'ready to report\'\' after 33:40:57, but next wus are with \'\'0.00%\'\' progress again! | |

ID: 5293 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

all 4 wu are now \'\'ready to report\'\' after 33:40:57, but next wus are with \'\'0.00%\'\' progress again! Your units are all from the 21b342bd series. That series is well known for having problems. They are usually single-line units - meaning that progress is always 0.00% while the line is being processed, then it jumps to 100.00% when the line is finished. I have posted several times on this thread describing the problems I have encountered when processing them. Another, related thread that discusses \"Output is empty\" problems may also be helpful to you.____________ | |

ID: 5294 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

thank you | |

ID: 5295 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

If these | |

ID: 5298 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

If these The description of the project is: \"The aim of the project is to find all the generalized binary number systems up to dimension 11.\" Well, this is outdated because we are now searching dimension 12. Nevertheless, we must crunch all the WUs, including the \"problem\" WUs. Until the batch of them is completely processed, they must be reissued. Otherwise the scientific value of the whole work is useless.I would not consider them as being \"problem\" WUs, even if they are sometimes hard to get their quorum right away. What is wrong with 25+ hours, as long as the maximum CPU error doesn\'t occur? CPDN has WUs running thousands of hours and this is accepted by the crunching community. ____________ | |

ID: 5300 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

I run CPDN with no problem at all. I also have run WCG WUs which are 12 hrs plus. Where I consider there is a problem is that so far two computers have already proved \'valid\' results for this WU - one of them in 8 minutes and the other after 3 and a half hours.....Concerning the seeming lack of response from admins to queries etc. on this project, CPDN does have devs and moderators who are always there to answer questions and give advice! | |

ID: 5302 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

I would not consider them as being \"problem\" WUs, even if they are sometimes hard to get their quorum right away. What is wrong with 25+ hours, as long as the maximum CPU error doesn\'t occur? Although a \"Max CPU time\" error is a concern, the major problem with these WU\'s (as I see it) is the checkpointing problem. That is, these units are never able to write a usable checkpoint and, therefore, must complete processing without an intervening restart of BOINC to finish successfully and validate. If BOINC is ever restarted after the first (faulty) checkpoint is written, the units will end immediately with \"Output is empty\". Since the units tend to take a long time, that is a tall order. I would add that I have yet to see one of these units form a quorum and validate. In fact, I don\'t believe I have ever seen a single result that did not have an \"Output is empty\" message (or have some other error). Therefore, until Adam finds and fixes the checkpointing issue, these units are a big problem. ____________ | |

ID: 5303 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

| |

ID: 5310 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

Call me unsuitable for this project. Distributed computing is free and voluntary. So you are not unsuitable for the project, the project is unsuitable for you. Sorry to see you leaving, especially leaving with a negative feeling. I wish you more satisfaction with the other projects you are going to work for. Robert ____________ | |

ID: 5312 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

So I take it by this thread that my WUs that appear to be stuck (on one machine, I\'m sitting at 57.999% with 20 hours of processing, and on the other machine, I\'m at 30.000% with 15 hours of processing) are not really stuck? I was about to abort, reset and even perhaps detach/reattach the project (I can\'t remember, but I may have aborted one or two of previous WUs too, thinking they were stuck), but I thought I should check the forums before doing so. | |

ID: 5518 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

If I\'m reading this thread correctly, then, as I said, they\'re not stuck--they\'re just in the middle of a certain line and will be updated when that line is finished processing. Can anyone confirm my analysis? Your analysis is correct. You just need to \"believe\". But, you should also read this and the messages that follow it. That is, the problem with writing disk \"checkpoints\" could cause your results to be invalid if you have exited/restarted BOINC while your WU\'s are \"In progress\". ____________ | |

ID: 5519 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

If I\'m reading this thread correctly, then, as I said, they\'re not stuck--they\'re just in the middle of a certain line and will be updated when that line is finished processing. Can anyone confirm my analysis? I have never had a WU that was really \"stuck\". Sooner or later they did progress. I would leave yours crunching. ____________ | |

ID: 5520 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

If I\'m reading this thread correctly, then, as I said, they\'re not stuck--they\'re just in the middle of a certain line and will be updated when that line is finished processing. Can anyone confirm my analysis? I have had some (maybe one or two) WUs get stuck, but they weren\'t SZTAKI WU. I say they were stuck because the CPU time was not incrementing but yet the status was \"running\". SZTAKI WUs just seem to be stuck since the % complete doesn\'t move for hours upon hours, BUT the CPU time still climbs indicating that it is doing something. Leave them crunching unless the CPU time is not incrementing while the status is set as \"running\".____________ Don't get distracted by shiny objects. | |

ID: 5523 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

Not exiting Boinc isn\'t enough. I should also make sure to avoid \"No heartbeat from core client for 31 sec - exiting\", as seen here. No credits in perspective. So we try with a new replacement result unit, number 16! Will this be enough to get a quorum? We are heading dangerously towards the 10/20/10 limit. | |

ID: 5525 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

Not exiting Boinc isn\'t enough. I should also make sure to avoid \"No heartbeat from core client for 31 sec - exiting\", as seen here. No credits in perspective. So we try with a new replacement result unit, number 16! Will this be enough to get a quorum? We are heading dangerously towards the 10/20/10 limit. Since all the resultid\'s have the infamous \"APP: Output is empty, placing msg in out.txt\" in their stderr out, presently a quorum is not possible and no credit will be granted. ____________ | |

ID: 5526 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

Not exiting Boinc isn\'t enough. I should also make sure to avoid \"No heartbeat from core client for 31 sec - exiting\", as seen here. No credits in perspective. So we try with a new replacement result unit, number 16! Will this be enough to get a quorum? We are heading dangerously towards the 10/20/10 limit. Why dangerously? I\'ve never seen a cogent argument for keep those numbers \"low.\" If the initial replication \"works\" Then the others are not needed or sent If the initial replication doesn\'t work, then the higher numbers are there to help. ____________ | |

ID: 5527 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

OK. On two of my three computers, BOINC runs solidly in the background, and they\'re up for 30, 60, 90 or more days at a time. | |

ID: 5539 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/ | |

... I\'m as frustrated as you are, but I can assure you that this work is fundamental to our understanding of numbers and very important to many fields of Engineering and Computer Science, as well as its importance intellectually. Results will be in the nature of new ways to do computation, and in particular, in coding theory, digital filters and encryption. Basically, to do anything with numbers (even counting), we have to find some way of representing them. As we know, the positional number system based on powers of ten, perfected in India and passed on to us by Arab scholars, is much more useful for doing computations than non-positional systems, such as Roman numerals. Some positional systems are better than others both for performing computations and for revealing the fundamental structure of numbers. We are familiar with binary number systems because most computer arithmetic is base 2 or some power of 2. The reason for this is that computational operations are particularly simple with base 2, and because storage with 2 stable states tends to be more reliable than with more than 2. However, there are many ways of representing numbers based on 2, and some of them are not unique (also true of base ten, but we won\'t go into that). If a number has more than one representation, or if more than one number has the same representation, it is in most cases useless for computational purposes. What this project is doing is searching for unique representations in generalised number systems, discarding the ones that aren\'t unique. Why do so? Well, the hope is to find a pattern in the distrubution of unique number systems, and thence to develop theorems about the properties of unique number systems. A similar sort of challenge is work in prime numbers: if you study their distribution, you can not only develop better means of finding prime numbers, but you actually find out more about the nature of numbers themselves. For instance, there is a relationship between the distribution of prime numbers and the zeros of the Reimann zeta function. An understanding of why this should be so would give enormous insight into the nature of numbers (and hence of the nature of existence) itself. In a similar manner, knowing about unique number systems and why they are unique, will give insights into the nature of numbers themselves. These comments are entirely my own — comments from a non-mathematician who has nevertheless been involved in algorithms for computer arithmetic, algorithms for digital correlators and filters, encryption, and computational algorithms for experimental physics — based on my own background, and do not represent the mathematicians for whom SZTAKI computations are being done, nor have I any contact with them. George ------ ____________ Dr George W Gerrity | |

ID: 5548 | Rating: 1 | rate:
/ | |

Message boards :
SZTAKI Desktop Grid :
when do these wu finish?

Copyright © 2017 SZTAKI Desktop Grid