| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: Drug Search for Leishmaniasis Forum
Thread: Looong running WUs |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 117
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Gil II
Senior Cruncher Canada Joined: Dec 6, 2006 Post Count: 368 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
DSFL_ 00000017_ 0000031_ 0407_ 0
----------------------------------------The saga continues. Now it says it has been running for 6:58 hrs and it is at 46.87% CPU at last checkpoint 2:37:09 CPU time 2:37:53 The % has not increased in the last 3+ hours ????  |
||
|
|
KWSN - A Shrubbery
Master Cruncher Joined: Jan 8, 2006 Post Count: 1585 Status: Offline |
First, check the elapsed time in properties. Second go to the thread called "Stuck Workunits".
---------------------------------------- Distributed computing volunteer since September 27, 2000 |
||
|
|
armstrdj
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: Oct 21, 2004 Post Count: 695 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Gill II
Yes please look at the following thread for more information to provide http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread_thread,31764 What version of the BOINC client are you running? What value do you have the "While processor usage is less than" setting set to? Are there other non boinc tasks running that are using a lot of CPU time? Thanks, armstrdj |
||
|
|
uplinger
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: May 23, 2005 Post Count: 3952 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Gill II,
From what I can tell, you need to follow up with armstrdj. I did a quick check on the workunit you are running and at 46.87% you should be processing ligand ZINC14698294.pdbqt which has timing values of T 4 A 26 C 367.703 associated with it. Short story on that is the avg cpu time should be 6 minutes for that specific job. Thanks, -Uplinger |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Mean for Monday was down to 7.86 hours per task, 61K results validating yesterday. Now crunching target 20, batch 54.
[ot]Oddly, on me Windows duo with 3 way project profile of C4CW, DSFL, CEP2 am only receiving C4CW+CEP2 and on the Linux quad only DSFL+CEP2... no water. Gives a net balance, but would prefer a good mix on both as that tends to improve efficiency... less competition for the specialty requirements each science seem to have.[/ot] --//-- |
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7234 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Mean for Monday was down to 7.86 hours per task, 61K results validating yesterday. Now crunching target 20, batch 54. I think you are about right. I have noticed they seem to have settled down to 8 to 10 hours on my low end quad. Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
Mysteron347
Senior Cruncher Australia Joined: Apr 28, 2007 Post Count: 179 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
One of the consistent claims in this thread is that people are turning off because of the run-times encountered. Whether that is simply because people want to see the numbers turning over or whether the target runtime claimed originally has not been achieved, I don't know.
My current observation is this: Mediocre Quad, W7, targets 16 and 17 - 6-7hrs Old P4, Ubuntu, targets 18,19 - 7-8hrs Old Core2duo, XP, target 20 - 12hrs+ It doesn't actually worry me - I'll just keep crunching away. What is a worry is that the projected figures seem to be out, even after the storm. Oh - and the concern that people who have abandoned DSFL for whatever reason will be harder to entice back if the perceived problems aren't resolved. I'm not game to try stoking up an old P2/300. Reckon it'd still be on its first DSFL come Christmas... |
||
|
|
|