Message boards :
Number crunching :
Asymptotic progress on a task
Message board moderation
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Send message Joined: 2 Mar 09 Posts: 6 Credit: 584,337,082 RAC: 0 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My computer's been trying to finish a task called '428-GIANNI_FB-0-100-RND4078_1 using acemd version 664' for 4-5 days now. Normal tasks seem to take about a day. It makes good progress for a while, then seems to get stuck and none of the figures move, even though the task shows as running. Exiting/relaunching the BOINC manager gets it back unstuck for a while. Finally over the course of 10-12 exits/relaunches throughout the weekend, it finally finished. I don't normally pay that close attention to a task's progress, so I don't know if this a Normal Thing or not, nor do I know whether it would have gotten unstuck by itself. When I exit/relaunch the % complete will drop slightly. For instance, it may read 99.321%, then when I relaunch, it'll read that upon load, but within a few seconds it'll drop to 99.210%. Is this something I should keep an eye on, or is there something strange going on with that type of task? Thanks, Eugene |
|
Send message Joined: 17 Aug 08 Posts: 2705 Credit: 1,311,122,549 RAC: 0 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Unfortunately you witnessed a bug recently introduced. I don't think we have properly organized info on it yet, except that it has been reported for 6.4.7 and 6.6.x .. and may not depend on the BOINC version at all. Is it this task? It seems like it ran for ~3 days (if you run 24/7) but registers 50k seconds, just shy of 14h, which is your normal time. However, it's normal that if you restart BOINC you loose some progress - the client is resuming from the last checkpoint. MrS Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002 |
|
Send message Joined: 2 Mar 09 Posts: 6 Credit: 584,337,082 RAC: 0 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes that's the job that eventually finished. I probably was running about 18 hrs/day. Thanks for your response. --Eugene |
|
Send message Joined: 17 Aug 08 Posts: 2705 Credit: 1,311,122,549 RAC: 0 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Mh, so we have a reported runtime of 14h versus an estimated runtime of 3*18h = 54h. That's 4 times longer, just as in the case of "the classical 6.6.20 bug".. MrS Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002 |
©2025 Universitat Pompeu Fabra