Message boards :
Number crunching :
Why different credits for same "long runs" ?
Message board moderation
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Send message Joined: 1 Jan 15 Posts: 1166 Credit: 12,260,898,501 RAC: 1 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
just out of curiosity, I would like to know why for the first few long runs [(Long runs (8-12 hours on fastest card) v8.47 (cuda65)] I ran on my computer I received 162.500 points each, and for all following ones 135.000 points. They all ran about same time, so they definitely were not that different to each other like the difference in the credit points would suggest. |
|
Send message Joined: 20 Jul 14 Posts: 732 Credit: 130,089,082 RAC: 0 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It depends on the time you sending back your WU's. Bonuses are credited when you return your WU's fast. Taking your example, you were credited with a 20% bonus for WU's that you have returned within 48 hours. If I don't talk nonsense, but the GPUG staff should complete (or correct) my reply :) [CSF] Thomas H.V. Dupont Founder of the team CRUNCHERS SANS FRONTIERES 2.0 www.crunchersansfrontieres |
|
Send message Joined: 1 Jan 15 Posts: 1166 Credit: 12,260,898,501 RAC: 1 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
hm, I see. Since computation time for all the tasks was about the same (some 35 hrs. with my Nvidia Quadro K620)), and the computation was virtually not interrupted, the only reason for the "delay" beyond 48 hrs. must be that some of the new tasks were downloaded long time before the current one got finished. This is, in fact, what I had noticed lately: short time after the computation of a given job has started, the next one was downloaded and remained in "ready to start" status for quite some time, i.e. until the previous one was completed. However, if the overall time for the bonus starts counting at the moment the task is downloaded, but cannot start yet because another task is still at work, then of course the 48 hours would be exceeded in most of the cases. Hence, it would be more fair if such new jobs are downloaded once the previous one has been uploaded. I guess that most of the participants have only 1 GPU in their computer, so only one job can be worked on after the other. |
|
Send message Joined: 23 Nov 10 Posts: 14 Credit: 8,017,535,732 RAC: 0 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Erich, try setting your Boinc minimum work buffer to a small fraction of a 24-hour day (e.g., I use 0.05 for 72 minutes). In my case, the Boinc client will not download the next long run task until there is only 70 to 90 minutes of computation left on the active task. This works well regardless of the number of GPUs present. Just make certain to choose a buffer period that is longer than the time required to download a long run task, so that your GPU is not unnecessarily idle. |
|
Send message Joined: 1 Jan 15 Posts: 1166 Credit: 12,260,898,501 RAC: 1 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Erich, try setting your Boinc minimum work buffer to a small fraction of a 24-hour day (e.g., I use 0.05 for 72 minutes). ... thanks for the hint. I just made this adaption now, so let's wait and see what happens :-) |
|
Send message Joined: 20 Jul 14 Posts: 732 Credit: 130,089,082 RAC: 0 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For me, it's 0.01 day :p (30mns max before the end of a WU) [CSF] Thomas H.V. Dupont Founder of the team CRUNCHERS SANS FRONTIERES 2.0 www.crunchersansfrontieres |
|
Send message Joined: 11 Oct 08 Posts: 1127 Credit: 1,901,927,545 RAC: 0 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Note: 0.01 day = 14.4 mins Also, for the original poster, read the FAQs forum, especially this page that talks about Credits, and more importantly, Deadlines (and bonuses): http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=2572 |
|
Send message Joined: 20 Jul 14 Posts: 732 Credit: 130,089,082 RAC: 0 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Note: 0.01 day = 14.4 mins Thanks so much Jacob for the link :) [CSF] Thomas H.V. Dupont Founder of the team CRUNCHERS SANS FRONTIERES 2.0 www.crunchersansfrontieres |
|
Send message Joined: 1 Jan 15 Posts: 1166 Credit: 12,260,898,501 RAC: 1 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Note: 0.01 day = 14.4 mins many thanks for the clarification; sorry that I did not catch this earlier. Too bad that I have only a slow GPU (Nvidia Quadro K620), so a "long run" task, without any break, takes around 36 hrs. But at least I should get the 48-hrs-bonus of +25% :-) |
|
Send message Joined: 1 Jan 15 Posts: 1166 Credit: 12,260,898,501 RAC: 1 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
hm, an unclearness came up with a recent "long runs" from Noelia: I finished "e10s4_e1s15f26-NOELIA_31x4-1-2-RND0004_1" within some 26 hours. In case of previous "long runs" by Gerard, for those I got 162.500 points credit, i.e. 131.250 + 25% for finishing within 48 hrs. For the task mentioned above, I got only 131.250, no extra bonus 25%. Why so? |
Retvari ZoltanSend message Joined: 20 Jan 09 Posts: 2380 Credit: 16,897,957,044 RAC: 0 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
hm, an unclearness came up with a recent "long runs" from Noelia: I finished "e10s4_e1s15f26-NOELIA_31x4-1-2-RND0004_1" within some 26 hours. In case of previous "long runs" by Gerard, for those I got 162.500 points credit, i.e. 131.250 + 25% for finishing within 48 hrs. For the task mentioned above, I got only 131.250, no extra bonus 25%. Why so? You did receive the 25% bonus credit actually, but the base credits for this batch are 20% less than the Gerard's you've referenced. |
|
Send message Joined: 1 Jan 15 Posts: 1166 Credit: 12,260,898,501 RAC: 1 Level ![]() Scientific publications ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You did receive the 25% bonus credit actually, but the base credits for this batch are 20% less than the Gerard's you've referenced. oh aha, this makes it clear. Thanks for the clarification :-) |
©2025 Universitat Pompeu Fabra