It's never been changed, as far as I can remember.

But "the fastest card", being a relative term, has certainly changed its meaning over the years.

This relative term is used intentionally for practital reasons: the staff don't have to change this definition at the release of every new GPU generation, instead they can release longer workunits.

Will there be any new work or is the batch over now?

Will there be any new work or is the batch over now?

maybe just resends at the moment.

---

"OpenPandemics for GPU

The process of porting the research application code to GPU is well underway as we work to ensure that work units function well and securely before they’re sent to volunteers. The security review of the code is completed."

https://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/about_us/viewNewsArticle.do?articleId=680&mynews=Y

There are beta tasks already released, but they are few and I haven't received any. They last only a few minutes.
Tullio

---

Greetings everyone,

I'm sorry to say, but I am having a build issue at the moment and I have not been able to create a production ready version of the application. At the moment, the next round of beta is on hold while I'm still working out the issue.

Thanks,
-Uplinger
[Feb 26, 2021 11:10:50 PM]

They're getting closer!

They must be having a hard time getting them long enough.
They should come here for advice.

They must be having a hard time getting them long enough.
They should come here for advice.

Really length isn’t important as long as the project can compile the results. SETI had work units that only ran for less than a minute on fast GPUs.

But longer tasks ideally would be more time efficient, less wasted time between tasks.

---

I guess, it would be a perfect place then to shift the slower cards to if they don't finish tasks in time here. My 750 Ti and 970 will do work over there as soon as they ship the production ready version of the app.

I've read on the forums that a 1650 Super which definitely is not the most powerful card there, reached runtimes of only a few minutes. The powerful cards must kick ass over there, finishing WUs in seconds then - even it'd be it just for a few hours, they'd probably produce a week's worth of CPU crunching :)

I have an odd question regarding these work units. Was the credit awarded dependent upon how quickly they were completed? They all had the same application identifier as far as I could tell, and they all took about the same amount of processor time to complete. They seemed to award 3 different amounts of credit, either approximately 348,000 points, 435,000 or 520,000. I completed about a dozen and the longer I took the less credit given. The ones I returned in less than 2 days all awarded 435,000 points, those that took 3 days or longer all awarded 348,000. Was this an actual factor or just a wild coincidence?

---

Yes. Tasks returned in under 24hrs get a 50% bonus. Under 48hrs get a 25% bonus. And tasks between 2-5 days get normal base credit.

---

Can we know what exactly we are crunching?

Thanks!

Sylvain.

Normally we don't know any specifics until a paper is generated and cites the workunits that were used for the investigation.

The paper details what the investigation was all about.

If you have citation badges under your account you can click on the badge you were awarded and it will take you to the paper synopsis.

Ah, thank you. I wish I had known! It took my 1070 GPU's about 27 hours to complete them but I kept most of my resources on other projects and only made sure to return them before they timed out. I could have picked up a few hundred thousand more points and got my 100 million molecule. Oh well...

---

as of this morning, on one of my machines I had still 2 tasks: one was running, the other one waiting. An hour later I noticed that the latter one was "aborted by server".
How nice :-(

as of this morning, on one of my machines I had still 2 tasks: one was running, the other one waiting. An hour later I noticed that the latter one was "aborted by server".
How nice :-(

That task was a resent, the server cancelled it because the host originally assigned was finally able to finish and deliver it back. The server checked first it was not been being crunched in your host.

as of this morning, on one of my machines I had still 2 tasks: one was running, the other one waiting. An hour later I noticed that the latter one was "aborted by server".
How nice :-(

That task was a resent, the server cancelled it because the host originally assigned was finally able to finish and deliver it back. The server checked first it was not been being crunched in your host.

so if the task was still being crunched on the other host (and finally got finished there) - why was it then ever sent to me, too?

as of this morning, on one of my machines I had still 2 tasks: one was running, the other one waiting. An hour later I noticed that the latter one was "aborted by server".
How nice :-(

That task was a resent, the server cancelled it because the host originally assigned was finally able to finish and deliver it back. The server checked first it was not been being crunched in your host.

so if the task was still being crunched on the other host (and finally got finished there) - why was it then ever sent to me, too?

Because it was already over 5 days since that host downloaded the unit, so beyond the deadline for sending a new instance of the wu. It is the standard BOINC way of working (each project sets its own deadlines).

Because it was already over 5 days since that host downloaded the unit, so beyond the deadline for sending a new instance of the wu.

oh, okay, I was not aware of that.

The interesting thing is: I received it 2 days ago. So if the original host finished it this morning, the task must have been 7 days "old" then (and obviously got credit).

Recently, one of my slower hosts finshed a task after 5 days plus a few hours, and it was not accepted any more. No credits: "too late".

How does this fit together?

Because it was already over 5 days since that host downloaded the unit, so beyond the deadline for sending a new instance of the wu.

oh, okay, I was not aware of that.

The interesting thing is: I received it 2 days ago. So if the original host finished it this morning, the task must have been 7 days "old" then (and obviously got credit).

Recently, one of my slower hosts finshed a task after 5 days plus a few hours, and it was not accepted any more. No credits: "too late".

How does this fit together?

What I think could have accourred is that the server issued a new wu once yours were over 5 days and that the new host crunched and delivered the result before you finished yours. In that situation you should normally receive no credit.

I can't find that wu in your hosts, if you can point to it I will have a look.