| Subject: Re: xxxx_5 BOINC unit. |
| From: "Stratcat" <none@no.org> |
| Date: 06/08/2004, 19:26 |
"f/f george" <george@yourplace.com> wrote in message
news:ehl6h093d9vqgkcr6obl7v0vckp5sgfl62@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 18:11:13 +1200, "~misfit~"
<misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:
There must be a few WUs getting lost out there. You know how each unit is
sent out with a _0, _1 and a _2 suffix so that each unit is calculated
three
times and cross-checked? Recently I've noticed a few _3's and _4's and
today
I got a _5. Obviously a few results are being lost or not returned. My
understanding is that, if all three 'units' haven't been returned by the
expiry date they send out however many other copies are needed to get the
three results. A _5 must mean that all of the original three units were
lost.
Just thought I'd mention it. Anyone seen one higher than _5? Just
curious.
It could also mean that the first returns weren't within
"computational" sameness. Meaning that the first return may have asked
for 35 credits while the second was asking for 68 credits and the
third was asking for 2 credits. Something is wrong and the units
would be sent out again and again until 3 returns are within alowable
limits. Those limits are set by the Scientists and can of course be
changed.
FWIW - I've gotten #'s all over the place, lately. 0's - 5's, with many 3's
& 4's, maybe even enough 3's & 4's to say a solid 25 - 30% of 'em.
Erronious returns, or lost/missing returns? Take your pick. Only Berzerkly
knows for sure. I'd bet more than a few peeps didn't return on time due
to the ongoing probs, inadvertantly setting long cache estimates,
or simply bailing out. Prolly the last two are a definite minority, but
still a significant enough group to make a dent in the stats.
My cache set to 6.2 days gives me 10 - 11 days of work. I've had to reduce
it to 5.2. I've seen peeps in the BOINC forums setting cache to 12 - 14
days! Even if the client or scheduler are smart enough to not give over 14
days work, it just takes a bit of a bad estimate, a little machine down
time, or some comm probs to start a cascade causing the cached WU's to go
stale.
As always, my opinion is free. You get exactly what you pay for.
--
Strat