Just don't go gaga playing with all the new buttons before reading up on their functions and ramifications. That scheduler can quickly get mighty confused by such actions. My advice - let it work for a while, and see how efficiently it runs things.
Happy crunching, and thanks for your contributions to Einstein@Home!
Regards,
Michael R.
Yes, thank you, I'm reading up on it. However, I am not very impressed by the new client, since for one it seems to be running a little slower than the older one --- that is, assuming work units from the same source file are about the same size.
I will let it run for a while and see how long it takes to finish this unit.
Just don't go gaga playing with all the new buttons before reading up on their functions and ramifications. That scheduler can quickly get mighty confused by such actions. My advice - let it work for a while, and see how efficiently it runs things.
Happy crunching, and thanks for your contributions to Einstein@Home!
Regards,
Michael R.
Yes, thank you, I'm reading up on it. However, I am not very impressed by the new client, since for one it seems to be running a little slower than the older one --- that is, assuming work units from the same source file are about the same size.
I will let it run for a while and see how long it takes to finish this unit.
Gildardo,
The core client (BOINC) has no effect on crunchtimes. It is the Einstein (or albert, in this case) app that does all the crunching. The BOINC client does do the benchmarking, though, and you are likely to see a difference in credit claim due to this. If the new claim figures aren't to your liking, there are remedies, but under the quorum system of determining credit granted, usually one individual's claim has little impact upon the final figure. If it turns out to be bothersome, give a yell, and we'll see what can be done for you.
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
Hmmm, yes I'm seeing that the progress is the same as with the previous client. What probably got me confused is that the BOINC manager in the work tab updates the CPU time of the calculation slower than the older one --- I could see the amount of work done second by second, whereas the newer client updates every five seconds or so.
Also, in both clients the amount of time to completion in the work tab initially is overly large, progressively going down to a better estimate as the calculation goes on --- but what threw me off was that the newer client hasn't yet converged to a reasonable figure -- with about 75% completed, the amount of CPU time reported is about 4:45 hours, but the time to completion says 2:50 hours remaining -- off in excess of 50 minutes. This is irrelevant, but as I said, it got me confused.
Hmmm, yes I'm seeing that the progress is the same as with the previous client. What probably got me confused is that the BOINC manager in the work tab updates the CPU time of the calculation slower than the older one --- I could see the amount of work done second by second, whereas the newer client updates every five seconds or so.
Also, in both clients the amount of time to completion in the work tab initially is overly large, progressively going down to a better estimate as the calculation goes on --- but what threw me off was that the newer client hasn't yet converged to a reasonable figure -- with about 75% completed, the amount of CPU time reported is about 4:45 hours, but the time to completion says 2:50 hours remaining -- off in excess of 50 minutes. This is irrelevant, but as I said, it got me confused.
Anyway, thank you all for the replies! :)
Ah, yes, the Duration Correction Factor. It takes some getting used to, or more correctly said, it takes some few WUs before it "learns" at what rate your machine crunches. In time, over maybe 20 WUs or so, it will more or less "zero in" on the correct time, just be patient with it. Over the weeks, it will get to be unbelievably accurate, so much so that I'd forgotten completely about it.
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
RE: Gildardo, Just don't
)
Yes, thank you, I'm reading up on it. However, I am not very impressed by the new client, since for one it seems to be running a little slower than the older one --- that is, assuming work units from the same source file are about the same size.
I will let it run for a while and see how long it takes to finish this unit.
RE: RE: Gildardo, Just
)
Gildardo,
The core client (BOINC) has no effect on crunchtimes. It is the Einstein (or albert, in this case) app that does all the crunching. The BOINC client does do the benchmarking, though, and you are likely to see a difference in credit claim due to this. If the new claim figures aren't to your liking, there are remedies, but under the quorum system of determining credit granted, usually one individual's claim has little impact upon the final figure. If it turns out to be bothersome, give a yell, and we'll see what can be done for you.
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
Hmmm, yes I'm seeing that the
)
Hmmm, yes I'm seeing that the progress is the same as with the previous client. What probably got me confused is that the BOINC manager in the work tab updates the CPU time of the calculation slower than the older one --- I could see the amount of work done second by second, whereas the newer client updates every five seconds or so.
Also, in both clients the amount of time to completion in the work tab initially is overly large, progressively going down to a better estimate as the calculation goes on --- but what threw me off was that the newer client hasn't yet converged to a reasonable figure -- with about 75% completed, the amount of CPU time reported is about 4:45 hours, but the time to completion says 2:50 hours remaining -- off in excess of 50 minutes. This is irrelevant, but as I said, it got me confused.
Anyway, thank you all for the replies! :)
RE: Hmmm, yes I'm seeing
)
Ah, yes, the Duration Correction Factor. It takes some getting used to, or more correctly said, it takes some few WUs before it "learns" at what rate your machine crunches. In time, over maybe 20 WUs or so, it will more or less "zero in" on the correct time, just be patient with it. Over the weeks, it will get to be unbelievably accurate, so much so that I'd forgotten completely about it.
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK