Still a problem with the “enforce_delay_bound� option. Message from server: No work sent (won't finish in time)

Keck_Komputers
Keck_Komputers
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 376
Credit: 5744955
RAC: 0

In 4.1x clients active

In 4.1x clients active fraction is the percent of total time the client can process data. In 4.2x clients the active fration is the percent of on time that the client can process. So the server report is acurate for the newer client but not correct for the current client. This was confusing me too, David posted the definitive answer on the bug tracking board.

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8

Ziran
Ziran
Joined: 26 Nov 04
Posts: 194
Credit: 681783
RAC: 945

> Are your preferences set so

Message 5716 in response to message 5714

> Are your preferences set so that BOINC runs all the time? Or just when your
> computer is idle? In the latter case, how long does it have to be idle before
> BOINC restarts the work?

BOINC is always running on my machine.

Then you're really interested in a subject, there is no way to avoid it. You have to read the Manual.

Bruce Allen
Bruce Allen
Moderator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 1119
Credit: 172127663
RAC: 0

> In 4.1x clients active

Message 5717 in response to message 5715

> In 4.1x clients active fraction is the percent of total time the client can
> process data. In 4.2x clients the active fration is the percent of on time
> that the client can process. So the server report is acurate for the newer
> client but not correct for the current client. This was confusing me too,
> David posted the definitive answer on the bug tracking board.

John, URL please for this definitive answer, please?

I'll need to modify the scheduler to fix this. The current scheduler calculations of active time/on time are not done differently for different versions of the BOINC core client.

Cheers,
Bruce

Director, Einstein@Home

Bruce Allen
Bruce Allen
Moderator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 1119
Credit: 172127663
RAC: 0

OK, I just talked with David

OK, I just talked with David Anderson about this.

He was under the mis-impression that for clients

Director, Einstein@Home

Keck_Komputers
Keck_Komputers
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 376
Credit: 5744955
RAC: 0

> > In 4.1x clients active

Message 5719 in response to message 5717

> > In 4.1x clients active fraction is the percent of total time the client
> can
> > process data. In 4.2x clients the active fration is the percent of on
> time
> > that the client can process. So the server report is acurate for the
> newer
> > client but not correct for the current client. This was confusing me
> too,
> > David posted the definitive answer on the bug tracking board.
>
> John, URL please for this definitive answer, please?
>
> I'll need to modify the scheduler to fix this. The current scheduler
> calculations of active time/on time are not done differently for different
> versions of the BOINC core client.
>
> Cheers,
> Bruce
>
URL= http://bbugs.axpr.net/bug.php?op=show&bugid=62

It was the last of the comments that I was referring to.

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8

Bruce Allen
Bruce Allen
Moderator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 1119
Credit: 172127663
RAC: 0

> > > In 4.1x clients active

Message 5720 in response to message 5719

> > > In 4.1x clients active fraction is the percent of total time the
> client
> > can
> > > process data. In 4.2x clients the active fration is the percent of
> on
> > time
> > > that the client can process. So the server report is acurate for
> the
> > newer
> > > client but not correct for the current client. This was confusing
> me
> > too,
> > > David posted the definitive answer on the bug tracking board.
> >
> > John, URL please for this definitive answer, please?
> >
> > I'll need to modify the scheduler to fix this. The current scheduler
> > calculations of active time/on time are not done differently for
> different
> > versions of the BOINC core client.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bruce
> >
> URL= http://bbugs.axpr.net/bug.php?op=show&bugid=62
>
> It was the last of the comments that I was referring to.

I've fixed the E@H scheduler. It now sets active_frac to 1 for core clients 4.19 and earlier.

Bruce

Director, Einstein@Home

S@NL - Marleen
S@NL - Marleen
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 25
Credit: 4068135
RAC: 0

> I've fixed the E@H

Message 5721 in response to message 5720

> I've fixed the E@H scheduler. It now sets active_frac to 1 for core clients
> 4.19 and earlier.
So, that's why I suddenly got 2 Einstein WU's (one a minute after the other) instead of one on the evening of March, 2.

The fix works :-)

Keck_Komputers
Keck_Komputers
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 376
Credit: 5744955
RAC: 0

>I've fixed the E@H

>I've fixed the E@H scheduler. It now sets active_frac to 1 for core clients
>4.19 and earlier.
>
>Bruce

It would have been better to set on_frac to 1. That way it would adjust properly for clients that run when idle only or otherwise spend significant amounts of time not crunching but on. However either way is better than it was.

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8

Bruce Allen
Bruce Allen
Moderator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 1119
Credit: 172127663
RAC: 0

> >I've fixed the E@H

Message 5723 in response to message 5722

> >I've fixed the E@H scheduler. It now sets active_frac to 1 for core
> clients
> >4.19 and earlier.
> >
> >Bruce
>
> It would have been better to set on_frac to 1. That way it would adjust
> properly for clients that run when idle only or otherwise spend significant
> amounts of time not crunching but on. However either way is better than it
> was.

John, I talked to David Anderson specifically about this and his conclusion was to set active_frac to 1. Have you read the relevant client and server code? If you have, and you are sure, I can take it back up with David. I don't understand this part of the code.

Cheers,
Bruce

Director, Einstein@Home

Keck_Komputers
Keck_Komputers
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 376
Credit: 5744955
RAC: 0

> John, I talked to David

Message 5724 in response to message 5723

> John, I talked to David Anderson specifically about this and his conclusion
> was to set active_frac to 1. Have you read the relevant client and server
> code? If you have, and you are sure, I can take it back up with David. I
> don't understand this part of the code.
>
> Cheers,
> Bruce
>
I have not looked at the code since the revamp, so David is probably right. I was just thinking about what the numbers meant before the revamp, not how it was coded. It also probably only makes a significant difference for a small fraction of users so not worth further effort.

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.