Workunit size vs. processor
19 Jul 2006 22:25:38 UTC
Topic 191591
(moderation:
Just out of curiousity ... are specific workunits allocated to computers based on the computers' performance?
Just wondering ... I've been using a puny 800MHz system that's been getting S5 workunits that take about 4 hours on it. I've moved over to a 3.4GHz system and was kinda expecting to rip through workunits, but the first one I got looks to be a juggernaut S5 ... about 14 hours even at 3.4GHz by the looks of things.
Example of baby workunit
Juggernaut workunit
Workunit size vs. processor
)
Okay, I just read the following in another thread, but I'm still curious whether these are being allocated on the basis of the client computers' processing power(?)
RE: Just out of curiousity
)
The scheduler is designed to send out short WU to slow hosts, and long WU to fast hosts. The slow WU are sent to the hosts which are in the slowest 20%.
Bruce
Director, Einstein@Home
RE: The scheduler is
)
Hi Bruce, thanks for clearing that up.
RE: RE: Just out of
)
If this is so why did my P3 get long WU and is speeding ahead of the pack, see [url=http://einsteinathome.org/node/191578]Pending: for how long{/url] the pending has now risen to 12 units + 2 WU processing. It means that this computer has received no credit for 10days. RAC dropping fast should be 176.61+ as WU take just under 1 day to crunch.
And my Pent M gets short units, when it does long units in under 10 hrs.
What are the rules that determine work is not been done and the file needs to be sent to other hosts?
I see one unit has, but to a new member i.e. 0 credit. So will it be crunched and if so in what time frame, I (we) just don't know.
RE: The scheduler is
)
I guess it doesn’t always manage: one of my Mac G4/400s has been doing longs (it’s only on its second one) whose names start with l1_1494.0. Not that I’m complaining: the deadlines seem manageable enough even for that system, which isn’t BOINCing 100% of the time and is attached to two other projects.
Bernd has said in the past
)
Bernd has said in the past that the strategy for matching WU size to processor speed is not deterministic, but simply bends the probability of getting appropriate WUs in the right direction. No guarantees.
Dead men don't get the baby washed. HTH
RE: Bernd has said in the
)
It looks like I'm now getting small WU's, the few long WU's that I sent off must of taken too long and switched mine over to shorter ones...weird though, I've got a p4 2.8 ghz...
And to think, that was fast a year ago ;)
Human Stupidity Is Infinite...
RE: RE: Bernd has said in
)
Are you sure that yours is running as well as it could? My 4 year old system at 2.1 GHz gets the long ones (178 pointers) done in ~10 hours or less depending on how much i use it for other stuff.
98SE XP2500+ @ 2.1 GHz Boinc v5.8.8
RE: RE: RE: Bernd has
)
AMD`s seem to be much quicker on this project. I can return a result in about 10hrs on a 2ghz AMD Athlon, much quicker than a 3.2ghz p4 I`ve been paired with.
RE: AMD`s seem to be much
)
Umm... did you notice that most of your P4 partners are running hyperthreaded? I did not click enough times to find the 3.2 rig, but saw a 2.8 rig which when you divided the reported CPU time by two to account give credit for the work done on the other thread appeared to give a productivity better than yours, with a productivity per Hz slightly below yours (though that is a meaningless number).