Advanced search

Message boards : Server and website : The "Performance" tab

Author Message
Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 38739 - Posted: 29 Oct 2014 | 11:57:27 UTC

I think the performance tab is not updating for a couple of days.

Jozef J
Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 12
Posts: 106
Credit: 1,035,582,756
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 38740 - Posted: 29 Oct 2014 | 12:07:51 UTC - in response to Message 38739.

Yes🎃

Profile nate
Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 11
Posts: 124
Credit: 2,928,865
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 38743 - Posted: 29 Oct 2014 | 13:08:30 UTC

Thanks for letting us know. We'll look into it!

Gerard
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 26 Mar 14
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 38745 - Posted: 29 Oct 2014 | 14:47:11 UTC - in response to Message 38743.

Is it updated now? The database is showing me the same results as you see in performance tab.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 38752 - Posted: 29 Oct 2014 | 18:28:24 UTC - in response to Message 38745.

Is it updated now? The database is showing me the same results as you see in performance tab.

Yes, it's up to date.
However there in an anomaly:
This workunit took 19181.034s to complete, however according to the performance tab, it took only 2.59 hours (~ 9324s).

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 39536 - Posted: 20 Jan 2015 | 16:33:25 UTC
Last modified: 20 Jan 2015 | 16:47:55 UTC

My GTX 980 host is sooooo fast, that it took the first and the second place at the same time on the performance ranking:




EDIT: workunit 10529667 and 10571801 are not in the same batch.

Gerard
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 26 Mar 14
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 39537 - Posted: 20 Jan 2015 | 18:10:41 UTC - in response to Message 39536.

Haha, I guess it's never too late to discover new bugs :D It seems to me that as you have two WU with exactly the same computing time, mySQL decides to reward you with the two first positions. KUDOS!

[CSF] Thomas H.V. Dupont
Send message
Joined: 20 Jul 14
Posts: 523
Credit: 55,288,675
RAC: 44,446
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwat
Message 39549 - Posted: 21 Jan 2015 | 7:15:36 UTC - in response to Message 39537.
Last modified: 21 Jan 2015 | 7:17:15 UTC

Haha, I guess it's never too late to discover new bugs :D It seems to me that as you have two WU with exactly the same computing time, mySQL decides to reward you with the two first positions. KUDOS!

+1 ;)
Impressive stats for your GTX 980 Retvari Zoltan :)
____________
[CSF] Thomas H.V. Dupont
Founder of the team CRUNCHERS SANS FRONTIERES
www.crunchersansfrontieres.org

Jozef J
Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 12
Posts: 106
Credit: 1,035,582,756
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 39738 - Posted: 27 Jan 2015 | 6:19:52 UTC

Top performers per batch- please update this section -)

ROBtheLIONHEART
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 13
Posts: 34
Credit: 636,026,131
RAC: 0
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 40692 - Posted: 29 Mar 2015 | 21:45:41 UTC

I did a GERARD_FXCXCL12_LIG_1214901 on my oc 780ti in 7.71 Hrs but does not show up in THE TOP PERFORMERS IN BATCH list even though thats faster than any on the list (so far).

Also the Top average performers (last week long runs) has the same user in 8 9 and 10 spot?

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 41740 - Posted: 5 Sep 2015 | 9:05:10 UTC
Last modified: 5 Sep 2015 | 9:14:52 UTC

The "Top performers per batch" section takes the "GPU description" from the host's properties.
This results in misleading information for hosts which have mixed GPUs, or a recently changed GPU.
Could this behavior be changed to take the GPU description form the task the "WU id" column refers to?
Even this column should be changed to show the task, not the WU id.
Also there should be a timestamp on this page.

Gerard
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 26 Mar 14
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 41761 - Posted: 7 Sep 2015 | 10:52:22 UTC - in response to Message 41740.

Thanks for your feedback! I'll look into it in the following days.

Gerard
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 26 Mar 14
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 41764 - Posted: 7 Sep 2015 | 11:29:28 UTC - in response to Message 41740.

(a) I have added a timestamp.

(b) I now link to task instead of WU id.

(c) Could you post an example of such description misleading information? I have checked couple of examples and host description is consistent with the log file of the task.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 41767 - Posted: 7 Sep 2015 | 12:36:39 UTC - in response to Message 41764.
Last modified: 7 Sep 2015 | 12:51:13 UTC

(a) I have added a timestamp.
Thank you.

(b) I now link to task instead of WU id.
Thank you.

(c) Could you post an example of such description misleading information? I have checked couple of examples and host description is consistent with the log file of the task.
Sure.
On the current "Top performers per batch" table on the GERARD_FXCXCL12_LIG_12411681 tab at the first place is petebe's task# 14489902 which were actually run on a GTX 980, but the GPU description says "[3] NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (4095MB) driver: 353.30". His host has multiple but mixed GPUs (GTX 980 and GTX 980 Ti). There is the same inconsistency on the GERARD_FXCXCL12_LIG_13878001 tab's 1st place (petebe too) task# 14516484
EDIT:
On the GERARD_FXCXCL12_LIG_14701011 tab 1st place (my host) task# 14512608 the GPU description says "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (4095MB) driver: 355.82" but this workunit was crunched on a GTX 980, which I've replaced by a GTX 980 Ti since then, and I also updated the driver (the task's Stderr output says: "# Driver version : r353_23 : 35330").

Gerard
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 26 Mar 14
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 41768 - Posted: 7 Sep 2015 | 13:26:15 UTC - in response to Message 41767.

Hmm... I will have to investigate further. Do you guys set the Computer Information manually or it gets automatically updated every time you make a change in the computer? I ignore this particular behavior or BOINC. If the update occurs automatically, I suspect it takes some time to become effective.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 41771 - Posted: 7 Sep 2015 | 16:50:43 UTC - in response to Message 41768.
Last modified: 7 Sep 2015 | 16:51:31 UTC

Do you guys set the Computer Information manually
I don't.

or it gets automatically updated every time you make a change in the computer?
Yes.
But for hosts with mixed GPUs only the best one is showed (and used by default) by the BOINC manager, so if you (apparently) take the given host's GPU name from what the BOINC manager reports, it will be always inaccurate for hosts with mixed GPUs. The only accurate source for this information is the stderr output, but it's difficult to use, as if a given workunit is switched over to a different GPU (for example by a system restart), then the stderr output will have two (or three etc) different GPU names.

I ignore this particular behavior or BOINC. If the update occurs automatically, I suspect it takes some time to become effective.

The refresh of a host's details occures right after the first time the host communicates with the project.

Gerard
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 26 Mar 14
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 41790 - Posted: 9 Sep 2015 | 8:11:37 UTC - in response to Message 41771.

I'm afraid there's no easy way to set this up correctly... I guess users interested in particular systems will still have to inspect the standard output if they want to know the exact details of the configuration.

Best,

Gerard

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 41791 - Posted: 9 Sep 2015 | 8:37:33 UTC - in response to Message 41790.
Last modified: 9 Sep 2015 | 8:37:53 UTC

I'm afraid there's no easy way to set this up correctly...
I thoght so.

I guess users interested in particular systems will still have to inspect the standard output if they want to know the exact details of the configuration.
It's easier than before, so I think it's good enough.

I have another suggestion:
Could you make the list of the top performers begin in the same position as the selected batch? As the list of batches in the left is three times longer than the list of the top performers, it is so time consuming to scroll up & down that it makes this list nearly unavailing.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 41795 - Posted: 10 Sep 2015 | 21:01:41 UTC - in response to Message 39536.
Last modified: 10 Sep 2015 | 21:30:11 UTC

One might say that history repeats itself, but it's simply a bug which is more hard to fix than you thought.
This time my GTX 980 Ti host is sooooo fast, that it took the first and the second place at the same time on the performance ranking:


Just as for the first time, these workunits are not in the same batch.
14511591: e3s13_e2s8p1f553-GERARD_FXCXCL12_LIG_8902112-0-1-RND1917_0 and
14528607: e5s9_e2s5p1f150-GERARD_FXCXCL12_LIG_6067831-0-1-RND5688_0
(I've found it under GERARD_FXCXCL12_LIG_606783)
To be honest, I think it's sooo incredibly fast, that it could even take the first three places at the same time ;)

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 41818 - Posted: 14 Sep 2015 | 1:41:01 UTC

Thank you Gerard for putting a scrollbar to the list of batches.

Gerard
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 26 Mar 14
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 41820 - Posted: 14 Sep 2015 | 15:38:58 UTC - in response to Message 41818.

Yes, I was going to notify you the changes introduced.

I can't figure out why there's an outlier in the ranking. Let's keep an eye on it to see whether the error is reproducible and traceable.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 41821 - Posted: 14 Sep 2015 | 22:19:02 UTC

After I've crunched one short workunit on my GTX 980 Ti (just to get to the top of that list too ;) ) I've disappeared from the "Top average performers (last week long runs)" list. I think this is a sign of the presence of another bug...

Gerard
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 26 Mar 14
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 41832 - Posted: 17 Sep 2015 | 12:06:48 UTC - in response to Message 41821.

Thanks for noticing. Should be fixed and reliable now.

Gerard
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 26 Mar 14
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 41833 - Posted: 17 Sep 2015 | 12:13:17 UTC - in response to Message 41821.

Please do not hesitate to post any error you find. When we released the performance tab we were also busy with our scientific projects and therefore we didn't have time to do a proper testing.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 41838 - Posted: 17 Sep 2015 | 17:51:51 UTC - in response to Message 41832.

Thanks for noticing. Should be fixed and reliable now.

Thank you!

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 42818 - Posted: 14 Feb 2016 | 13:09:04 UTC
Last modified: 14 Feb 2016 | 13:15:35 UTC

Hi Gerard, it's the performance tab fetishist again.
My astonishingly fast GTX 980 Ti host did another impossible trick now:
It got to the top of two batch with the same workunit:
GERARD_CXCL12_CHLKDER_mol4: Result ID=14910783


GERARD_CXCL12_CHLKDER_mol42: Result ID=14910783


Next time I will show you that it's trained to jump thru a ring of fire :)

Profile caffeineyellow5
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 14
Posts: 225
Credit: 2,658,976,345
RAC: 0
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 43043 - Posted: 19 Mar 2016 | 6:39:39 UTC - in response to Message 41771.

or it gets automatically updated every time you make a change in the computer?
Yes.
But for hosts with mixed GPUs only the best one is showed (and used by default) by the BOINC manager

Is this an accurate statement? I had 2 980 card in 2 different identical computers except for Windows version. (Identical in hardware.) When I put a 980TI in the one it read as 2 980s on the Volunteers-->Hosts page. When I swapped that card for the 980 in the other PC (because of the location and airflow around the first one and heat) the second one now reads 2 980TI cards. Again, the only difference is one is Win7Pro x64 and the other is Win8.1Pro x64.

I have noticed another oddity in BOINC and as a result on the Performance page. The 980TI card has 6GB of RAM onboard and it reports as 4GB in program and on that page. This is not a problem that I can tell unless BOINC could use the extra RAM and simply does not based on its reporting or whatever. I just like to see accurate reporting and information and that would be my fetishing. lol
____________
1 Corinthians 9:16 "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!"
Ephesians 6:18-20, please ;-)
http://tbc-pa.org

Gerard
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 26 Mar 14
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 43056 - Posted: 21 Mar 2016 | 10:24:32 UTC - in response to Message 42818.

That is a weird artifact indeed. Possibily caused by the "parsing" engine I'm using. I am not able to isolate the problem right now because the database got updated, if it happens again please let me know.

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 09
Posts: 775
Credit: 1,314,955,720
RAC: 1,375,080
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 43057 - Posted: 21 Mar 2016 | 11:07:09 UTC - in response to Message 43043.

1) Multiple GPUs

This is a well-known oversimplification by BOINC. The BOINC client used by volunteers identifies GPUs individually. By default it only uses the 'best' GPU of each vendor (plus close matches): in a computer with mixed GPUs from the same vendor, the user can (and most activists do) direct BOINC to 'Use all GPUs'.

The over-simplification occurs on the BOINC server. Rather than listing each GPU separately, the server database summarises all the GPUs from each vendor into a single record - it displays the identification of the 'best' GPU, and a count of all GPUs, but discards the fine detail of multiple GPUs. This is an acknowledged weakness of the BOINC infrastructure, but there is no timetable yet for a re-write.

2) 4 GB memory displayed

Much of the CUDA support code is 32-bit only, and can't process numbers larger than 4GB.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,804,193,139
RAC: 501,342
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 43063 - Posted: 21 Mar 2016 | 23:36:35 UTC - in response to Message 43057.

I think 'best' GPU is based on the GPU models Device ID [hex] or BIOS version. GFlops was argued as a better option, but the opportunity to change these things has gone. The OS doesn't always get it right either, especially if you start swapping cards around, without un-installing, wiping and reinstalling the drivers. You can even end up with different drivers for similar cards.

The acemd app reads the details of the card directly - independently of Boinc, and the OS. Not sure if any 32-bit code would impact on acemd or not, but I haven't seen a task use over 1.5GB GDDR.
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Richard Haselgrove
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 09
Posts: 775
Credit: 1,314,955,720
RAC: 1,375,080
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 43064 - Posted: 22 Mar 2016 | 0:02:20 UTC - in response to Message 43063.

I think 'best' GPU is based on the GPU models Device ID [hex] or BIOS version. GFlops was argued as a better option, but the opportunity to change these things has gone. The OS doesn't always get it right either, especially if you start swapping cards around, without un-installing, wiping and reinstalling the drivers. You can even end up with different drivers for similar cards.

From client source code (gpu_nvidia.cpp):

// return 1/-1/0 if device 1 is more/less/same capable than device 2.
// factors (decreasing priority):
// - compute capability
// - software version
// - available memory
// - speed
//
// If "loose", ignore FLOPS and tolerate small memory diff

So the 'best' GPU (in the NV case, which concerns us here) is the one with the highest compute capability, and the others listed are tiebreakers.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 43150 - Posted: 5 Apr 2016 | 0:15:45 UTC
Last modified: 5 Apr 2016 | 0:20:08 UTC

And the 2nd runner up is....

exactly the first runner up.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 43151 - Posted: 5 Apr 2016 | 11:09:59 UTC - in response to Message 43150.

I'm getting excited now.

Since I have not been cleared from the 3rd place when the numbers have changed, it could mean that I can occupy all 10 places simultaneously someday.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 43152 - Posted: 5 Apr 2016 | 15:47:57 UTC - in response to Message 43151.

...but it won't happen very soon.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3967
Credit: 1,804,193,139
RAC: 501,342
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 43252 - Posted: 26 Apr 2016 | 13:49:46 UTC - in response to Message 43064.
Last modified: 26 Apr 2016 | 13:54:32 UTC

OT

I think 'best' GPU is based on the GPU models Device ID [hex] or BIOS version. GFlops was argued as a better option, but the opportunity to change these things has gone. The OS doesn't always get it right either, especially if you start swapping cards around, without un-installing, wiping and reinstalling the drivers. You can even end up with different drivers for similar cards.

From client source code (gpu_nvidia.cpp):

// return 1/-1/0 if device 1 is more/less/same capable than device 2.
// factors (decreasing priority):
// - compute capability
// - software version
// - available memory
// - speed
//
// If "loose", ignore FLOPS and tolerate small memory diff

So the 'best' GPU (in the NV case, which concerns us here) is the one with the highest compute capability, and the others listed are tiebreakers.

Thanks for the recap. Was only thinking about the second step, and thought the software version was the GPU's Bios version which is recorded in hex. Assuming it is the GPU Bios version, that would explain why we sometimes see smaller cards listed instead of the biggest and most capable cards. When smaller (GFlops) cards have the same compute capability but are released later with a more recent Bios they would be seen as the most capable card by Boinc.
You can also have a small Card with low GFlops reported as the best card when the smaller card is from a newer generation, but isn't more powerful. For example, a CC5.0 (GM107) GTX750 would be reported ahead of a big CC3.5 (GK110) such as a GTX780Ti [which is 3 times as powerful as the GTX750].
The amount of memory isn't a great way of identifying the 'most capable' GPU either. A lesser GPU (GTX750) could have 2GB or 4GB GDDR while a more powerful GPU (GTX750Ti) could have 1 or 2GB.
Speed doesn't say much also. Bigger cards typically run at lower frequencies, but have more shaders.
Not saying GFlops would be preferable as you would have to segregate into at least two categories of GFlops, FP32 (SP) and FP64 (DP), as different projects use or don't use DP. Then there is half precision which might change things further.

In reality the whole purpose and method of identifying GPU capability might need to be revisited. Why is Boinc doing what it is re GPU's? It's mostly scheduling and reporting. Would identifying cards as being ATI/AMD, NVidia or Intel be sufficient given that most apps are better equipped to identify GPU's?

Driver versions are probably more important than speed - most projects apps require a specific driver or range of drivers to work.
GDDR amount is important too as most projects require a GPU with sufficient RAM to run certain apps or tasks.
Bios versions might be helpful in identifying rogue cards but was probably more important back in the day of the GF200 - GT200-103-A2 vs GT200-105-B3 for example could identify 65nm from 55nm.

____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

1987z
Send message
Joined: 14 Nov 15
Posts: 3
Credit: 37,630,275
RAC: 56,137
Level
Val
Scientific publications
wat
Message 43921 - Posted: 9 Jul 2016 | 0:16:05 UTC

For some reason I'm not being ranked at all on the performance tab. This WU I did in 10.93 hours according to the performance tab, which according to the rankings, should be good enough for 25th place, yet 25th place on the WU chart itself is listed as belonging to (Ryle) with 11.02 hours. I completed said WU almost a week ago, so there should have been plenty of time to update, yet I'm not listed

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 43922 - Posted: 9 Jul 2016 | 8:48:21 UTC - in response to Message 43921.

I think it's because you've completed this WU a little over its deadline, and it has been assigned to a different host.

Bedrich Hajek
Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 09
Posts: 332
Credit: 3,759,688,409
RAC: 392,906
Level
Arg
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 43925 - Posted: 10 Jul 2016 | 10:18:48 UTC - in response to Message 43921.

For some reason I'm not being ranked at all on the performance tab. This WU I did in 10.93 hours according to the performance tab, which according to the rankings, should be good enough for 25th place, yet 25th place on the WU chart itself is listed as belonging to (Ryle) with 11.02 hours. I completed said WU almost a week ago, so there should have been plenty of time to update, yet I'm not listed



The same thing happened to me a few weeks ago. It was a GIANNI WU. It finished within 24 hours. Though, if I remember it correctly, a previous host finished with an error on it. I didn't think it was noteworthy back then, so I didn't post at the time. Apparently, the system has another bug.




Betting Slip
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 09
Posts: 574
Credit: 1,910,112,875
RAC: 1,775,295
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 44037 - Posted: 22 Jul 2016 | 15:06:58 UTC - in response to Message 43925.

[quote]For some reason I'm not being ranked at all on the performance tab. This WU I did in 10.93 hours according to the performance tab, which according to the rankings, should be good enough for 25th place, yet 25th place on the WU chart itself is listed as belonging to (Ryle) with 11.02 hours. I completed said WU almost a week ago, so there should have been plenty of time to update, yet I'm not listed



The performance tab doesn't always update immediately you return a WU

1987z
Send message
Joined: 14 Nov 15
Posts: 3
Credit: 37,630,275
RAC: 56,137
Level
Val
Scientific publications
wat
Message 44039 - Posted: 23 Jul 2016 | 1:16:08 UTC - in response to Message 44037.

[quote]For some reason I'm not being ranked at all on the performance tab. This WU I did in 10.93 hours according to the performance tab, which according to the rankings, should be good enough for 25th place, yet 25th place on the WU chart itself is listed as belonging to (Ryle) with 11.02 hours. I completed said WU almost a week ago, so there should have been plenty of time to update, yet I'm not listed



The performance tab doesn't always update immediately you return a WU

I did say that it had been a week.

Profile caffeineyellow5
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 14
Posts: 225
Credit: 2,658,976,345
RAC: 0
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 44285 - Posted: 24 Aug 2016 | 8:04:36 UTC
Last modified: 24 Aug 2016 | 8:51:00 UTC

I have had the same issues and thought I was being blackballed. lol I noticed a GIANNI task with 28 hours that I should have been in 18th for a while, then down to 24, then off the page. Then I started looking for my other tasks and could not find my name on any of them until I got to this one https://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=11694725. I should have been on several of those listings going by my personal stats at the top right on the page, but only the one could be found in the lists. Some of these tasks are hours, days, and over a week old, but not as many as only one in one type have been duplicate top 30 times.

Profile Retvari Zoltan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jan 09
Posts: 1814
Credit: 9,956,147,444
RAC: 6,322,828
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 46493 - Posted: 11 Feb 2017 | 12:41:57 UTC
Last modified: 11 Feb 2017 | 12:42:18 UTC

I'm ranked second on the ADRIA_FAAH_WT_ (super-long workunit) list with this task (done in 19.86 hours),
while in the "Your personal records" table I see this task (done in 17.65 hours),
which is faster than the present 1st ranked result (done in 17.86 hours).

Post to thread

Message boards : Server and website : The "Performance" tab