Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Shortened WU's

Author Message
Profile Bender10
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Dec 07
Posts: 167
Credit: 8,368,897
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10850 - Posted: 25 Jun 2009 | 16:28:10 UTC

I just noticed a couple of WU's that ran in ~3.5 hours on my 9800.

13-IBUCH_smd_pYIpYV_1906-3-10-RND6244_0
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=863428

22-IBUCH_smd_pYIpYV_1906-7-10-RND0998_2
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=866933

Where did these come from..?
____________


Consciousness: That annoying time between naps......

Experience is a wonderful thing: it enables you to recognize a mistake every time you repeat it.

Profile K1atOdessa
Send message
Joined: 25 Feb 08
Posts: 249
Credit: 370,186,977
RAC: 0
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10851 - Posted: 25 Jun 2009 | 16:53:46 UTC - in response to Message 10850.

I've seen one of these so far as well. Looks like the credit is consistent with the larger WU's.

I think I'd prefer smaller WU's for my slower cards, so I don't have to worry about something breaking 95% and 15 hours in. With fast cards, though, I can see this requiring more connections to the server as the tasks will only take a hour or so. Could cause issues even for short server outages.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2705
Credit: 1,311,122,549
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10871 - Posted: 26 Jun 2009 | 19:03:58 UTC
Last modified: 26 Jun 2009 | 19:04:36 UTC

Is the upload file size reduced proportionally? If yes then I suppose the server could take some more beating (=more requests but comparable traffic).

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

ignasi
Send message
Joined: 10 Apr 08
Posts: 254
Credit: 16,836,000
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10885 - Posted: 27 Jun 2009 | 15:46:01 UTC - in response to Message 10850.

It's normal.
All these WUs having *smd* on them are normally shorter...but heavier than "usual" *IBUCH*s
The reason is because for these type of simulations we generate an additional heavy file such as in most of (if not all) *KASHIF* WUs.
If I keep the *smd* shorter the heavy file won't grew too much as it depends on the simulation length (~computing time).

cheers,
ignasi

Profile Bender10
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Dec 07
Posts: 167
Credit: 8,368,897
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10888 - Posted: 27 Jun 2009 | 18:47:17 UTC - in response to Message 10885.

Thanks for the info Ignasi...

Cheers
____________


Consciousness: That annoying time between naps......

Experience is a wonderful thing: it enables you to recognize a mistake every time you repeat it.

Liuqyn
Send message
Joined: 16 May 08
Posts: 5
Credit: 68,721,860
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10896 - Posted: 28 Jun 2009 | 0:55:38 UTC - in response to Message 10888.

any chance of shrinking the download size? my isp has hard enough time keeping my cards full now.

Post to thread

Message boards : Number crunching : Shortened WU's

//