longer DNA@home workunits

Message boards : News : longer DNA@home workunits

Author	Message
Travis Desell Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 16 Jan 12 Posts: 1813 Combined Credit: 23,514,257 DNA@Home: 293,563 SubsetSum@Home: 349,212 Wildlife@Home: 22,871,482 Wildlife@Home Watched: 212,926s Wildlife@Home Events: 51 Climate Tweets: 21 Images Observed: 774	Message 3258 - Posted: 8 Sep 2014, 22:02:01 UTC
	I've created a new set of work units from DNA@Home using a new data file (from human genome revision 19 -- hg19). These should run a bit longer than the other work units, so please let me know if the time estimates and credit is okay. They're actually not as long as I'd like them to be, so depending on how things are working work units after this could be 10x longer.
	ID: 3258 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Conan Send message Joined: 13 Apr 12 Posts: 151 Combined Credit: 47,672,899 DNA@Home: 399,792 SubsetSum@Home: 1,448,876 Wildlife@Home: 45,824,231 Wildlife@Home Watched: 70,910s Wildlife@Home Events: 0 Climate Tweets: 412 Images Observed: 0	Message 3259 - Posted: 8 Sep 2014, 22:19:58 UTC
	Estimated run time on my computers is 10 to 14 minutes, so I will see how they run. Conan
	ID: 3259 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Travis Desell Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 16 Jan 12 Posts: 1813 Combined Credit: 23,514,257 DNA@Home: 293,563 SubsetSum@Home: 349,212 Wildlife@Home: 22,871,482 Wildlife@Home Watched: 212,926s Wildlife@Home Events: 51 Climate Tweets: 21 Images Observed: 774	Message 3260 - Posted: 8 Sep 2014, 22:24:28 UTC - in response to Message 3259. Last modified: 8 Sep 2014, 22:24:46 UTC
	Estimated run time on my computers is 10 to 14 minutes, so I will see how they run. Conan Okay that's not too bad, if it's accurate than I can make them 10x longer without much of a problem. Didn't want these to run too long because I wanted to make sure they wouldn't crash and validate correctly.
	ID: 3260 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Charles Dennett Send message Joined: 10 Aug 14 Posts: 39 Combined Credit: 354,259 DNA@Home: 219,783 SubsetSum@Home: 134,472 Wildlife@Home: 4 Wildlife@Home Watched: 0s Wildlife@Home Events: 0 Climate Tweets: 0 Images Observed: 0	Message 3261 - Posted: 8 Sep 2014, 23:08:50 UTC
	On my fastest system they are estimated at 10 minutes or so. So far one has completed and it was done in 93 seconds cpu time. The next one is at 50% complete with about 43 minutes of cpu time. Quite a difference. So, right now the estimate is 90 minutes or so for this one. Not sure why it's taking so much longer. This is a 4 core system running Linux. There are three other tasks running and they appear to be in line with the one that's half done. Time will tell. ____________
	ID: 3261 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Travis Desell Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 16 Jan 12 Posts: 1813 Combined Credit: 23,514,257 DNA@Home: 293,563 SubsetSum@Home: 349,212 Wildlife@Home: 22,871,482 Wildlife@Home Watched: 212,926s Wildlife@Home Events: 51 Climate Tweets: 21 Images Observed: 774	Message 3262 - Posted: 8 Sep 2014, 23:14:14 UTC - in response to Message 3261.
	On my fastest system they are estimated at 10 minutes or so. So far one has completed and it was done in 93 seconds cpu time. The next one is at 50% complete with about 43 minutes of cpu time. Quite a difference. So, right now the estimate is 90 minutes or so for this one. Not sure why it's taking so much longer. This is a 4 core system running Linux. There are three other tasks running and they appear to be in line with the one that's half done. Time will tell. Strange, there's probably an error with the one that took 93 seconds. Was it a test_hg19 work unit or something else? 90 minutes sounds more right for the test_hg19 work units.
	ID: 3262 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Charles Dennett Send message Joined: 10 Aug 14 Posts: 39 Combined Credit: 354,259 DNA@Home: 219,783 SubsetSum@Home: 134,472 Wildlife@Home: 4 Wildlife@Home Watched: 0s Wildlife@Home Events: 0 Climate Tweets: 0 Images Observed: 0	Message 3263 - Posted: 8 Sep 2014, 23:14:57 UTC Last modified: 8 Sep 2014, 23:17:09 UTC
	A double check of that fast one shows it was a leftover from the last batch of small ones. Must have been stuck. It was created earlier today. So, the time estimates for the new batch seem to be very low. ____________
	ID: 3263 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

JumpinJohnny Send message Joined: 24 Sep 13 Posts: 237 Combined Credit: 10,275,610 DNA@Home: 192,548 SubsetSum@Home: 201,740 Wildlife@Home: 9,881,323 Wildlife@Home Watched: 55,997,833s Wildlife@Home Events: 15,584 Climate Tweets: 333 Images Observed: 351	Message 3264 - Posted: 8 Sep 2014, 23:15:46 UTC
	They come to me with an "estimated completion" time of 9:25. They are completing at around 50 minutes on this rig. Ten times longer would be a lot... I'll run them overnight and see how it goes. ** I'm using the single GPU for Collatz Conjecture "mini_collatz" WUs @ (0.88cpu + 1 ATI gpu) ____________
	ID: 3264 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

nenym Send message Joined: 29 Apr 13 Posts: 4 Combined Credit: 19,275,495 DNA@Home: 1,118,166 SubsetSum@Home: 1,295,535 Wildlife@Home: 16,861,794 Wildlife@Home Watched: 0s Wildlife@Home Events: 0 Climate Tweets: 0 Images Observed: 0	Message 3265 - Posted: 9 Sep 2014, 0:54:30 UTC
	Tasks seems to have a validate horror, any validator bug?
	ID: 3265 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

JumpinJohnny Send message Joined: 24 Sep 13 Posts: 237 Combined Credit: 10,275,610 DNA@Home: 192,548 SubsetSum@Home: 201,740 Wildlife@Home: 9,881,323 Wildlife@Home Watched: 55,997,833s Wildlife@Home Events: 15,584 Climate Tweets: 333 Images Observed: 351	Message 3266 - Posted: 9 Sep 2014, 1:02:18 UTC Last modified: 9 Sep 2014, 1:09:29 UTC
	What is the check-pointing set at for these??? Seems to be at 50% ??? I thought check-pointing was done by time, not percentage? I have validate errors on all completed tasks that are not pending. gibbs_test_hg19_1_71_0_1 gibbs_test_hg19_1_72_0_1 etc. etc. etc. I think I will abort all these and wait until further news. I noticed a huge memory increase while running these... related?
	ID: 3266 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Travis Desell Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 16 Jan 12 Posts: 1813 Combined Credit: 23,514,257 DNA@Home: 293,563 SubsetSum@Home: 349,212 Wildlife@Home: 22,871,482 Wildlife@Home Watched: 212,926s Wildlife@Home Events: 51 Climate Tweets: 21 Images Observed: 774	Message 3267 - Posted: 9 Sep 2014, 1:31:36 UTC - in response to Message 3266.
	What is the check-pointing set at for these??? Seems to be at 50% ??? I thought check-pointing was done by time, not percentage? I have validate errors on all completed tasks that are not pending. gibbs_test_hg19_1_71_0_1 gibbs_test_hg19_1_72_0_1 etc. etc. etc. I think I will abort all these and wait until further news. I noticed a huge memory increase while running these... related? This will take a whole lot more memory as the input file is quite a bit larger. Let me check out the errors. Checkpointing is done by the number of iterations the application does. Since I set it to do 10000 total iterations and it was previously checkpointing every 5000, 50% looks right. I should probably make it checkpoint more frequently, maybe every 5% or so.
	ID: 3267 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Travis Desell Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 16 Jan 12 Posts: 1813 Combined Credit: 23,514,257 DNA@Home: 293,563 SubsetSum@Home: 349,212 Wildlife@Home: 22,871,482 Wildlife@Home Watched: 212,926s Wildlife@Home Events: 51 Climate Tweets: 21 Images Observed: 774	Message 3268 - Posted: 9 Sep 2014, 1:33:00 UTC - in response to Message 3267.
	it's also really strange that they're erroring out. From the tasks themselves it looks like they're returning the same results...
	ID: 3268 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Conan Send message Joined: 13 Apr 12 Posts: 151 Combined Credit: 47,672,899 DNA@Home: 399,792 SubsetSum@Home: 1,448,876 Wildlife@Home: 45,824,231 Wildlife@Home Watched: 70,910s Wildlife@Home Events: 0 Climate Tweets: 412 Images Observed: 0	Message 3269 - Posted: 9 Sep 2014, 1:43:05 UTC - in response to Message 3260.
	Estimated run time on my computers is 10 to 14 minutes, so I will see how they run. Conan Okay that's not too bad, if it's accurate than I can make them 10x longer without much of a problem. Didn't want these to run too long because I wanted to make sure they wouldn't crash and validate correctly. They are taking just over an hour (between 3,994 and 4,248 seconds) to actually run. Four so far returned with two pending and two with Validate Errors (along with my wingmen). Conan
	ID: 3269 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

nenym Send message Joined: 29 Apr 13 Posts: 4 Combined Credit: 19,275,495 DNA@Home: 1,118,166 SubsetSum@Home: 1,295,535 Wildlife@Home: 16,861,794 Wildlife@Home Watched: 0s Wildlife@Home Events: 0 Climate Tweets: 0 Images Observed: 0	Message 3272 - Posted: 9 Sep 2014, 2:46:59 UTC - in response to Message 3268.
	it's also really strange that they're erroring out. From the tasks themselves it looks like they're returning the same results... Stderr of invalid task (validate error) doesn't show any error, it seems to be validator bug.
	ID: 3272 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Travis Desell Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 16 Jan 12 Posts: 1813 Combined Credit: 23,514,257 DNA@Home: 293,563 SubsetSum@Home: 349,212 Wildlife@Home: 22,871,482 Wildlife@Home Watched: 212,926s Wildlife@Home Events: 51 Climate Tweets: 21 Images Observed: 774	Message 3273 - Posted: 9 Sep 2014, 2:50:39 UTC - in response to Message 3272.
	it's also really strange that they're erroring out. From the tasks themselves it looks like they're returning the same results... Stderr of invalid task (validate error) doesn't show any error, it seems to be validator bug. Actually what's happening is the stderr is too long, so it's cutting off information the validator needs to validate things.
	ID: 3273 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Post to thread

Message boards : News : longer DNA@home workunits