1) Message boards : Number Crunching : Please Ban Bad Hosts (Message 7594)
Posted 10 Sep 2018 by Profile searching to find the meaning of life I was lost & desperate. Then God touched my heart & soul and showed me He loved me so deeply as to lay down His life for me. Jesus proves God is Love. Dios es Amor, Jesus demuestra. LPa H
3 x 3 = 9 days. Even if they are the 2 days 3 x 2 = 6 days.

Well, "too much" is subjective.
On projects which I particularly like to support, I tend to keep a pretty full 'inventory' of tasks in case of outages, which DO happen. Lack of tasks can be for several reasons: maintenance downtime, time for the scientists to access and tune the project etc.
I believe all project set the limit not on time, but on number of tasks per CPU or GPU. (The project would have trouble keeping up with possible changes to a user's host: from driver updates, run time environment as to other system demands on the PC, etc. The boinc manager on the user's hosts keeps tabs on how many hours/day the system runs, how much of the time boinc is allowed to run etc and can and does block task requests). Some projects set a pretty low limit: GPUNET only allows two, but then their due date is 5 days (120 hours). On my slower GPU I have run tasks which have taken 48 - 72 even up to 100 hours (over 4 days). But then I have a UPS (uninterruptible power source, or battery backup).

For another example SETI lets users download a BUNCH of tasks, but invariable gives months for a deadline. In fact, I'd say 3 per core may be on the low end as project limits go, but I set the options (Computing preferences) so that I usually don't get much more than 24 tasks for the 8 cores on each machine.

SCG has of late been giving a month or two as a deadline. The only 'drawback' (not really) is that it may take longer for a finished task to be validated and then points to be awarded. So, what's the big rush to get the points - assuming the validation DOES occur.

The real problem is not having 192 tasks (for a 64 core machine). The problem is why that linux machine has so many compute errors and wastes so much of ITS own time!, and electricity!

I do hope some moderator or team member answers a very key question:

DOES CSG (correctly) differentiate a user abort of a task (especially one with 0 sec of run time) versus a true compute error?

IF not, then this should be corrected.

LLP, PhD PE
2) Message boards : Webpage and Application Code Discussion : user abort of a task, vs a true compute error (Message 7592)
Posted 10 Sep 2018 by Profile searching to find the meaning of life I was lost & desperate. Then God touched my heart & soul and showed me He loved me so deeply as to lay down His life for me. Jesus proves God is Love. Dios es Amor, Jesus demuestra. LPa H
On another board (https://csgrid.org/csg/forum_forum.php?id=4 ) there is discussion of tasks finished by a host, awaiting validation, and then NEVER being validated because of too many errors for the WU

On rare occasions I have had to abort a WU, for various reasons.
Surely CSG can distinguish between a real compute error and an abort by the user.
If not, THIS needs to be fixed.
Thanks,
LLP, PhD PE
3) Message boards : Number Crunching : Running time / validation errors / running time (Message 7591)
Posted 10 Sep 2018 by Profile searching to find the meaning of life I was lost & desperate. Then God touched my heart & soul and showed me He loved me so deeply as to lay down His life for me. Jesus proves God is Love. Dios es Amor, Jesus demuestra. LPa H
Hi, mmonnin,
" part of each individual project. There's nothing we can do about it"
You say, "we can do"... are you a moderator for this project, or otherwise on the project team?

Message 7581 - Posted: 9 Sep 2018, 1:29:09 UTC :
"By aborting units you are contributing to the problems ..."

On rare occasions I have to abort a WU, for various reasons.
Surely CSG can distinguish between a real compute error and an abort by the user.
If not, THIS needs to be fixed.
Thanks,
LLP, PhD PE
4) Message boards : Number Crunching : Please Ban Bad Hosts (Message 7590)
Posted 10 Sep 2018 by Profile searching to find the meaning of life I was lost & desperate. Then God touched my heart & soul and showed me He loved me so deeply as to lay down His life for me. Jesus proves God is Love. Dios es Amor, Jesus demuestra. LPa H
On rare occasions I have had to abort a WU, for various reasons.
Surely CSG can distinguish between a real compute error and an abort by the user.
If not, THIS needs to be fixed.
Thanks,
LLP, PhD PE
5) Message boards : Number Crunching : Please Ban Bad Hosts (Message 7589)
Posted 10 Sep 2018 by Profile searching to find the meaning of life I was lost & desperate. Then God touched my heart & soul and showed me He loved me so deeply as to lay down His life for me. Jesus proves God is Love. Dios es Amor, Jesus demuestra. LPa H
Of the hosts listed here that can still be viewed (WU and tasks that can still be accessed) none use windoze 10, four have windoze 8:
https://csgrid.org/csg/show_host_detail.php?hostid=73773
https://csgrid.org/csg/show_host_detail.php?hostid=81455
https://csgrid.org/csg/show_host_detail.php?hostid=88828
https://csgrid.org/csg/show_host_detail.php?hostid=68349

Perhaps win 8 should not be supported by citsg...

The hosts themselves (hardware) seem powerfull enough.

https://csgrid.org/csg/show_host_detail.php?hostid=86144
is an amazing linux system with 32 GB memory...
"Why they need 192 WU's"
because the machine has 64 processors (32 physical cores, hyperthreaded).
3 WU per core is not too much.
6) Message boards : News : [wildlife] credit inconsistencies (Message 6904)
Posted 15 Apr 2017 by Profile searching to find the meaning of life I was lost & desperate. Then God touched my heart & soul and showed me He loved me so deeply as to lay down His life for me. Jesus proves God is Love. Dios es Amor, Jesus demuestra. LPa H
WU http://csgrid.org/csg/workunit.php?wuid=996610
took a VERY long time to finish.
One person aborted after 373,170.7 sec.
The WU took 390,891.5 sec = 108.58 HRS (over 4 1/2 DAYS) to finish on my i-7 machine.
And yet, next to no credit was given, a measly 1,067.31 points.
Could this be adjusted, please?
Thank you.
LLP, PhD