No work sent?

Message boards : Number crunching : No work sent?

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2

AuthorMessage
Profile dcdc

Send message
Joined: 3 Nov 05
Posts: 1829
Credit: 118,306,720
RAC: 26,947
Message 49269 - Posted: 1 Dec 2007, 13:43:31 UTC - in response to Message 49267.  

an hour or so ago the smaller memory units finally came pouring in.

Good! I can't get any on my low mem machines though - the last one said there was 266MB available and the WU required another 533MB! That WU is marked as an 800MB task then...

[EDIT] ah - just got some :D
ID: 49269 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Ed Parker

Send message
Joined: 8 May 07
Posts: 11
Credit: 132,966
RAC: 0
Message 49270 - Posted: 1 Dec 2007, 14:30:04 UTC - in response to Message 49269.  

an hour or so ago the smaller memory units finally came pouring in.

Good! I can't get any on my low mem machines though - the last one said there was 266MB available and the WU required another 533MB! That WU is marked as an 800MB task then...

[EDIT] ah - just got some :D



11/30/2007 11:02:42 PM|rosetta@home|Message from server: (there was work but your computer doesn't have enough memory)


Now this computer runs ABC@home. Maybe someday when Rosetta gets its act together we can try again...
ID: 49270 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
glaesum

Send message
Joined: 16 Oct 06
Posts: 21
Credit: 508,632
RAC: 0
Message 49276 - Posted: 1 Dec 2007, 16:03:26 UTC

here is a news update on progress - thanks for the light hearted exchange from everyone.
first I've unhidden my computers on Rosetta the host ID of the old pc is #678950 for those that like to poke around.

the first wu finished overnight but the comms keeps backing off 24hours so I had to nudge it this morning to get another task. this has finished now so I've successfully completed two 5.85 wus; the time was promising but they didn't earn many credits - is that a sign that they didn't really get very far?

now the server won't give me any more work with the same 800MB memory demand and each time it backs off 24hours unless I do a manual retry of comms. it's failed 5 times so I'll wait a while and see how other peeps are getting on.

it's a bit rich if even 512MB machines with xp won't run - they are hardly toy boxes!
_

I think I'll try malaria next (sans the optimizer application) and then WCG (minus the africaclimate project) which has clear guidance on minimum system needed.

ID: 49276 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Mod.Sense
Volunteer moderator

Send message
Joined: 22 Aug 06
Posts: 4018
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 49278 - Posted: 1 Dec 2007, 16:18:01 UTC

Regarding the credits... as you would expect a slower machine gets less credit per hour of CPU time then a faster machine. Your processing probably completed just fine, with valid results, but you didn't complete as many models in the period of time that a faster machine would, so you got less credit. Same credit per model as a faster box, but you completed less models in the period of time.
Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense
ID: 49278 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
glaesum

Send message
Joined: 16 Oct 06
Posts: 21
Credit: 508,632
RAC: 0
Message 49284 - Posted: 1 Dec 2007, 18:25:21 UTC - in response to Message 49278.  
Last modified: 1 Dec 2007, 18:26:18 UTC

Regarding the credits... as you would expect a slower machine gets less credit per hour of CPU time then a faster machine. Your processing probably completed just fine, with valid results, but you didn't complete as many models in the period of time that a faster machine would, so you got less credit. Same credit per model as a faster box, but you completed less models in the period of time.

thanks: yes, of course; I typically get 15-20cr/wu (apart from the occasional bigger one) but these first two on the old Athlon only got ~4.8cr each. but it's only a statistical sample of two so we'll have to be patient to see how things pan out.
what would help is some way of persuading boinc mgr. not to defer communications for 24hours but a more reasonable hour or half-hour.

I clicked update accidentally on the project and to my surprise a third wu downloaded ok; it's now having to share 50:50 with malariacontrol so it'll be a while before it reports. (the latter project seems to have got going ok on win98 too, though one of the apps. doesn't show progress and cpu time.) /pg
ID: 49284 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Mod.Sense
Volunteer moderator

Send message
Joined: 22 Aug 06
Posts: 4018
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 49287 - Posted: 1 Dec 2007, 19:51:14 UTC

During project outages, BOINC tries repeatedly to contact the project and fails. Each time it increases the wait until it tries again (exponential back-off they call it). This helps avoid having all 100,000 machines demanding work in the first hour the server is back online. There's no perfect answer for how long a time is reasonable. That differs for everyone. But BOINC decided on 24hrs. Now that things are back to normal, the back-off time goes back to normal.

You can always click the "retry communications" to force it to try again, when you know the project is back up and has dug out from it's backlog.
Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense
ID: 49287 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Scottatron

Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 05
Posts: 23
Credit: 591,959
RAC: 0
Message 49288 - Posted: 1 Dec 2007, 20:01:53 UTC
Last modified: 1 Dec 2007, 20:03:00 UTC

Why the sudden need for machines to have 800meg?

Once my machines (All have 512 ram) run out, they'll have to crunch something else.
ID: 49288 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
k6

Send message
Joined: 18 Oct 06
Posts: 5
Credit: 1,545,536
RAC: 0
Message 49295 - Posted: 1 Dec 2007, 21:02:22 UTC - in response to Message 49288.  
Last modified: 1 Dec 2007, 21:16:19 UTC

Why the sudden need for machines to have 800meg?

Once my machines (All have 512 ram) run out, they'll have to crunch something else.

So... should i disconnect 512 ram machines on all accounts from rosetta? Never more work?

Btw... if i have 4 core cpu, i need 2,6GB of RAM ONLY for rosetta apps???

ARE YOU CRAZY OR WHAT?
ID: 49295 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Ingleside

Send message
Joined: 25 Sep 05
Posts: 107
Credit: 1,514,472
RAC: 0
Message 49297 - Posted: 1 Dec 2007, 21:40:39 UTC - in response to Message 49295.  

So... should i disconnect 512 ram machines on all accounts from rosetta? Never more work?

Btw... if i have 4 core cpu, i need 2,6GB of RAM ONLY for rosetta apps???

ARE YOU CRAZY OR WHAT?

Well, I grabbed some 96-MB-wu's a couple hours ago, so there are other work also, and would expect this to still be the case until something else has been announced.

As for the 800 MB-wu's, they seems to be using 800 MB virtual memory, but seemed to only use 200 MB "real" memory. It's possible they can use more memory later in the wu, but didn't check.

Since the Scheduling-server doesn't take into account #cores then it comes to memory, as long as you meets the 800 MB-requirement, there's no problem to download multiple 800-MB-wu's. Also, if they're only using 200 MB "real" memory, they'll only use 800 MB on a quad-core, and not 3,2 GB. You'll need a large page-file, to handle the virtual-memory-usage.

"I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might."
ID: 49297 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
k6

Send message
Joined: 18 Oct 06
Posts: 5
Credit: 1,545,536
RAC: 0
Message 49298 - Posted: 1 Dec 2007, 21:49:07 UTC

Size of pagefile is not matter. I set value 2048MB for pagefile, and the rosetta still not work.
ID: 49298 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
glaesum

Send message
Joined: 16 Oct 06
Posts: 21
Credit: 508,632
RAC: 0
Message 49312 - Posted: 2 Dec 2007, 1:43:40 UTC

what's a pagefile? :-)

I've run the benchmarks again in case the new host isn't properly calibrated.

otherwise it's fetched down unaided a couple of smaller wus without the memory warning and one more with the warning. / pete
ID: 49312 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Luuklag

Send message
Joined: 13 Sep 07
Posts: 262
Credit: 4,171
RAC: 0
Message 49324 - Posted: 2 Dec 2007, 14:42:49 UTC - in response to Message 49316.  

I think the WU with MolecularRep in the name are the biggist problem for hosts with a 'low' amount of memory. I noticed these taking up 800+MB actual and 1+GB virtual memory on my box. I have leave in memory when suspended turned on.


I have to correct myself, I got some numbers mixed up. The situation is not as bad as I said. the 800+ MB (~860MB) is the virual memory size (private bytes), memory usage (the working set part of it) is 200+ MB (~220MB).


my molecularrep WU is using 190,000 kb of real memory

the page file is using 1,4 gig, this is with running msn and wmp
ID: 49324 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Mild Mannered Professor

Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 06
Posts: 3
Credit: 2,507,122
RAC: 0
Message 60037 - Posted: 9 Mar 2009, 6:47:15 UTC

I've been getting these messages for weeks:

Mon Mar 9 00:16:07 2009|rosetta@home|Sending scheduler request: Requested by user. Requesting 144244 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
Mon Mar 9 00:16:12 2009|rosetta@home|Scheduler request succeeded: got 0 new tasks
Mon Mar 9 00:16:12 2009|rosetta@home|Message from server: No work sent
Mon Mar 9 00:16:12 2009|rosetta@home|Message from server: (there was work for other platforms)

ID: 60037 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
mikey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 06
Posts: 1894
Credit: 8,863,527
RAC: 2,477
Message 60038 - Posted: 9 Mar 2009, 9:17:20 UTC - in response to Message 60037.  

I've been getting these messages for weeks:

Mon Mar 9 00:16:07 2009|rosetta@home|Sending scheduler request: Requested by user. Requesting 144244 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
Mon Mar 9 00:16:12 2009|rosetta@home|Scheduler request succeeded: got 0 new tasks
Mon Mar 9 00:16:12 2009|rosetta@home|Message from server: No work sent
Mon Mar 9 00:16:12 2009|rosetta@home|Message from server: (there was work for other platforms)


This is on your PPC isn't it? They only give work intermittently for those machines. See here https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=4764
ID: 60038 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : Number crunching : No work sent?



©2024 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org