Posts by River~~
|
41)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
The Cost of Power?
(Message 37393)
Posted 4 Mar 2007 by  River~~
Post: There's a really good PSU guide here: Thanks Danny. This is a good example of what I meant. It is a great review for people looking for a quiet PSU (in fairness that is what the site is all about), and a good review of quality. What it does not do is tell me how efficient any of the supplies is. What I want to see is the AC power draw for each PSU at a standard 80W and 200W DC delivery, or (what is equivalent) the %efficiency at each of these as a number, not as 'pretty good' etc. (%efficiency = 100 x DC Watts drawn by motherboard / AC Watts drawn from wall) If I am going to use the PSU on a machine that is boot-on-LAN, I also want to know what the PSU's AC power draw is when only powering the LAN components. It is part of the ATX spec that a board will power down most of its components while waiting for boot-on-LAN, but there is nothing in the spec that says the PSU has to draw any less power from the wall! Here %efficiency is less useful, as the real issue is how much power the PSU draws as overhead when delivering next to nothing - like Lynn's example of 'a whole new meaning to "off"' Without that info, I can't compare power costs between two PSU's. It is quite hard to find this info -- both online and in magazines the writers assume (probably correctly) that this is not what most of their readers are after. R~~ |
|
42)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
The Cost of Power?
(Message 37392)
Posted 4 Mar 2007 by River~~
Post: ... The X2 might get a better whetstone and dhrystone score (more likely whetstone because of the strong AMD fpu), but in real world throughput the C2D is a fair bit quicker at the same clock speed ... Which real world? Quicker for what?? There are many 'real worlds' for cpus. If you are running mainly windows office type apps, then what you want is a cpu optimised for integers & message handling. If you want to run games then you want a cpu optimised for handling the parts of the graphics that the graphics card leaves out If you want to run BOINC then you want a cpu optimised for scientific/numerical work. For example, as something I was looking at recently for a friend: the Via C7-M is great for the first of these categories compared to the Pentium-M at the same speed, but for the last of these categories the C7-M sucks (as it is not good at handling out-of-order pipelines, which the Pentium-M is particularly good at for a low-power chip). Looking at overall benchmarks is misleading as there is no one 'system performance' So (unfortunately) are the traditional BOINC Whet and Dhry benchmarks misleading, even for assessing the speed a cpu will run a 'typical' BOINC project -- that is why the old credit algorithm was so variable even without people cheating. And that is why the Whet / Dhry bencmarks are totally off the real world even for BOINC. If you are buying specifically for BOINC choose a cpu / system with good benchmarks for scientific computing, or ignore the benchmarks altogether. River~~ |
|
43)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
there was work but your computer doesn't have enought memory
(Message 37389)
Posted 4 Mar 2007 by River~~
Post: ... also, I understand Matt's suggestion that the admins need to release some jobs that run in 256MB. please please please pretty please, run another project at a low resource share (eg resource share = 1 with Rosetta share = 100). This will make almost no impact on your Rosetta results over a period of time, but will mean your box is not idle if Rosetta is unavailable for any reason. Of course, with the new regime, that could still happen if both/all projects were asking for > 256Mb... R~~ |
|
44)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
The Cost of Power?
(Message 37378)
Posted 4 Mar 2007 by River~~
Post: ...I was at first pretty shocked that the Core 2 Duo - even with both CPU at 100% - used less total wattage than the Celeron D. Especially since every time you pick up a computer magazine there are dire warnings about needing a 600w, 800w, or even 1000w supply in a "modern" computer. By the way, a good AC power meter also tracks maximum power - which turns out in my case to be from 140 to 150 watts max when either the Core 2 Duo or Celeron systems first boot up. ... Your AC power draw may well peak at 150 W max, but remember that the power supply contains massive capacitors that serve to buffer spikes on the load. The powers supply may well be delivering well over that 150W for a fraction of a second here and there, especially during startup. If the Voltage on any of the DC lines drops by more than a few percent for even a few milliseconds modern motherboards will power down as a protective measure. In short, your AC meter does not disprove the computer magazines suggestion of having a supply that is rated at a few times the apparent peak AC usage. If you are the kind of person who never upgrades a computer after purchase, like I am, stick to the lowere end of the range of their advice, on the other hand if you are the kind of person who is always adding more fans, graphics, etc etc (like my son), then go for the higher end of the computer mag suggestions. Do not go below the bottom end of the suggested range unless you are the kind of geek who can cope with trouble shooting when the board refuses to boot, or spontaneously cuts out, and also have a selection of higher rating power supplies to swap in. Trading in a used low rating PSU for a higher rating one could cost more than the electricity you were trying to save. Hence the magazine advice is good advice to their readers. Secondly, choose a power supply that is efficient and especially one that draws almost no AC power when it is delivering no DC output. The reviews on PSU efficiency are rather rare - I have seen just one in the last year in UK mags but maybe Google can help here. Especially for a BOINC box that is on 24/7 it is saving money on the heat put out by the PSU itself. So what is the real cost of power? Dpends on where you live. As you say in summer in hot places the cost of power is increased by the increased cost in Air Conditioning. In contrast, I run old inefficient boxes all winter as the power used heats the lounge, which in my case would be heated by electricity anyway - so the power cost is zero. (Actually it is not quite zero, as I would not leave my lounge heated all night, but you get the point). (And it is easier to get out of bed knowing that the lounge will be warm) If you heat with gas, then you need to discount you winter power usage by the cost of gas heating saved, and so on. What I have done is to work out the cost of running my old boxes all summer (no air conditioning). In two years continuous, or in about four years of summer usage, the power used by 10 boxes each of 866MHz will pay for a single AMD box with dual core 4200, ie giving about the same nominal output in one box as the ten old boxes. So the plan is to buy the new box, and run the farm only in winter. My suggestion to you is similar, and more so in your case as you have air conditioning to think about. Only run the main box in summer, but as soon as you turn on the heating, switch that Celeron back on and leave it running 24/7 all winter. Turn it off with the heating in the Spring. Just a suggestion of course... R~~ |
|
45)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
there was work but your computer doesn't have enought memory
(Message 37376)
Posted 4 Mar 2007 by River~~
Post: ... Can someone tell me how to set the prefences back to default so Rosetta will download more work please? ... Just to clarify, it is not a case of setting the prefs back to default, nor is it the change in Rosetta version that has done this - it is the change in BOINC version. The prefs were ignored before, and the problem arises because as soon as you installed the latest BOINC it started to apply them - so it is probably applying the defaults. Go into General prefs (if you are multi project, do this on whatever project you usually use to set prefs, they will propagate across to all other projects). Find the new entries in the table "Use at most ____% of memory when computer is in use" and "... when computer is idle", and put in numbers to suit. 100% will mean that projects are free to use all of available RAM, menaing that you are not protected from memory-induced sluggishness. I have set 99% for both. I don't know if it accepts numbers > 100%, but if it does accept them and take them literally, then setting a number >100% would mean you can use the swapfile to run a task that is nominally too big. This would have a perfomrance hit on the processing of the Rosetta (or other project) work, as indeed happened prior to BOINC version 5.8 if you got work that was too big for your memory. Hope that helps and enlightens R~~ |
|
46)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
there was work but your computer doesn't have enought memory
(Message 37375)
Posted 4 Mar 2007 by River~~
Post: There is a BOINC issue here. (Skip to the nextpost if you just want advice.) The amount of memory needed by a task is not what is being measured, but the amount of memory in the computer. The reason this is a problem is that an app (say Ros 5.48) needs the computer to have (say) 450 Mb RAM when running alongside Win XP or KDE, but that same app might need the computer to have only 200Mb when running alongside Linux without a GUI. Another aspect of this is graphics. A user who wants to see the Rosetta gfx will need more memory to run Rosetta than another user (Linux no GUI again) who does not have any gfx capability and for whom therefore the Rosetta app never loads any of the gfx code. The solutions need all of the following: 1. Project admins to set memory demands for the task itself, not their estimate of the amount of memory needed by the computer 2. Default %required to be set for the 'majority' user, ie at present for Win XP, soon maybe for Vista so that Windows does not lock up when the task is running 3. Users whose setup does not conform to the majority should set much higher %available both while they are working and while the box is idle In the longer run, it is probably a mistake, in my opinion, to set these as percentages. The amount required for other tasks should be a fixed number not a percent. So, in my opinion, the prefs should read Leave at least ____ Mb for operating system and non-BOINC work when computer is in use Leave at least ____ Mb for operating system when computer is idle Then the magic values could be found for each operating system and users advised accordingly. It seems obvious tome that Win XP will need about the same absolute amount of memory reserved for itself to prevent it going sluggish regardless of whether the box has 256MB or 8GB installed. This matters because there is no sensible % that will work for a mix of boxes that span 256Mb to 4Gb all running the same OS. There are only 3 or 4 allowed 'venues' and users may already have used them all up to make other distinctions between machines. A 'leave at least' regime is more likely to apply acorss a range of machines that a % based one. But this is a BOINC issue. Feel free to re-post my remarks on the BOINC forums if you agree with me on this (I am not using them at present so will not be posting it myself) What this project can do is for the admins to take point 1 on board, and for admins and/or other experts to post suitable advice on settings that seem to work. R~~ |
|
47)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Problems with rosetta 5.48
(Message 37370)
Posted 4 Mar 2007 by River~~
Post: This is interesting; I have not received any of the "you don't have enough memory" messages with 5.48; and I have 1GB memory on my system. I can't imagine why it should need so much that it can't run on a box with 512MB; but I'm having no trouble running 2 tasks (and only Rosetta) on a 1GB system. Yes, and a possibly releated effect, 5.48 seems a little more efficient in its effects on other programs on a 2-cpu system. Detail: On a 2 cpu (2 separate chips, not one of these new-fangled multicore jobs), I have been tracking the performance of CPDN running on one cpu with other tasks running on the other cpu, averaging over 12 hours or so of timesteps. Taking the speed of crunching CPDN when the other cpu is idle as 100, then the speed when crunching Rosetta on the other cpu dropped to 95.4 +/- 0.5 with 5.46, but improved to 97.6 +/- 0.6 as soon as 5.48 started to run. This is a real effect, the timesteps get closer together as soon as Rosetta starts on its new version, and although the timesteps vary in length both before and after there is no overlap at all in the sets of values. By comparison, when running CPDN alongside another CPDN the speed of each drops to 87.5 +/- 0.4, which I why I usually run just one CPDN and let Rosetta have the other cpu. This is a severe test of the combination of tasks, as the box has only 256Mb of RAM, far less than either CPDN or Rosetta would like even when running solo. In its favour it does not have a GUI to soak up extra cycles. Conjecture: My guess is that Rosetta is playing more friendly in one or both of the following ways. The new tasks could simply be doing work that is confined in tighter loops. This would mean that the Rosetta core would be able to keep its code in cache for more of the time, and would not be contending with the other core for RAM access to re-load program code. The new tasks could simply be using less memory overall, meaning that less of both progams' virtual memory is paged out to disk. In view of hedera's comments, the second possibility seems more likely. Sadly I have not been monitoring swapfile usage, so I can't actually tell. Question: If I am right that the new tasks are using less memory, is this simply an artefact of the particuar jobs they have been given, or is it down to some re-optimisation of the code in the Rosetta app? btw, apols for being OT here, as this is not a *problem* ;-) Like hedera I thought that positive feedback might be interesting ... R~~ |
|
48)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Trojan boinc installation by rogue member
(Message 37346)
Posted 3 Mar 2007 by River~~
Post: did it. Thanks David |
|
49)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Did you see any AMD grandfather 4x4 on BOINC? see this lie
(Message 37257)
Posted 28 Feb 2007 by River~~
Post: In fairness I will add that Who? is right, there have been times when Intel have contributed (and contributed well) to open source. Indeed, and ironically, at the start of the LinuxBIOS project Intel were the co-operative comapany and it took a little time for AMD to divulge any info at all. Somewhat later both comapnies switched policy, and for the last few years Intel have been all proprietary (except about legacy boards) and AMD have been the ones ready and willing to release tech spec that is needed to write the low level stuff. I would like to distance myself from the 'paycheck' suggestion. Rather I would suggest that Who? is a good team player, and like all team players is strongly loyal to his team. Which is a good thing until it goes too far, until the point where the team player becomes blind to the good points of the opposition. The point I was making in my previous post was that decisions like levels of release of info, and the marketng slant put on the capabilities of the product are outside of the engineers' control in all companies (Intel and AMD and all other companies bigger than one man bands). R~~ |
|
50)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Help uploading completed wu's
(Message 37225)
Posted 27 Feb 2007 by River~~
Post: @River - Thanx for the effort, and background info. Note that Rosetta will credit you for returned work well after the deadline - the deadlines set are more of an advisory thing than a cut-off, and to make sure that other projects with short deadlines don't sideline Rosetta forever. If the work has not been crunched, don't start it after the deadline, but if it has already been crunched, it is certainly worth tryont to retuen in the 'offical' way once your normal connection is restored. R~~ |
|
51)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Advance copies of the soon-to-be-released executable
(Message 37224)
Posted 27 Feb 2007 by River~~
Post: If people want more lead time, they simply maintain a larger cache. The new release has been posted already, but I've not requested a single WU since then, so I still have time to download "in advance" if I wish. The way to do this would be to page off parts of the program to .so / .dll files, making sure that the program knew to lok for them in the relevant BOINC directory / folder rather than in the system folder. This is particularly suitable for Rosetta, where the programmers & scientists keep adding new code but almost never remove old code from the app. Each new feature would have its own .so or .dll The app would need to know that it needed these extra files - or if you can't tell BOINC directly that an app needs a specific file then BOINC needs to be told that each task using that app needs the file(s) for the new shared lib(s). And of course the .so / .dll files need to be "sticky" And when a version of a .so or .dll file is superseded, at some stage the server needs to be told to tell clients to delete the obsolete version. In my opinion this would be feasible. The first Rosetta version to be split in this way would save no download time at all, and might even suffer from bugs in the implemetntation of the devolvement into spearate libraries. Once such teething troubles were solved on Ralph, then the next mainstream Rosetta would still not save any downloads, as that would be the one to introduce the new system to the mainstream users. The Rosetta release after that would be the first to see the benefit. Rosetta versions would only load a stub executable, maybe one or two new .so / .dll files that had changed, but would not need to re-download any of the code in the unchanged .so / .dll files. It is a fair amount of work for the programmers. It is something that would benefit some users, and not noticeably benefit others. Only the programmers can advise whether it would be a good use of their time. R~~ |
|
52)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Word link 7
(Message 37210)
Posted 26 Feb 2007 by River~~
Post: [ /quote ] [ url ] |
|
53)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Help uploading completed wu's
(Message 37209)
Posted 26 Feb 2007 by River~~
Post: Didn't seem to work. Don't understand why, everything you said made sense. I don't *know* why it didn't work either, but looking at your computers my best guess would be that the difference between a 64 bit cpu and a 32 bit cpu might be enough to make the server smell a rat. Bad luck, and nice try is the only other thing I can say. The reason it is not made easy to do this is that in the early days of classic Seti people used to use variations of this for cheating, and even tho that would not work any more for other reasons, by the time the door had shut on that cheat the devs had locked themselves into the current strategy. Yet another example of the well known observation that a few bad apples can spoil a whole barrel or [insert your simile here] R~~ |
|
54)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Did you see any AMD grandfather 4x4 on BOINC? see this lie
(Message 37202)
Posted 26 Feb 2007 by River~~
Post: strangely ... the document just got pulled out :) no doubt AMD are now doing penance for the transgressions you have pointed out to them ;-) but seriously, I agree with you that competition should be fair, I wish it was. Sadly all companies lie in their advertising. I used to work as a 'Financial Advisor' and my job was to give the client 'best advice'. Read the small print: best advice meant to offer the customer the best prduct from our range. So, according to us, *and* according to our regulator, if I said that one of the opposition's product better sutied that particular client, I was in trouble not only with my boss (to be expected) but also with the regulator. Duh? I am cynical enough to believe that if we had an AMD opposite number here, they would find equally cynical stuff going on in your company's press releases. Which is sad because as engineers both you and your immediate colleagues, and the AMD engineers, would enjoy and benefit from honest comparisons. Talking of honesty, a related virtue is openness. The reason in the long term I prefer AMD to Intel is a non-technical one - in my view both comapnies have got good ideas and both comapnies have made huge mistakes in the time they've been competing, and both companies benefit from the presence of the other. My preference is based on an open source issue. AMD have been more co-operative than Intel in releasing firmware tech spec for motherboards to the linuxbios project. Things that Intel regard as commercial in confidence, AMD will release to the anti-confidential open source community in order that both AMD and linuxbios benefit from each others ideas. Intel have said they will release the next generation of bios code under an open source licence, but only did so many years after AMD were regulalry releasing tech spec. My intuition is that Intel would not have released anything if AMD had not pointed the way. And it seems apparent to me as an outside observer that Intel are still reluctant to have other people write firmware code for their boards, whereas AMD welcome the idea. regards, River~~ |
|
55)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Trojan boinc installation by rogue member
(Message 37102)
Posted 22 Feb 2007 by River~~
Post:
In all fairness Pete, the ISP you mentioned was one that made money out of harbouring people who are 'wittingly' abusing others, ie spammers. ISP's that make money out of offering customer service to folk who have been unwittingly have been caught in a scam will react differently. My response would have been to start a DOS attacl on the ISP, but the approach "someone" actually tried, effectively a DOS attack on their executive is rather neat. If you <ahem> happen to identify the "someone" give them my congratulations ;-) |
|
56)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
BOINC unsure how many CPUs to use
(Message 37099)
Posted 22 Feb 2007 by River~~
Post: Since you only have 256MB you will se this 'stalling' more often and little chance of getting 2xrosetta's to run at the same time. Been looking at this FC. Where I win is by not having a GUI. Not windoze, not KDE, not Gnome, and not BoincMgr. Not even BV on the same machine. So here are my meminfo figures at a point where one Rosetta has been running 12hrs and is 4000 sec into the current decoy, and the other Rosetta has been running 600 sec on its first decoy: ric-gw-live:~# cat /proc/meminfo MemTotal: 256268 kB MemFree: 15204 kB Buffers: 17364 kB Cached: 51656 kB SwapCached: 0 kB Active: 184028 kB Inactive: 32752 kB HighTotal: 0 kB HighFree: 0 kB LowTotal: 256268 kB LowFree: 15204 kB SwapTotal: 682720 kB SwapFree: 682720 kB Dirty: 100 kB Writeback: 0 kB Mapped: 159144 kB Slab: 19728 kB Committed_AS: 298648 kB PageTables: 824 kB VmallocTotal: 770040 kB VmallocUsed: 3064 kB VmallocChunk: 766804 kB As you can see, both Rosettas are fitting well into real memory. The problem was that before Astro's tip they were trying to both fit into half the memory, as BOINC seems clever enough to spot that this machine is also doing other stuff, like serving internal web pages and so on. And, of course I'd have noticed if there was a genuine memeory problem as the machine's main mission would have suffered and max cpus would have been set back to 1 (or even BOINC removed). The new memory limits will prove useful in future, when Rosetta does get big enough to cause this kind of issue, but on a Linux command-line only box there is a long way to go yet. Edit, added: I won't bore you with anonther meminfo listing, but my experiments indicate than running a second Rosetta adds between 80Mb - 100Mb memory usage. For example, top shows the two Rosettas each with around 30% to 35% of memory. The BOINC client (v5.8.11) weighs in at 1.3% of 256M = under 4Mb so the client is not a significant memory issue. One area where the footprint of the second task is smaller than you'd expect is that all the shared library code is only loaded into real memry once, even if both tasks are using it and even if they both have it at different virtual addresses (the magic of the VM mapping - all credit to Intel for that, for their 386 memory design) Perhaps there is a case for the System Requirements page to show a smaller figure for the memory usage needed on a command line only machine, and larger requirements for people hoping to run multi cpus. So for a GUI operating system (Win, Mac, KDE, Gnome) you need (I am suggesting) around 150Mb overhead plus 100Mb per cpu running Rosetta, which for one cpu is consisten with the advice to have 256MB installed. On a linux command-line only box something like 50Mb overhead plus 100Mb per cpu running Rosetta. So the other way of looking at it is that by throwing out KDE/Windows I get to run a whole extra Rosetta. Seems like a good tradeoff on a box that doesn't even have its own monitor... R~~ |
|
57)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
BOINC unsure how many CPUs to use
(Message 37098)
Posted 22 Feb 2007 by River~~
Post: The 'Waiting for memory' message is there if I look at the state from the new shiny BOINCmgr, but BOINCview simply says 'Paused'. So chalk one advantage up to the new BM over BV. Good spot. Still running BV 1.2.2 :-( And thanks for the config file info. It still seems odd to me to have a default setting that shows things resuming but not pausing, to my mind it would seem more logical to have both or neither. But at least if it is settable then I can tweak it up to my liking. btw I like your handle which you share with my downstairs neighbour who runs a home publishing business called BobCat press. Named after his cat, Bob, of course... R~~ |
|
58)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Help uploading completed wu's
(Message 37087)
Posted 21 Feb 2007 by River~~
Post: Hoping somone can quickly help me out. Have you tried telling it to re-try the transfer? Go to the transfers tab (in the 'advanced' view, if you have the newer version of the manager), highlight one of the files, click Retry Now (or some such, I am typing this from memroy). This may be enought to get it going, or if not repeat for all other files.
Assuming everything is on windoze, and assuming you can connect the desktop to the laptop via windows networking, proceed as follows 1. copy the desktop BOINC folder to somewhere on the laptop that is close to the laptop BOINC folder without actually overwriting it. If you have the default install then the folders will be at C:Program FilesBOINC in each case. So for example copy \DesktopProgram FilesBOINC to \laptopProgram FilesBOBO The copy may involve internal copies on one or both machines to get the file to a shared part of your drive, depending on how you have the windows networking set up. You can safely leave BOINC running on the laptop while doing this, but make sure BOINC is stopped on the desktop or you will transfer an inconsisten set of files. 2. At the library, start BOINC as usual, and upload and report all laptop work. If you want to do this once a week till your connection comes back, allow it to download new work, and wait till all the transfers are complete. If you don't want to have to do this exercise once a week, then make sure you have set Don't Fetch Work or whatever it is called. 3. When all transfers are complete, stop BOINC. 4. Rename the BOINC folder to something else, say BOLAP. 5. Rename BOBO to BOINC. 6. Start BOINC 7. Repeat as for 2. The work willl be identified with the desktop hostid, but the machine info will get reported as for the laptop. If the server gets confused it may give you a new hostid, and in this case it may or may not refuse to accept the work. However I have never had any probls with this. As in 2, decide whether you want to download new work to be done on the desktop, or do you want to rest the desktop till the proper connection comes back. Before doing the update you will have set Allow Work Fetch or Don't Fetch Work as appropriate. 8. Stop BOINC. 9. Rename BOINC to BOBO 10. Rename BOLAP to BOINC. 11. Restart BOINC if req'd. 12. If you downloaded work for the desktop, delete the original BOINC folder from the desktop and copy BOBO back onto it. 13. If you did not download new work for the desktop, reset every project to make it forget the files it still thinks need to be downloaded. I have almost done this sequence, but for a single desktop and with a USB drive instead of a laptop. It worked for me. Final thoughts Returning Linux results from a windows machine will not work on this technique, or vice versa. But different versions of the same family (eg win2k and winXP) worked fine. It would be sensible, if possible, to have the same version of BOINC on both machines in case there are registry issues with version changes. With any luck you already do have. If not then you are going to have to update one of the boxes - possible by bringing the install file home on the laptop... Good Luck! River~~ |
|
59)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
BOINC unsure how many CPUs to use
(Message 37083)
Posted 21 Feb 2007 by River~~
Post: Rosetta uses a lot of memory and increasingly so as it works through. That's interesting. As it works through a single decoy, or as it works through a series of decoys in a long run? Since you only have 256MB you will se this 'stalling' more often and little chance of getting 2xrosetta's to run at the same time. Well, I admit running two in 256 is a bit cheeky when the spec is for 256 anyway. Tho I could be even more cheeky and point out that the spec does not ask for any more for multi-cpus... But in fact two are running happily together now I've given them 99% of the memory to share between them. The server had blanks in for these figures, so presumably they defaulted to something plausible. R~~ |
|
60)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
BOINC unsure how many CPUs to use
(Message 37080)
Posted 21 Feb 2007 by River~~
Post: Look at the status, after download units report "ready to run", if they are running they report "running", If they have been paused/preempted, they read "waiting to run". Thanks Astro, spot on. And thanks too for a very quick reply. The 'Waiting for memory' message is there if I look at the state from the new shiny BOINCmgr, but BOINCview simply says 'Paused'. So chalk one advantage up to the new BM over BV. R~~ |
Previous 20 · Next 20
©2024 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org