Messages

Whatever is causing the slowdown in refresh at the BT end survived the rollback to BOINC 6.10.58  (i.e., uninstall of the 6.11.7, install of 6.10.58).  It also survived a shutdown/restart of BT, as well as a reboot of all 3 computers.  I was forced to uninstall/reinstall BT 0.74 to restore an (apparently) normal refresh cycle.  Weird, huh

--EDIT--Forgot to mention: I did not see this behavior a few weeks ago when I tried out BOINC 6.11.6 on my hosts for a brief period (this was before 6.11.7 was released for testing purposes).  Hmm...

[Notices]

I've been watching this thread with interest.  I've got 2 remotes plus localhost attached to BT, all on a local 100Mb subnet, with a typical total of 1100~1300 tasks across the population.  Even after BT has run continuously for >1week, mostly minimized, I've never seen the Tasks tab take >2sec to refresh (i.e., Switched, busy).  So

I seem to recall Pepo saying recently that he's running BOINC 6.11.6/6.11.7 on his hosts.  On a hunch I changed my hosts over from 6.10.58 to the β 6.11.7 and now I'm seeing BT behavior very similar to what Pepo describes.  It's possible there are incompatibilities in the RPC calls from BT, the XML from the 6.11.x client, or both.  What about those Notices the new client sends to BM, that display on the Notices tab and popup in the notification area?  Could they be causing BT's XML parser to choke?

I'll be rolling BOINC back to 6.10.58 pending further dialog on this subject.  If you need further testing, Fred, let me know

I've been watching this thread with interest.  I've got 2 remotes plus localhost attached to BT, all on a local 100Mb subnet, with a typical total of 1100~1300 tasks across the population.  Even after BT has run continuously for >1week, mostly minimized, I've never seen the Tasks tab take >2sec to refresh (i.e., Switched, busy).  So

Well, you can call me ignorant, but... both BOINC Manager and BoincTasks do say in tandem (in the task's Properties window "CPU time at last checkpoint". Thus, on a 8 core rig it HAVE TO flow (up to) 8 times faster than the wall-clock elapsed time. Doesn't it??

Cpu time is the time of each core. So 12 seconds wallclock gives a 1*12=12 at one core and 8*12=96 on 8 cores cpu time.

Minus (of course) the time n core(s) are multitasked away to something else, like servicing a GPU

Fixed 2 problems.
1) Elapsed time () and the checkpoint time.

What was actually going on with the funky Checkpoint time on AQUA? I did not experience anything.

For some reasons they use something like the elapsed cpu time. And that is when running e.g. 8 cores 8 times too much.
The elapsed cpu time that is used as a baseline is also 8 times too much.

dCheckpointRelative = dElapsedCheck/dCheckpointCpuFactor  - dCheckpoint/dCheckpointCpuFactor;
dCheckpointRelative /= dCheckpointRatio;

dCheckpointCpuFactor  = number op cores. ceil(cores in usage);
dCheckpoint = relative checkpoint time.
dElapsedCheck = elapsed cpu time = time left ().
dCheckpointRatio = CPU % only used on the GPU otherwise 1.

Yup, that makes perfect sense, consistent with the visual indications.  This is excellent news!

[<cmdline>--nthreads 4</cmdline>]

But I'll also add that I haven't tried limiting IQUANA to less than <ncpus=all of them>

I'm limiting the whole BOINC - to keep heat low and have some instant available CPU headroom. (For years I've been running BOINC on 100%). I did not find any option how could I limit IQUANA (except what I've done some months ago - lowering BOINC's CPU limit to 2, download one Aqua task and restoring former BOINC's CPU limit).

I don't want to sound like a know-it-all especially since I haven't tried it myself, but apparently you can manually edit the <app_version> section of client_state which gets automatically written to allow all CPU cores to be used:

<?example from a quad-core host?>

<app_version>
    <app_name>IQUANA</app_name>
    <version_num>114</version_num>
    <platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
    <avg_ncpus>4.000000</avg_ncpus>
    <max_ncpus>4.000000</max_ncpus>
    <flops>15448699211.215364</flops>
    <plan_class>mt1</plan_class>
    <api_version>6.9.0</api_version>
    <cmdline>--nthreads 4</cmdline>
    <file_ref>
        <file_name>iquana_1.14_windows_x86_64__mt1.exe</file_name>
        <main_program/>
    </file_ref>
    <file_ref>
        <file_name>vcomp90_64bit</file_name>
        <open_name>vcomp90.dll</open_name>
        <copy_file/>
    </file_ref>
    <file_ref>
        <file_name>logo.jpg</file_name>
        <open_name>logo.jpg</open_name>
    </file_ref>
    <file_ref>
        <file_name>Helvetica.txf</file_name>
        <open_name>Helvetica.txf</open_name>
    </file_ref>
    <file_ref>
        <file_name>gfx_4.15_x86_64.exe</file_name>
        <open_name>graphics_app</open_name>
        <copy_file/>
    </file_ref>
</app_version>


<?example from a dual-core host?>

<app_version>
    <app_name>IQUANA</app_name>
    <version_num>114</version_num>
    <platform>windows_x86_64</platform>
    <avg_ncpus>2.000000</avg_ncpus>
    <max_ncpus>2.000000</max_ncpus>
    <flops>6523948620.146737</flops>
    <plan_class>mt1</plan_class>
    <api_version>6.9.0</api_version>
    <cmdline>--nthreads 2</cmdline>
    <file_ref>
        <file_name>iquana_1.14_windows_x86_64__mt1.exe</file_name>
        <main_program/>
    </file_ref>
    <file_ref>
        <file_name>vcomp90_64bit</file_name>
        <open_name>vcomp90.dll</open_name>
        <copy_file/>
    </file_ref>
    <file_ref>
        <file_name>logo.jpg</file_name>
        <open_name>logo.jpg</open_name>
    </file_ref>
    <file_ref>
        <file_name>Helvetica.txf</file_name>
        <open_name>Helvetica.txf</open_name>
    </file_ref>
    <file_ref>
        <file_name>gfx_4.15_x86_64.exe</file_name>
        <open_name>graphics_app</open_name>
        <copy_file/>
    </file_ref>
</app_version>

The structure looks straightforward and I expect all you need do is amend the <cmdline>--nthreads value.  When I get a slack period I'll play around and see what happens.  What could go wrong

Reminder -- IQUANA still has a problem of randomly locking up a CPU core when in state Waiting, especially on a quad.  So it's a good idea to Suspend Project when it isn't actually running

In my case, after a 3-thread task is Waiting, just 1 core is left available for other tasks. But according to the list of tasks, really just one of them is getting "a green" to run. Thus I think the problem is in the client.

Apparently it is sufficient to briefly suspend (and then resume) the waiting Aqua task - the remaining (nCPU-1) tasks start immediately. I do again blame the client. Let's report it on the Alpha channel.

I won't disagree with your assessment.  I don't think the core client is quite ready for multicore/multithreaded tasks.

But I'll also add that I haven't tried limiting IQUANA to less than <ncpus=all of them> even though the app is supposed to allow that.  I've had reasonably good results with the default 4.00CPUs & 2.00CPUs using the RS=100(11.43%).  But progress on the CoreDuo machines is quite slow as you might expect.  I stick with the project because I'm interested in the developer's goal of trying algorithms for theoretical Quantum computers--too cool for an old Star Trek fan to resist.

I probably need to pay more attention to AQUA's user forum.  The only threads I've really followed are about the problem of locking up 1 core when in state Waiting (which they are blaming on the current BOINC Scheduler implementation).

[edit]I see from the wishlist that Fred still can't get any work from Aqua--I guess the folks there must not like him [/edit]

BOINC has dn/up limit of 2 per client. But If you have 10 or more machines connected to the same internet pipe, your network will choke (for projects with huge download task and huge upload task).

So I wish BoincTask will have some control to the number of DN/UP (limit the number of concurrent DN/UP for connected clients in BT). Also, as BT can control host from outside (WAN), make it a policy thing so not all hosts will be affected.

Thanks

A few points.

1) The "dn/up limit of 2" limit I believe you're referring to isn't per BOINC client, it's 2 per project, up to a maximum of 8 on that client.
2) The numbers of transfer threads per project/client above aren't hardcoded -- they can be configured via the <max_file_xfers_per_project> (default two) & <max_file_xfers> (default eight) parameters of the cc_config.xml file (complete instructions at this link).
3) If you have 10 or 100 computers on an internet gateway, whether they will choke or not is a function of how much bandwidth you are leasing, and whether your ISP is delivering the bandwidth you're paying for (frequently, no). In any case, it's the gateway router's job to apportion the available bandwidth out to the computers that are asking for it.
4) The BOINC core client does its part by opening transfer threads, up to the <max_file_xfers_per_project><max_file_xfers> limits, as needed.

I'm not sure whether BointTasks can do what you're asking for, but I'll leave that to Fred.

[rant]A couple of weeks ago (on 12 Aug 2010 2:22:12 UTC) I've received a 3-core task. Since the moment, my AQUA's STD went from some -86 400 (or whatever it was) to +100 000 (or whatever it is really now - OK, +31 565), but the task did not start yet. My AQUA's resource share is 2.80%. What is the client still waiting for? Enough free cores? The machine did restart a couple of times since. And I wanted to check exactly the checkpointing.

One more week till deadline, so I can expect the task being run in 5-6 days.[/rant]

Strange.

By coincidence I'm running a 2 core IQUANA right now, on my slow machine.  I have my AQUA Resource Share at 11.43%.  I'm not sure how the Scheduler actually applies the RS to a multicore task.  I guarantee to you that they aren't running 11.43% of the time, but they do get done  It might well be (RS/# of cores), so for you 2.8/3=0.93%.  They do seem to follow the "Switch between applications every..." (in my case 150 minutes) in linear wallclock time.

It may be in your case that the low RS is just making the task wait until the deadline approaches, when it will go into panic mode.  You could try forcing it to run by momentarily suspending other projects on that host.  AQUA won't give more than 2 WUs at a time, so you won't get a year's worth of work by mistake.

Re: wishlist item

BUG: Checkpoints for multi thread projects are messed up. But ... there is no multi thread project that has work........

AQUA's IQUANA [IQUANA (mt1) v1.14] has work and to spare.  I just completed 2 WUs and downloaded 2 more.  And the checkpoint column is as funky as ever

Reminder -- IQUANA still has a problem of randomly locking up a CPU core when in state Waiting, especially on a quad.  So it's a good idea to Suspend Project when it isn't actually running

The Logging window is a full child with its own icon on the taskbar.  If the BT main window is brought to front by a menu action, clicking its titlebar etc., Logging can be recovered by clicking the taskbar icon.  The Logging rules window does not get its own icon on the taskbar.  If BT main is brought to front, Logging rules becomes "lost".

Request you add the taskbar icon to Logging rules.  Also, if either log window is behind BT main, request that a 2nd click of its Show>... menu item bring it back to focus.

EDIT-- Note that I made it over 8M credits! 2M in 1 month with the new Fermi card

Indeed an incredible credit machine. ↲ ↲
↲...and nothing left for the others. And one might wonder, where are all those credits gone...

But note that I only got a GTX 465SC - I can't imagine what would happen with a 480.  Actually I believe there is an infinite supply of credits

Better late than never: I finally got around to checking out the Other projects tab.

I must be doing something wrong.  I tried following the instructions in How to reschedule other BOINC projects, but I can't get the test to pass.  I don't have Astropulse (and they don't have any work to download), so I had to extrapolate to (several) other projects.  The project URL is no problem, that part of the test passes.  But I can't seem to get the Application name right.  Using the data fields under <app_version> your example "astropulse_v505" looks like it's <app_name> + "_v" + <version_num>.  But that combination always fails the test, resulting in e.g.,

31 August 2010 - 12:37:13 No application found matching: collatz_v205.

I also tried leaving out the v, substituting space for underscore, etc.  All same application not found.  Note that Collatz isn't the only other project I tried.

So, what am I doing wrong?  What is the exact template for the "Application" field?  Or is v2.0 still only working in the Seti section of client_state?

B/w & I hope you're enjoying your vacation

EDIT-- Note that I made it over 8M credits! 2M in 1 month with the new Fermi card

JJ amigo - I think you've solved the problem. Not one of my Win7 systems had Boinc client in the Firewall allowed list. I added the Boinc client and now the Scan finds the Win7 systems. The Find still has some problems, but I can live with Scan.
Many thanks for your help - you get 10 stars
One more question - all the systems that I have tested are on the same router (some via LAN and some via WiFi). Can I do the same with a system in a different location, but via the internet?
I'll certainly sleep well tonight - muchas gracias

Como se dice, "No hay de que."  I believe Corsair hinted and got me thinking that Win7's firewall may be dumber (or more restrictive) than WinVista's version.  And a new computer with OEM Windows 7 might need some help.  But it's always good to remember that Boinc Manager (and now BoincTasks!) is just the control panel.  The core client does all the "heavy lifting," but has no real face of its own

Regarding your question, the answer is "conditional" yes. This forum has members with many host computers, and some on different subnets (Corsair, if I recall, has his computer connected while onboard his ship at sea, and he has others crunching away on shore.)  You can use Scan address range for any valid range of IPs.  (Note the information on this subject in the BoincTasks Manual as well as the FAQ.)

The conditional part comes in if the other router, not to mention your own, is firewalled (as mine is).  It would need to have the BoincTasks port open to external communication, and you might have to set up access rights for your localhost's IP.  You might even have to set up a "tunnel" (Virtual Private Net [VPN] or some such), depending on the level of security at the other router.  Of course BoincTasks (Boinc Manager for that matter) knows nothing of any of this.  It expects a clear path to the distant range of IPs on its communications port.

¡Buena suerte Raoul!

[Control Panel>System and Security>Windows Firewall>Allowed Programs]

Hi guys , it's wonderful to have such support - many thanks for your efforts. Here's the latest:
1. I have upgraded all Boinc to 6.10.58
2. All the Win7 Firewalls did have entries for Boinc Manager, Boinc Tasks and Tthrottle - I didn't change anything
3. I have left Boinc Tasks at 0371 for the moment (it worked fine when I disabled the Win7 firewalls).
4. There is no other firewall present on the Win7 systems, and they are all running with MS Security Essentials
5. The problem is unchanged - the XP system & the Win7 localhost are seen, but no other Win7 systems
I'm going to bed now - will try again in the morning - Good night amigos

Sunday morning- switched off the Win7 firewall in all systems except localhosts - both Find and Scan found them all (but Find didn't find the XP system) - so it seem to be in 'incoming problem' as local hosts had no problems

In Boinc Tasks, what does a Status of 'Connected, Not Connected' mean?

Raoul,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.  I've gotten so used to Eugene Kaspersky's approach to security (and his GUI), that I had to go back and relearn some things about an older rule-based system like Windows Firewall.

My (remote) Win7 system is an upgrade from WinVista, and its firewall inherited settings and options learned by the earlier version (see Corsair's post about this).  So I hope your application control list looks something like mine.  With Kaspersky turned off and the Windows Firewall enabled, I was able to play around and get BOINC to work or fail to work with BoincTasks on my localhost at will.

In Control Panel>System and Security>Windows Firewall>Allowed Programs I have an entry "boinc.exe" which is of course the BOINC core client.  It is set (checked) in the Home/Work (Private) column and the left checkbox.  You said above that you have an entry for Boinc Manager, but you didn't list the core client.  It must be listed and enabled in the left checkbox for BoincTasks on another machine to communicate with it while the firewall is active.  Based on what you've said so far, this sounds like your problem.  If boinc.exe isn't listed, adding it via the Allow another program dialog is straightforward--if you don't find it in the default Programs list you can Browse to the C:\Programs\BOINC\boinc.exe and Open then Add it.  Of course if boinc.exe isn't on the allowed programs list, I don't see how it could communicate with the outside world to download work and report results

When I found boinc.exe in the Allowed programs and features list, setting the left checkbox definitely allows the communication with BoincTasks on my localhost, and resetting it broke the link.  (The same goes for Tthrottle.)

Regarding your Win XP system - I suspect that Symantec firewall (paagh!) is blocking some or all of that 'Find" query but is passing the low-level scan of the subnet.  I used to use Symantec but gave up on it ~3 years ago.  You might check it to see if port 31416 is blocked.

Regarding "Connected,Not connected" (huh?) that is a funny one.  But it means that BOINC is connected but Tthrottle isn't.  If you disable Tthrottle's link to BoincTasks at the remote machine, you'll see Connected,Not coneected (it takes awhile, ~a minute, to show up).

Something I remembered overnight: on BoincTasks Settings>Expert tab, check the "=Reconnect every xx seconds" value for something nonzero (typically 60).

Let me know how you make out with this information.  Also, another recommendation: please consider replacing the Windows 7 basic firewall with some full-featured security suite.  I won't endorse any particular one, but I've already mentioned Kaspersky Internet Security (KIS 2011); there's also ESET's NOD32, and ZoneAlarm Pro.  I will say that Kaspersky licenses up to 3 machines for the single purchase--I don't know about the other products in that respect.