BT 0.98

Started by jjwhalen, January 20, 2011, 10:04:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jjwhalen

Minor glitch in
QuoteAdded: Report all completed tasks to the toolbar context menu. The number indicates the total number to be reported:

If BT is started with tasks already "Ready to report" the new context menu item shows an accurate count :)
Newly completed tasks increment the counter correctly :)
If the "Report all completed tasks" function is then executed the tasks are reported, but the counter does not reset  :(
The next time a task is completed the counter resets to nil (should now be 1) :(
Thereafter the counter increments, but continues one number behind :'(


fred

Quote from: jjwhalen on January 20, 2011, 10:04:37 PM
Minor glitch in
QuoteAdded: Report all completed tasks to the toolbar context menu. The number indicates the total number to be reported:

If BT is started with tasks already "Ready to report" the new context menu item shows an accurate count :)
Newly completed tasks increment the counter correctly :)
If the "Report all completed tasks" function is then executed the tasks are reported, but the counter does not reset  :(
The next time a task is completed the counter resets to nil (should now be 1) :(
Thereafter the counter increments, but continues one number behind :'(
The number is not that recent, in a default setting is should be updated at least ever 2 minutes.
When you set the History refresh rate higher it will take longer.
Polling it more frequent will cause too much overhead.

jjwhalen

Quote from: fred on January 20, 2011, 10:30:05 PM
The number is not that recent, in a default setting is should be updated at least ever 2 minutes.
When you set the History refresh rate higher it will take longer.
Polling it more frequent will cause too much overhead.

As I said, minor glitch ;D


fred

Quote from: jjwhalen on January 21, 2011, 11:03:18 PM
As I said, minor glitch ;D
You can set the History refresh time to say 5-10 seconds, that will improve things.
With a couple of 100 WU's the impact will be low.

jjwhalen

Quote from: fred on January 21, 2011, 11:48:14 PM
Quote from: jjwhalen on January 21, 2011, 11:03:18 PM
As I said, minor glitch ;D
You can set the History refresh time to say 5-10 seconds, that will improve things.
With a couple of 100 WU's the impact will be low.
Not really necessary; I'm just glad to have the Report function on the context menu ;D  However it might have been worth putting a (*) caveat in the version description that the count is based on History and wouldn't necessarily be UTD ;)

I hope the hikes are going well (no dead burros).


fred

Quote from: jjwhalen on January 22, 2011, 02:03:46 AM
I hope the hikes are going well (no dead burros).
The first day we saw a lot of live burros, but lately they seem to be elsewhere or in hiding.

Pepo

I'm sorry to say I can again see problems with Elapsed time. Excerpts from an AQUA ROQS task state:
Project AQUA@home
Application D-Wave's Redfield Open Quantum Simulation: Multi-Threaded 0.08 (mt1)
Workunit name 18jan11_c_p5_005_50_1_5
State Waiting to run
Resources 3.00 CPUs
CPU time at last checkpoint 98:15:39 (04d,02:15:39)
CPU time 98:15:40 (04d,02:15:40)
Elapsed time 07:25:55
Estimated time remaining 08:11:54
Fraction done 83.966 %


For a 3-thread task, 7:25 hours wall-clock time is a bit less IMO compared to 4 CPU days. Also BOINC Manager reports 40:35:54 as Elapsed time... (and 98:15:40 as CPU time). The task stays passive in memory, was last time restarted 8 days ago and consumed 64:05:21 CPU seconds since.
(Other 15 active tasks on the machine show their Elapsed times (ranging from few minutes to 28, 47, 65 hours on the 3 longest ones) in agreement with BOINC Manager.)

client_state.xml contains: <result>
    <name>18jan11_c_p5_005_50_1_5_1</name>
    <final_cpu_time>56696.170000</final_cpu_time> (15:44:56)
    <final_elapsed_time>26755.788673</final_elapsed_time> (07:25:56)
</result>
which does match BT's Elapsed time, but WTH is 15:44:56 ???

I have no idea what values fly through RPCs...
Peter

Purple Rabbit

I'm running BT 0.98 so I'll post here, but I suspect it's more general. I haven't ruled out operator stupidity tho  :D

I just made a clean install of Suse 11.4 on one of my remote minions after saving the BOINC folder. I got everything the way I thought I wanted, copied Boinc back, started Boinc, and watched it trash tasks...sigh. Making my very fascinating story short  :P I detached from all projects and reinstalled Boinc over the remaining files after detach. BT found the host and correctly showed no projects. So far, so good.

I then  tried to add a project to a null project list remotely from BT. BT didn't want to do it. The add/remove under projects didn't provide a prompt. I fired up BoincView (1.42) and remotely added a project. Success! I was then able to add a second and a third project with BT. Everything has been running as I expected since then.

Is BT unable to add the first task to a null list or have I missed something important?

Rick

fred

Quote from: Purple Rabbit on March 13, 2011, 01:28:00 AM
I'm running BT 0.98 so I'll post here, but I suspect it's more general. I haven't ruled out operator stupidity tho  :D
I added it to the bug list.
I have to test this, but this will have wait a couple of months.
When you have any project on any computer it should work.
Select that computer, select a project and select additional computers.
But 0 on all computers may be a problem.


Purple Rabbit

#9
From what you say I think I may have been doing something wrong. I have 9 computers on the local network. I was only displaying the one I was interested in--the one with no projects. It didn't occur to me to display them all and try it from there.

Well, the world still turns. This might be a undocumented feature (not a bug)  ;D

Pepo

Quote from: Purple Rabbit on March 13, 2011, 02:53:14 AM
From what you say I think I may have been doing something wrong. I have 9 computers on the local network. I was only displaying the one I was interested in--the one with no projects. It didn't occur to me to display them all and try it from there.

Well, the world still turns. This might be a undocumented feature (not a bug)  ;D
I'd like to nitpick: Fred would probably never expect someone having 8 computers on LAN loaded with projects and monitoring (off course with BT) just the empty 9th  ;D
Peter

Purple Rabbit

Well, the other computers were doing just fine. I hadn't "improved" them yet ;) I only cared about the one that I killed at that moment. The simple solution wasn't intuitive to me, but it's obvious now that it's been explained. I just put this on my very long list of mistakes-I-won't-ever-make-again  ;D