• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Easy WCG_config

stanhemi said:
I forgot to say that the fluctuations are larger since I install boinc x64 sorry:o
Click to expand...

well I wouldn't think that would have much to do, if anything you'll complete work quicker. One thing though, CC file keeps your rig submitting the work right away when done, but if the validation process takes longer and is not consistent over on the WCG side, the fluctuation will still happen, correct?
 
stanhemi said:
work buffer is at 2 days now.thanks I'll be watching my ppd for the next days :)
http://img.techpowerup.org/091027/Capture777.jpg

:toast:
Click to expand...
The reason why I said 2 days is because some work units have as little as a five day time out. I doubt it will correct any point fluctuations.


x86/x64 shouldn't make any difference. It only really allows the manager to access more memory but it never really uses much in the first place. It also doens't run emulated (again, less than 0.1% difference).
 
Chicken Patty said:
well I wouldn't think that would have much to do, if anything you'll complete work quicker. One thing though, CC file keeps your rig submitting the work right away when done, but if the validation process takes longer and is not consistent over on the WCG side, the fluctuation will still happen, correct?
Click to expand...

Yep, because whereas my computer turns in all WUs within 36 hours, the other one the WU is assigned to usually takes a couple days :banghead:
One thing I've noticed since I've switched to x64 is the estimated time per wu is very wrong. With x32 XP, even after I just installed WCG, it had a pretty good idea how long each WU was going to take, and was usually correct within about 20 minutes. Now with Windows 7 x64, it predicts 12 hour completion times for WUs that finish in 6 hours :confused::confused:
 
[Ion] said:
Yep, because whereas my computer turns in all WUs within 36 hours, the other one the WU is assigned to usually takes a couple days :banghead:
One thing I've noticed since I've switched to x64 is the estimated time per wu is very wrong. With x32 XP, even after I just installed WCG, it had a pretty good idea how long each WU was going to take, and was usually correct within about 20 minutes. Now with Windows 7 x64, it predicts 12 hour completion times for WUs that finish in 6 hours :confused::confused:
Click to expand...

I notice that too! my i7 says on some projects 12hrs, but finish after i come back from taking a dump, ooops! :roll:
 
Chicken Patty said:
well I wouldn't think that would have much to do, if anything you'll complete work quicker. One thing though, CC file keeps your rig submitting the work right away when done, but if the validation process takes longer and is not consistent over on the WCG side, the fluctuation will still happen, correct?
Click to expand...
My server has point fluctations too and it runs 24/7 with relatively constant workloads:
[table="head"]Statistics Date|Total Run Time (y:d:h:m:s)|Points Generated|Results Returned
10/26/09|0:007:19:07:05|15,038|27
10/25/09|0:007:19:56:09|15,181|26
10/24/09|0:008:21:24:29|16,905|31
10/23/09|0:008:22:02:55|16,615|29
10/22/09|0:007:21:37:07|14,989|27
10/21/09|0:006:12:34:09|12,680|23
10/20/09|0:008:08:31:20|15,987|29
10/19/09|0:009:02:58:50|17,473|32
10/18/09|0:006:11:31:04|12,465|22
10/17/09|0:009:00:31:31|17,690|28
10/16/09|0:006:01:36:31|11,115|19
10/15/09|0:008:09:59:29|16,032|29
10/14/09|0:008:13:28:38|16,498|28[/table]
I think validation could have a lot to do with it. If you were the first to submit a result, it has to wait until someone else submits a result as well in order to validate which would then credit you points.

We also have to keep in mind that not all work units are equal. Some take longer than others and some are worth more than others. Like in my chart, it should be 8 hours run time every day but, all together, it maybe averages to 8.

I wouldn't be concerned about fluctuations because that is the nature of distrobuted computing.
 
Chicken Patty said:
I notice that too! my i7 says on some projects 12hrs, but finish after i come back from taking a dump, ooops! :roll:
Click to expand...
I'm glad that I'm not the only one experiencing this. I thought I must be out of my mind, because the WUs kept finishing so much faster than expected, so I took a screen shot, disabled network connections, left it running for 16 hours, and then compared results, and the estimated times were usually twice how long it actually took.

FordGT90Concept said:
My server has point fluctations too and it runs 24/7 with relatively constant workloads:
[table="head"]Statistics Date|Total Run Time (y:d:h:m:s)|Points Generated|Results Returned
10/26/09|0:007:19:07:05|15,038|27
10/25/09|0:007:19:56:09|15,181|26
10/24/09|0:008:21:24:29|16,905|31
10/23/09|0:008:22:02:55|16,615|29
10/22/09|0:007:21:37:07|14,989|27
10/21/09|0:006:12:34:09|12,680|23
10/20/09|0:008:08:31:20|15,987|29
10/19/09|0:009:02:58:50|17,473|32
10/18/09|0:006:11:31:04|12,465|22
10/17/09|0:009:00:31:31|17,690|28
10/16/09|0:006:01:36:31|11,115|19
10/15/09|0:008:09:59:29|16,032|29
10/14/09|0:008:13:28:38|16,498|28[/table]
I think validation could have a lot to do with it. If you were the first to submit a result, it has to wait until someone else submits a result as well in order to validate which would then credit you points.

We also have to keep in mind that not all work units are equal. Some take longer than others and some are worth more than others. Like in my chart, it should be 8 hours run time every day but, all together, it maybe averages to 8.

I wouldn't be concerned about fluctuations because that is the nature of distrobuted computing.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what I was saying, my rigs are on most of the time so they almost always turn in the WU first, I have a bunch of WUs that have been pending validation for a week now... :o
 
Some one has their work buffer too high. :roll:


Oh ****! It might be me. When I formatted, I'm sure my computer had two days worth of work that weren't going to get submitted. :o
 
Mindweaver said:
12hr dump! :eek: :roll:
Click to expand...

:laugh: too funny!

FordGT90Concept said:
My server has point fluctations too and it runs 24/7 with relatively constant workloads:
[table="head"]Statistics Date|Total Run Time (y:d:h:m:s)|Points Generated|Results Returned
10/26/09|0:007:19:07:05|15,038|27
10/25/09|0:007:19:56:09|15,181|26
10/24/09|0:008:21:24:29|16,905|31
10/23/09|0:008:22:02:55|16,615|29
10/22/09|0:007:21:37:07|14,989|27
10/21/09|0:006:12:34:09|12,680|23
10/20/09|0:008:08:31:20|15,987|29
10/19/09|0:009:02:58:50|17,473|32
10/18/09|0:006:11:31:04|12,465|22
10/17/09|0:009:00:31:31|17,690|28
10/16/09|0:006:01:36:31|11,115|19
10/15/09|0:008:09:59:29|16,032|29
10/14/09|0:008:13:28:38|16,498|28[/table]
I think validation could have a lot to do with it. If you were the first to submit a result, it has to wait until someone else submits a result as well in order to validate which would then credit you points.

We also have to keep in mind that not all work units are equal. Some take longer than others and some are worth more than others. Like in my chart, it should be 8 hours run time every day but, all together, it maybe averages to 8.

I wouldn't be concerned about fluctuations because that is the nature of distrobuted computing.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I'm not concerned, we just kinda got into the topic. :)

[Ion] said:
I'm glad that I'm not the only one experiencing this. I thought I must be out of my mind, because the WUs kept finishing so much faster than expected, so I took a screen shot, disabled network connections, left it running for 16 hours, and then compared results, and the estimated times were usually twice how long it actually took.



Yep, that's what I was saying, my rigs are on most of the time so they almost always turn in the WU first, I have a bunch of WUs that have been pending validation for a week now... :o
Click to expand...


Yeah, don't worry you are not out of your mind, YET :D
 
Anyone get the new update and exe to try out? :cool: All the cool people are doing it! :toast:
 
Hey guys should I take v1.2 down and just have v1.3 and Ford's exe? I see people are still getting the 1.2 and not the 1.3... :confused:
 
Remove the old version unless it does something the new version doesn't. In which case, clarify what is different in the file name.

Edit: you already removed them, nevermind. :p
 
Testing, testing... is this thing on? hehehe So, how does everyone like the new updates?
 
Thread is now stickied as recommended by FordGT
 
hey mind,

Any idea why it's not working with this rig dude? :confused: I ran the "read config" already. Still nothing.

Capture015618.jpg
 
Did you run the EXE or the ZIP?
 
What OS? 32-bit or 64-bit?
 
It should have worked...

For now, (if you haven't already) try clicking on "Update" under Projects. It should send off all 100%s. If the next one completes and it sits too, let me know and we'll have to start debugging. :laugh:
 
FordGT90Concept said:
It should have worked...

For now, (if you haven't already) try clicking on "Update" under Projects. It should send off all 100%s. If the next one completes and it sits too, let me know and we'll have to start debugging. :laugh:
Click to expand...

I've done that already, then it sends them all but they start to rack up again.
 
Could you save a screenshot of what WCGConfigEZ displays before it closes?
 
FordGT90Concept said:
Could you save a screen shot of what WCGConfigEZ displays before it closes?
Click to expand...

When I get the rig back up I will. I just installed some LAN Drivers and now it wants to do a CHKDSK every time it boots. Then the screen turns black and it stays there. So when I get it running I'll get that screen shot for you.
 
Ok, I'm on a new install of windows. I tried running the ZIP file this time and I get this. is this normal, don't look like it its...
Capture004.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top