log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : RESOLVED - 2 tasks both consume CPU time

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author Message
Profile Ananas
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 08
Posts: 33
Credit: 100,084
RAC: 0
Message 155 - Posted: 29 Jan 2008, 21:41:20 UTC - in response to Message 153.
Last modified: 29 Jan 2008, 21:42:39 UTC

... What is your BOINC client version?
--Jack


Dagorath\'s is the same as mine, 5.10.28

Rebirther, who has seen the same effect, uses 5.8.15

Dagorath
Send message
Joined: 29 Jan 08
Posts: 29
Credit: 4,047
RAC: 0
Message 156 - Posted: 29 Jan 2008, 21:44:04 UTC

Actually I just upgraded from 5.10.28 to 5.10.30 a minute ago. I\'ll try it again.

Profile Jack.Harris
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Apr 07
Posts: 507
Credit: 761,261
RAC: 0
Message 157 - Posted: 29 Jan 2008, 21:45:17 UTC - in response to Message 153.

The same thing happened here on my single core, Win XP machine... Task Manager shows ACTR consumes about 49% of CPU, sbcl consumes about 49%. The result where I observed that is here, my computer is 864. The task details page claims only 1 hour CPU time was used whereas my ../boinc/stdoutae.txt shows the task ran for 2 hours on the wall clock. Since there were no other CPU intensive processes running while that task crunched, the wall clock time and CPU time should be very close but they are not.

I noticed the same on one of my Linuxes boxes... top reports ACTR using 49% of CPU, sbcl using 49%.



What is your BOINC client version?
--Jack



there may have been a bug in boinc_sleep that was effecting the applications
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/changeset/14513/trunk/boinc/checkin_notes

I will recompile my applications against the new API to see if things resolve.
--Jack

Profile Ananas
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 08
Posts: 33
Credit: 100,084
RAC: 0
Message 158 - Posted: 29 Jan 2008, 21:54:50 UTC
Last modified: 29 Jan 2008, 21:57:57 UTC

That modification affects only Unix, Windows still is unchanged - at least since 4.11 (the oldest one I have)

::Sleep((int)(1000*seconds));

It\'s still worth a try, as the Linux version has more trouble than the Windows version.

Dagorath
Send message
Joined: 29 Jan 08
Posts: 29
Credit: 4,047
RAC: 0
Message 165 - Posted: 29 Jan 2008, 22:52:22 UTC

Yes, Linux has more trouble, at least on my Fedora 5 64-bit machine it does. Of about 12 tasks I downloaded on my Linux box, only 1 actually started (the one where I noted CPU time was at 49% for ACTR and sbcl), most others seemed to not even start running (top had no entry for either ACTR or sbcl and task progress in BOINC manager regiostered only \"--\", IIRC, never even got to 0%) so I aborted them. I think KSMarksPsych noted similar observations on Fedora 8 (64-bit too?) in another thread.

Back to Windows... I upgraded BOINC to 5.10.30 to see if that makes any difference but now I see the download server is disabled, perhaps pending recompile of the binaries. No problem, will try again later.

Profile Jack.Harris
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Apr 07
Posts: 507
Credit: 761,261
RAC: 0
Message 166 - Posted: 29 Jan 2008, 23:10:40 UTC - in response to Message 158.

That modification affects only Unix, Windows still is unchanged - at least since 4.11 (the oldest one I have)

::Sleep((int)(1000*seconds));

It\'s still worth a try, as the Linux version has more trouble than the Windows version.


2.64 Linux versions are now available
I recompiled with the new api and made a few other mods.

--Jack

=Lupus=
Send message
Joined: 26 Jan 08
Posts: 8
Credit: 44,396
RAC: 0
Message 167 - Posted: 29 Jan 2008, 23:24:51 UTC

Regarding XP(32)SP2: even on CC5.10.39 it is 50/50 between ACTR_2.61 and sbcl while sweet watchdoggie sits in his corner watching (as it should do)

Profile KSMarksPsych
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Jan 08
Posts: 16
Credit: 12,520
RAC: 0
Message 175 - Posted: 30 Jan 2008, 11:26:47 UTC - in response to Message 165.

...I think KSMarksPsych noted similar observations on Fedora 8 (64-bit too?) in another thread.




Fedora 7/KDE/32 bit for me :-)
____________
Kathryn :o)
The BOINC FAQ Service
The Unofficial BOINC Wiki
The Trac System
More BOINC information than you can shake a stick of RAM at.

Profile Jack.Harris
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Apr 07
Posts: 507
Credit: 761,261
RAC: 0
Message 176 - Posted: 30 Jan 2008, 14:36:18 UTC - in response to Message 175.
Last modified: 30 Jan 2008, 14:39:05 UTC

...I think KSMarksPsych noted similar observations on Fedora 8 (64-bit too?) in another thread.




Fedora 7/KDE/32 bit for me :-)

What application version?
I was hoping this would be fixed for Linux with 2.64

--Jack

Dagorath
Send message
Joined: 29 Jan 08
Posts: 29
Credit: 4,047
RAC: 0
Message 177 - Posted: 30 Jan 2008, 17:25:21 UTC - in response to Message 176.
Last modified: 30 Jan 2008, 17:27:16 UTC

...I think KSMarksPsych noted similar observations on Fedora 8 (64-bit too?) in another thread.




Fedora 7/KDE/32 bit for me :-)

What application version?



Her logs show it was 2.63.


I was hoping this would be fixed for Linux with 2.64

--Jack


And so do I but it won\'t let me dl anymore tasks so I can\'t try 2.64. I\'m not sure but I think the server status page started showing the ul/dl server disabled some time before you posted that you were going to recompile. You know anything about that?

I dare say nobody has 2.64 on their machines yet. Do you know where to kick it to make it work again?

Profile Jack.Harris
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Apr 07
Posts: 507
Credit: 761,261
RAC: 0
Message 190 - Posted: 31 Jan 2008, 4:15:06 UTC - in response to Message 177.
Last modified: 1 Feb 2008, 2:58:03 UTC

...I think KSMarksPsych noted similar observations on Fedora 8 (64-bit too?) in another thread.




Fedora 7/KDE/32 bit for me :-)

What application version?



Her logs show it was 2.63.


I was hoping this would be fixed for Linux with 2.64

--Jack


And so do I but it won\'t let me dl anymore tasks so I can\'t try 2.64. I\'m not sure but I think the server status page started showing the ul/dl server disabled some time before you posted that you were going to recompile. You know anything about that?

I dare say nobody has 2.64 on their machines yet. Do you know where to kick it to make it work again?


The ul/dl server status was reporting that it was down incorrectly. I made an update (config.xml) so that it would know where my httpd.pid file exists on my server and now it reports things correctly.
--Jack

suguruhirahara
Send message
Joined: 26 Jan 08
Posts: 8
Credit: 84
RAC: 0
Message 237 - Posted: 1 Feb 2008, 2:01:09 UTC

What is at first sbcl.exe? I searched google for the application, but I\'m not sure yet what actually it is. It seems to belong to a workunit of mindmodelling, but though the wu is stopped crunching via boinc manager, it remains running while ACTR is suspended. And due to that sbcl.exe always runs as hard as ACTR the length of time required to crunch is often claimed too shorter, which leads claimed credits, therefore granted credits, to be lower (or half) than they should be.

thanks,
suguruhirahara
____________

Profile Ananas
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 08
Posts: 33
Credit: 100,084
RAC: 0
Message 242 - Posted: 1 Feb 2008, 5:21:06 UTC
Last modified: 1 Feb 2008, 5:23:11 UTC

http://sourceforge.net/projects/sbcl/

MindModeling uses it to process the Lisp programs.

Profile Jack.Harris
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Apr 07
Posts: 507
Credit: 761,261
RAC: 0
Message 281 - Posted: 2 Feb 2008, 3:16:36 UTC
Last modified: 2 Feb 2008, 3:16:46 UTC

Linux version 2.66 has fixed this issue
SBCL should take most of the CPU and credits should reflect more accurately the science done

Windows and Mac Applications will be recompiled Wednesday to fix this
____________
MindModeling@Home is fun

suguruhirahara
Send message
Joined: 26 Jan 08
Posts: 8
Credit: 84
RAC: 0
Message 288 - Posted: 2 Feb 2008, 23:32:45 UTC - in response to Message 281.

Linux version 2.66 has fixed this issue
SBCL should take most of the CPU and credits should reflect more accurately the science done

Windows and Mac Applications will be recompiled Wednesday to fix this

okay, thanks.
and welcome back to the forum...

suguruhirahara
____________

Profile Ananas
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 08
Posts: 33
Credit: 100,084
RAC: 0
Message 311 - Posted: 7 Feb 2008, 1:03:58 UTC
Last modified: 7 Feb 2008, 1:11:42 UTC

I found something in the BOINC API sources, file is boinc_api.h :

int all_threads_cpu_time; // count the CPU time of all threads // (for apps that have multiple worker threads)


which is initialized to 0 later.

If you could set that flag to 1 after the initialisation, maybe ...


p.s.: It seems to affect only the windows application, I guess Linux reports the process group time anyway (but that\'s only a guess!)

Profile Jack.Harris
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Apr 07
Posts: 507
Credit: 761,261
RAC: 0
Message 323 - Posted: 8 Feb 2008, 23:14:24 UTC - in response to Message 311.

I found something in the BOINC API sources, file is boinc_api.h :

int all_threads_cpu_time; // count the CPU time of all threads // (for apps that have multiple worker threads)


which is initialized to 0 later.

If you could set that flag to 1 after the initialisation, maybe ...


p.s.: It seems to affect only the windows application, I guess Linux reports the process group time anyway (but that\'s only a guess!)


Windows version 2.61 should be the only version with 2 tasks splitting processing
Linux 2.66 and Mac 2.68 have this issue fixed
--Jack

Profile Inais
Send message
Joined: 10 Feb 08
Posts: 1
Credit: 6,777
RAC: 0
Message 347 - Posted: 11 Feb 2008, 19:47:56 UTC

Something went strange with
Task ID 582197
Name PRP_Test4-2-0.20_2.22_2.71_0.004_1202233706_0
Workunit 115241

This WU runs beside an other BOINC project on my single processor LapTop. Stocked by 94.xxx% - show zero processor time and a in status \"waiting to run.

I aborted this WU.


____________

=Lupus=
Send message
Joined: 26 Jan 08
Posts: 8
Credit: 44,396
RAC: 0
Message 399 - Posted: 26 Feb 2008, 23:23:21 UTC

Any news about when we\'ll get the next win-app? I really don\'t like wasting computing power on the ACTR-wrapper...

Profile Jack.Harris
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Apr 07
Posts: 507
Credit: 761,261
RAC: 0
Message 403 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 20:49:25 UTC - in response to Message 399.

Any news about when we\'ll get the next win-app? I really don\'t like wasting computing power on the ACTR-wrapper...


I have a new one ready to go.
We are waiting on 2 things
- Unfortunatly there is a bug in the new boinc-api that is causing win32 box with older OSs than XP not to work -- I filtered this info up today and it is being fixed now
- I have to release a new Mac and Linux at the same time because things change under the sheets a bit in the new version

I would bet on ver 3.00 the middle of next week

--Jack

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : RESOLVED - 2 tasks both consume CPU time


Main page · Your account · Message boards


Copyright © 2020 MindModeling.org