Posts by Jim Kleine

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Iceworlds & Slowdowns hadsm3/mh - Closed - Discussion (Message 30848) Posted 6 Oct 2007 by Jim Kleine Post: OK ... aborted. CPU Time: 647:32:42 Progress: 76.067% I have saved a copy of the complete BOINC directory subtree and will keep it for 30 days in case anyone cares to revisit this.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Iceworlds & Slowdowns hadsm3/mh - Closed - Discussion (Message 30835) Posted 6 Oct 2007 by Jim Kleine Post: Before I do abort it, is it worthwhile: a) Waiting for the next trickle (should be within 48 hours). Is there any useful (science) data in a trickle other than progress stats?; or b) Saving any files from the model run that might help analyse/troubleshoot the reason for the slowdown? If yes, which ones? If you need time to consult the developers etc, that\'s fine. I can leave the model running until you have a consensus.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Iceworlds & Slowdowns hadsm3/mh - Closed - Discussion (Message 30829) Posted 6 Oct 2007 by Jim Kleine Post: I seem to have an example of this problem: Result 6817821. I run BOINC as a service, so unfortunately I can\'t provide timestep, temperature display or s/TS from the graphics because I can\'t display them (unless someone can tell me how). Looking at the trickle history, s/TS increased from approx 1.35 to 3.14 between 18 Sep (last \"fast\" trickle) and 01 Oct (last trickle for this result). The processor is an Intel Core 2 6420/not overclocked/2GB RAM. Progress on this model has slowed from 6 trickles per day to 1 trickle per 8 days i.e. by a factor of approx 50. There are no known reliability issues with this host with any BOINC project (it runs CPDN/Einstein/Rosetta; one core dedicated to CPDN). This is a server, so it runs 24x7. Current progress is 75.934%. I believe the slow down started just prior to 75%. Does it serve any useful science purpose to allow this result to finish?