Posts by robert.mouris

1) Message boards : Number crunching : HADCM3N Tasks not showing on tasks list (Message 43466) Posted 22 Nov 2011 by robert.mouris Post: I have 2 such tasks. They were downloaded very soon after the project resumed operation on 15 November. They do not show up on the website, but they trickle normally and generate credits. One of these tasks was downloaded to a PC with a new ID and this PC currently has a RAC of 52.30 and a TC of 1555. The other one went to an old PC with lots of credits and I am unable to know exactly where they come from. I assume that everything is all right, although not (yet) visible. On 19 November I downloaded a third task, which shows up normally. EDIT: I see the average and total credit only when I display the list of my computers. When I look at the detailed information of my newly reassigned PC, both numbers are 0.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Intel P4 1.70GHz 4,576 results ??? (Message 30243) Posted 28 Aug 2007 by robert.mouris Post: You might check pmurphy\'s computer. Until the beginning of February 2007, all its models crashed immediately, and since then it just downloads new ones. And also jimipiere\'s computer, that worked successfully until November 2006. Since then it has a problem. And also clarksn\'s computer with 524 WUs.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : is this WU worth crunching? (Message 29625) Posted 19 Jul 2007 by robert.mouris Post: I understand that we can disregard these Boinc messages, as they aren\'t suited to CPDN (the deadline is another example). We just ignore the Boinc restrictions. However, one thing concerns me: The new WUs are sent out 10 times (e.g. this one), even if only 1 finished result is needed (probably because the project knows from experience that 10 must be sent out so that 1 is crunched until the end). But as soon as 2 results are in error (such as here, CPDN stops sending out new WUs. I\'m afraid I don\'t understand the logic. If 10 crunchers are needed, OK. But if 2 fail before all the WUs are sent out, then only 5 crunchers are needed.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : New model versions released (Message 27879) Posted 13 Apr 2007 by robert.mouris Post: I don\'t think that\'s you. Anyway, the important thing is just to look after one\'s current model and back up the contents of the boinc folder regularly, as this is the surest way to complete the 160 years. No, it\'s not me, I just came across this one while reading the discussion forum. My question was just if it would be sensible if I downloaded already now new WUs in anticipation. I have understood that I should not download anything at all before having finished each WU that is running on my computers.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : New model versions released (Message 27869) Posted 13 Apr 2007 by robert.mouris Post: Thank you for your quick answer, mo.v! Of course, if a WU is only reissued after a former result fails or is dead, then it\'s perfectly OK. It has always been that way. So I understand that this is one of those control runs. It was this one that caused me trouble, especially as the third result that was sent out finished/failed, and immediately led to the creation of 6455180. I will, as always, let my current WUs finish and then download 1 new WU. Robert
6) Message boards : Number crunching : New model versions released (Message 27867) Posted 13 Apr 2007 by robert.mouris Post: I\'ve had a scan through around 30 or so WUs, and I\'ve only found one with more than one issued result. But in this example, there was a download error. I also note that it created a new result rather than using one of the 3 available ones. http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/workunit.php?wuid=6022927 -- Edit: Another 50 WUs later, and here\'s a second example. But this time there hasn\'t been a crashed model. http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/workunit.php?wuid=6022888 When I read about the initial replication of 4, my first thought was to download already now 1 or 2 WUs on each PC, even if I\'m still busy crunching a climate model on each of them (progression between 22 and 86%). As I have no other project, these will all be finished in a few weeks. By then I could watch which fellow crunchers had a crash and run the WUs where other people had most problems. This sounds a bit selfish as it can\'t work if everyone behaves like that, but I thought that I could minimize the waste with multiple processing. But now I see that a failed WU triggers immediately a replacement WU, and this will go on until the first result for the WU is sent in and the quorum = 1 is met, thus marking the unsent replacement WUs as \"didn\'t need\". I\'m not sure if I like this. Crunching for thousands of hours, and then be told that my WU goes to the trash bin, just because someone else was faster than me? Or, on the other hand, I would be the first one and make the other results worthless? Isn\'t there a way of not creating immediately replacement WUs, issuing only 1 result for each WU, and when they are all issued, then creating replacement WUs only for those which had crashed? Even if only 1 in 4 results is returned, this is just an average, not uniformly distributed, and I don\'t want to be in a team of 4 successful crunchers. This is too much waste.