Boinc.Italy is proud to announce second edition of World Gene Expansion Challenge
Start: 8th March 2021 12:00 UTC
End : 15th March 2021 12:00 UTC
Boincstats: https://www.boincstats.com/stats/challenge/team/chat/1089
Here our Ranking http://boincrankings.eu5.org/wgec21/classifica.php?id=1000
Special thanks to our teammate Luigi.R who made them
Let's crunch togheter :)
Reply
Quote
If you can't join this challenge on BOINCstats, let me know here (or by private message) and I will add your team on BOINC Rankings.
P.S. you have to be founder to make a request.
Reply
Quote
...
Reply
Quote
Just for reference, during last year challenge we've crunched a total of 16.2 Millions creditis
Let's crush it :)
Reply
Quote
20 teams joined the battle
Are you readi? Just over two days at the start
Reply
Quote
Here our Ranking http://boincrankings.eu5.org/wgec21/classifica.php?id=1000
Hello BOINC.Italy, thanks for invitation !
2 days ago i already saw a ranking there, but now i see only "Team rankings
Waiting for stats generation...".
Was this only a testrun, and now it waits until the race starts ?
I've read here about 20 teams, on BoincStats are only 18 teams, "In Science We Trust" and "Wolrdwide Techservices" are not listed there.
Which one is the "official" ranking for the challenge ?
Reply
Quote
Hello BOINC.Italy, thanks for invitation !
Hi Frank, welcome on board!
2 days ago i already saw a ranking there, but now i see only "Team rankings
Waiting for stats generation...".
Was this only a testrun, and now it waits until the race starts ?
Yeah, it was. Technically it's ready to start.
There will be another one or two just to be 100% sure that teams are correctly set up.
Don't worry about it, challenge will officially start on the date of BOINCstats (2021-03-08 12:00:00 UTC).
I've read here about 20 teams, on BoincStats are only 18 teams, "In Science We Trust" and "Wolrdwide Techservices" are not listed there.
Which one is the "official" ranking for the challenge ?
In Science We Trust and Worldwide TechServices asked me to join on BOINC Rankings.
Hopefully we will try to merge them and there will be no problems if team gaps are large enough. Anyway one year ago team points were pretty identical apart from roundoff errors (BS vs BR).
Another issue is that BOINC Rankings does not allow late entrant because it's independent from BOINCstats, so some teams could join the challenge on BOINCstats and not to be present on BOINC Rankings.
Reply
Quote
Hi Luigi,
thank you for the answer.
How often will your ranking update, every 15 minutes like on BoincStats ?
Btw : 24 hours until start... :-)
Reply
Quote
How often will your ranking update, every 15 minutes like on BoincStats ?
I usually do updates hourly.
Reply
Quote
Will there be some WUs ready to be send tomorrow?
At the moment they are like corona vaccine - very rare.
Reply
Quote
Will there be some WUs ready to be send tomorrow?
Just Say No to Bunkering.
They should use the 2 WUs per CPU thread mode and we wouldn't run out.
Reply
Quote
Magiceye04 wrote:
Will there be some WUs ready to be send tomorrow?
Maybe. But only if there are enough people who give up and stop requesting work.
The pace of TN-Grid's work generator is limited.
Aurum wrote:
Just Say No to Bunkering.
They should use the 2 WUs per CPU thread mode and we wouldn't run out.
The limit is 8 tasks in progress per active CPU AFAIK, counting up to 64 CPUs per host.
This is already a low limit.
Bunkering is not the reason for work scarcity.
Reply
Quote
Magiceye04 wrote:Will there be some WUs ready to be send tomorrow?
Maybe. But only if there are enough people who give up and stop requesting work.
The pace of TN-Grid's work generator is limited.
Aurum wrote:Just Say No to Bunkering.
They should use the 2 WUs per CPU thread mode and we wouldn't run out.
The limit is 8 tasks in progress per active CPU AFAIK, counting up to 64 CPUs per host.
This is already a low limit.
Bunkering is not the reason for work scarcity.
I keep a very small cache and all I can say is that since the announcement of this challenge I’ve been getting very few WUs to process and even fewer of the WUs I have processed are moving out of pending - their counterparts must still be in someone’s cache waiting to run.
Reply
Quote
As xii5ku said, the problem here is the peak of high request of wu, and work generator can't keep the pace.
If i remember correctly work generator can create 294wu (x2 copies =588) every 10 miutes.
An example was the peak on Thursday morning: "Running wus" skyrocketed from 28k to 50k in few hours. "Available wus" dropped to around 5k.
When this peak wave passed away, then itslowly recovered to 15k
we are definitely pushing the project to its limit
Pending wus will drop at the at the start of the challenge
Reply
Quote
My buffer is down to 9 work units, a bit low for an i7-8700.
But they have plenty from SiDock in Ljubljana, less than 300 km east of Trento.
https://www.sidock.si/sidock/server_status.php
Buy local.
Reply
Quote
Bunkering is not the reason for work scarcity.
If you say so, but then why have my Validation Pending WUs grown to 6600???
Flood gates open at noon UTC today...
Reply
Quote
Hi
I just talked to the adminin to improve the job availability situation.
For those with jobs that would go beyond the deadline, not already started,it is preferable to abort them BEFORE deadline.
In this way the wu will only be renamed an resend straight away.
For wu expired, wu generator, need to create a new wu
Another thing: he set for the first time, a "grace period" of 8hours after deadline, within which, THEORETICALLY, wus will be considered valid.
NO GUARANTEES ON THIS. IF YOU WANT, TRY AT YOUR HOWN RISK
Personally, i will try with few wu to give a feedback
Thanks
Reply
Quote
xii5ku wrote:
Bunkering is not the reason for work scarcity.
Aurum wrote:
If you say so, but then why have my Validation Pending WUs grown to 6600???
I didn't say that there was no bunkering going on.
I said that the reason for work scarcity is (in other words) that work requests are more frequent than WU generation.
BTW, tasks in progress normally at TN-Grid:
25...35 k during this month, 25...55 k during the past several months,
right before the start of the current challenge: < 80 k,
right now: 53 k
These less than 80 k in progress do not look like a massive bunkering effort to me.
Bunkering would contribute to work scarcity if the bunker builders would issue frequent work requests over a prolonged time, and it would cause work scarcity if the number of tasks in progress would inflate the database so much that the work generator stopped producing.
Buro87 wrote:
For those with jobs that would go beyond the deadline, not already started,it is preferable to abort them BEFORE deadline.
In this way the wu will only be renamed an resend straight away.
For wu expired, wu generator, need to create a new wu
The last part is not correct.
TN-Grid's workunits are configured with
. . . . minimum quorum = 2
. . . . initial replication = 2
. . . . max # of error tasks = 8
. . . . max # of total tasks = 16
. . . . max # of success tasks = 8
which among else means that a workunit fails only if there were 8 tasks ending in an error (which includes timeout, among other error types) or if there were 16 tasks created but still no two correct result reports coming in before the tasks' respective reporting deadline. (This 16 tasks limit can never be reached in practice, and the 8 error tasks limit is extremely unlikely to happen.)
As long as there failed less than 8 tasks, a failed (e.g. timed out) task will merely cause the server to make another task out of the same already existing workunit.
Buro87 wrote:
Another thing: he set for the first time, a "grace period" of 8hours after deadline, within which, THEORETICALLY, wus will be considered valid.
At TN-Grid, there is no difference between the reporting deadline listed at the website (which is what the server should take as deadline) and the reporting deadline listed locally on the hosts (which the clients were told to obey as deadline). However:
When a host "Y" does not report a result at the respective task's reporting deadline, the server replicates another task from the same workunit and assigns this task to another host "Z" at the next opportunity.
If host "Y" then reports a valid result before host "Z" does, host "Y" gets credit for this result despite the passed deadline, and the server notifies host "Z" that his task is no longer needed. This notification will be delivered at the next point in time when host "Z" happens to emit a scheduler request.
If host "Z" receives this notification before it started the now superfluous task, it marks it as 'error/ cancelled by server' and reports it. But if host "Z" already started the task before this notification, it completes the task as if nothing happened, reports the result to the server, and will get credit if the result is valid, even though the corresponding task was not needed anymore for the server to finish the workunit.
(The above assumes that there was already another host "X" reporting a valid result in time, such that either X&Y or X&Z would satisfy the minimum quorum of 2.)
To summarize, there are regular situations in which a result is validated and gets credit even if the reporting deadline was exceeded.
(This is my understanding; somebody correct me if I got something wrong.)
Reply
Quote
xii5ku wrote:
Bunkering is not the reason for work scarcity.
Aurum wrote:
If you say so, but then why have my Validation Pending WUs grown to 6600???
I didn't say that there was no bunkering going on.Yes we all know that TN-GRID could put a faster server to good use.
I said that the reason for work scarcity is that work requests are more frequent than WU generation.
BTW, tasks in progress normally at TN-Grid:I don't bunker but here's what I think happens. First, increase your queue to request as many WUs as you can get. Then run them but don't return them until after the race starts.
25...35 k during this month, 25...55 k during the past several months,
right before the start of the current challenge: < 80 k,
right now: 53 k
These less than 80 k in progress do not look like a massive bunkering effort to me.
Bunkering would contribute to work scarcity if the bunker builders would issue frequent work requests over a prolonged time, and it would cause work scarcity if the number of tasks in progress would inflate the database so much that the work generator stopped producing.
With a slow work generator this makes it likely that all WUs will be depleted.
Since this project has quorum 2 this works in my favor. Since I return all my WUs immediately my bunkering wingmen hold the 2nd Q WU until after the race starts and so push my recent credit into race points.
The Science Status page showed the rate dropped from 55/day to 44/day yesterday and now it's back up to 51/day. Since it's a 10-day average the dip was actually bigger. I'd enjoy seeing a long term graph of the work rate.
Before the race I was running TN-GRID as my only CPU project with Resource = 0. It runs really good that way or as a backup project. That's why I'm confidant that switching the server to supply only 2 WUs per CPU thread would work great and mean that one could only bunker about 8 hours of work instead of several days worth.
The good news is that the work is getting done.
Reply
Quote
valtercProject administrator
Project tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 13
Posts: 623
Credit: 34,677,535
RAC: 1
That's why I'm confidant that switching the server to supply only 2 WUs per CPU thread would work great and mean that one could only bunker about 8 hours of work instead of several days worth.
Theoretically. If you really want to maximize your cache of workunits you could also lie about the number of cores (say that you just have 8 but you can easily tell the server that you have 128) or (although not so easy to implement) you may also start a lot of different clients on the same pc. So, at the end, if you really want, you may bypass any server side limitations.
On the other hand, forcing a small user's cache will create problems to users with intermittent network activity.
Reply
Quote