Good day!

Please explain how to fix the problem with the stupid project planner, who on two different video cards in two different hosts sends only the big WU, although the settings chosen both. Also, there is a problem with the fact that now the calculation only included from 23 to 7 hours and even faster machine does not have time to perform the task on time. This is how you can set up a time to make it work properly and seeing that the host can not do the job machine would send short WU? :(

P.S. currently configured chose WU only small but the scheduler simply does not send.
____________

Look at server status to what type of workunits they have active.
https://www.gpugrid.net/server_status.php

As it is now there are only long wu, but they have now also put in in very long wu. I believe it was almost half year since i saw short work units so don´t expect to get those now when they released new long.

As other do set to run only short in app config and wait. Until they have wu ready you can put that host to another project until that day.

Thank you. Perhaps with my hardware it makes no sense to consider all GPUGRID too much fuss is obtained.
as far as I can determine in here http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=4301#43339 the subject with 660 and 650 cards right to go to other projects.
____________

If the GPU can finish the non GIANNI tasks in the 5 day time period, I think it is worth running GPUGRID still and just keeping an eye on it, if you are inclined to keep an eye on it anyway, and make sure it is running a working ADRIA or a GERRARD.

Also consider all the acceleration methods of completing tasks faster. I think if my mobile NVIDIA K2100M is doing the work in just under 5 days with all the mods on like SWAN_SYNC, running no CPU tasks, setting the config files right to optimize performance and priority, and setting the NVIDIA Control Panel settings to optimize the virtual 3d rendering.
____________
1 Corinthians 9:16 "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!"
Ephesians 6:18-20, please ;-)
http://tbc-pa.org

Thank you. Perhaps with my hardware it makes no sense to consider all GPUGRID too much fuss is obtained.
as far as I can determine in here http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=4301#43339 the subject with 660 and 650 cards right to go to other projects.

Thank you. Perhaps with my hardware it makes no sense to consider all GPUGRID too much fuss is obtained.
as far as I can determine in here http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=4301#43339 the subject with 660 and 650 cards right to go to other projects.

Not necessary. Recently my GTX 660 finished 2 long GIANNI tasks in 2.3 days.
More than enough time to return task before deadline.
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15244862
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15258440

I agree that it would be nice to have additional function, to get only the recommended jobs for your hardware.

Thank you. Perhaps with my hardware it makes no sense to consider all GPUGRID too much fuss is obtained.
as far as I can determine in here http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=4301#43339 the subject with 660 and 650 cards right to go to other projects.

Not necessary. Recently my GTX 660 finished 2 long GIANNI tasks in 2.3 days.
More than enough time to return task before deadline.
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15244862
https://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=15258440

Now if these super long WUs were put in a separate queue where the GTX980/TI users could opt in they'd be done much more reliably and efficiently. Then those with normal GPUs could also more efficiently run the normal long WUs without having to try to avoid the crazy super long ones. Very easy to implement.

Also something to consider is that the "Time estimated to complete" may run much faster than realtime at some points when taking averages of different WUs and learning how fast your system can do WUs. Like sometimes it will tell me after doing several GIANNI WUs that the next GERRARD will take 1 day 6 hours, but the time counts at 2-3 seconds per second and completes in 8-12 hours. Then if it does a bunch of the GIANNIs and ADRIAs in a row and gets a GIANNI, it will say it has 15 hours to go and it takes a day and 6 hours moving at 1 second ever 2-3 or real time. The estimated time is not an exact thing, but an estimation based on the other tasks you have been doing and the expected time of the task.

My laptop, for example, does a GIANNI in 4 days and 20 hours. That is just short of the timeout and they do complete and upload in time and get credit. In actuality, the average credit for the laptop has been up by 15,000 on RAC since doing these (very close to) 5 day WUs. A GERRARD will take it 2 days and 10-15 hours. I do have to wait longer to see a credit jump and it does drop in the meantime, but the avg goes up on the stats pages and such. My point is, currently one has run 1 day and 4 hours. It took maybe 5 minutes at most to download. It will take maybe 10 minutes to upload. It says there is an estimated time to complete at 4 days and 13.5 hours. I know it will complete at 4 days 20 hours or so and the estimated time is running 20 second of realtime per 30 seconds of estimated time.It is 26% done and 1 day 4 hours. So in all actuality, this one may finish at about 4 days 16 hours or less! It is a K2100M, so it in no way is as powerful as many of even the older desktop model cards and speed.

Remember that 5 days is the threshold for a task, not a bonus period of credit. If you can return a task in 5 days including upload, download, actual running, paused periods, etc, then you don't have any problems, you just have a grudge about the credit.

The GIANNI and ADRIA tasks aside, my point is valid. As Zoltan points out, when a new task batch is put out, the first few returned are usually failures, not based on the task, but based on the hosts that get them, fail them, and return them as failed at a much faster and higher rate than the normal host that works can return them. So that does indeed make the % listings on the Performance page misleading to a point and moreso if the task batch is newer. And I suspect that the ADRIA and GIANNI failures have been making the other tasks fail by affecting them inside the BOINC software, inside the OS, or because of a reboot/crash of the system. That perhaps if the GIANNI and ARDIA tasks had not been failing as they do, the GERRARD tasks would have a slightly better success ratio right now.

But I do agree completely that a 5 day run WU has 5 times more potential time to fail than a 1 day (or 22 hour one over a 7 hour one depending on your card ability) and that is a problem that is surely compounded by power issues.

Right now there's better than a 50/50 chance that a WU will fail if a power glitch occurs. A 5 day WU is 5 times more likely for this to happen than a 1 day WU.

In addition look at the normal failure rate of the super long WUs right now. It's almost 50%.

Right now there's better than a 50/50 chance that a WU will fail if a power glitch occurs. A 5 day WU is 5 times more likely for this to happen than a 1 day WU.

This problem happens more likely on hosts with fast GPUs (GTX 970 and above), so the chance of such failure is *not* in direct ratio with the runtime (as longer runtime means slower GPU, thus the OS has time to write the contents of the files needed for restart to the disk). I think the chance of the error is in inverse ratio (non-linear) with the GPU speed.

Yet another thunderstorm last night and only the 2 WUs on the 650Ti cards survived. All 15 of the 750Ti WUs either crashed or restarted from zero.

Yet another thunderstorm last night and only the 2 WUs on the 650Ti cards survived. All 15 of the 750Ti WUs either crashed or restarted from zero.

Have you tried to turn off write caching for your disks?

Windows key + R ->
Devmgmt.msc <ENTER> ->
Disk drives ->
select your BOINC disk (double click) ->
Policies tab ->
Un-check (both) write caching option(s) ->
OK ->
Close device manager

I've now turned off write caching on the BOINC drive on all the machines. Hopefully that will help.

I've now turned off write caching on the BOINC drive on all the machines. Hopefully that will help.

It should help. You're the best test subject to tell if my theory is right. I'm really curious to know.

I've now turned off write caching on the BOINC drive on all the machines. Hopefully that will help.

It should help. You're the best test subject to tell if my theory is right. I'm really curious to know.

Also trying this on the 2 systems I get my errors on. The one with all the errors with the 3 TI Classies and the one at the bad power location. Let's see if the error rate goes down on these.

I've now turned off write caching on the BOINC drive on all the machines. Hopefully that will help.

It should help. You're the best test subject to tell if my theory is right. I'm really curious to know.

You *could* flip the switch on a power strip, as a very similar test case. Just sayin'. Probably not nice to the PC or disks, but, is exactly the same test case I believe.

You *could* flip the switch on a power strip, as a very similar test case. Just sayin'. Probably not nice to the PC or disks, but, is exactly the same test case I believe.

I've now turned off write caching on the BOINC drive on all the machines. Hopefully that will help.

It should help. You're the best test subject to tell if my theory is right. I'm really curious to know.

You *could* flip the switch on a power strip, as a very similar test case. Just sayin'. Probably not nice to the PC or disks, but, is exactly the same test case I believe.

Great idea, and wonderful of you to volunteer! Even better, I'd suggest cycling the main house breaker on and off while the family watches a movie or plays online games!

You *could* flip the switch on a power strip, as a very similar test case. Just sayin'. Probably not nice to the PC or disks, but, is exactly the same test case I believe.

You are right: it's similar (from IT view), but not the same (from electricity view). A surge in the electric power grid caused by lightning can result in much more trouble a couple of miliseconds *before* the emergency power switch (or a fuse) goes off; therefore you can't test it by simply switching the power off. However, if my method doesn't protect the data integrity from a simple dirty shutdown, it won't protect the system from the thunderstorms as well.

Used to have UPSes on all the machines but they're expensive, a pain to maintain and when there was an outage there'd be loud beeping from everywhere. Even the better ones seem to have a rather high failure rate and on those the batteries are expensive. When lightning hit the lightning rod on my house all the Intel based boxes died even though they had UPSes (all the APC sine wave type). As I've mentioned before all the AMD machines survived. Go figure. I switched to high grade surge protectors and haven't had ANY machine failures since. So there's pluses and minuses in my experience. When I was a network manager I had beefy UPSes on all the servers (mostly Novell) and that worked pretty well but mission critical business apps (and my butt) were at stake. ;-)