|
1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Possible faulty unit
(Message 1759)
Posted 22 Jan 2024 by Aionel Post: Recently I got a task related to this work unit. It's already running here without any interruptions for more than 53 hours and it will be past deadline soon. What is interesting here is the history of this work unit: first it was running for about 21 hours and somebody aborted it, next when it was assigned again it was never returned (possibly not finished before deadline) and finally I got it and it doesn't want to end within reasonable time. What is even more odd that it behaves differently than other Yafu tasks. This is "8t" group task, so when running it should spawn 8 child processes (each of them assigned to different CPU core), next all of them should quit one after another, then another 8 processes will be launched etc. But here I can see there is only one child process running which is using 100 % of one CPU core and that's all. Here is the task visible in BoincTasks, while here is the wrapper and only child process (with command line showing as a hint) visible in Process Explorer. Also here are contents of factor.log (after running for so much time I would expect a lot more of "commencing lattice sieving" lines): 01/20/24 01:03:05 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, 01/20/24 01:03:05 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, **************************** 01/20/24 01:03:05 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, Starting factorization of 1903288528731676902750455535196312759858138201174732473776222460746990038786332614029501321612092971695626431723138798538440766038093 01/20/24 01:03:05 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, using pretesting plan: normal 01/20/24 01:03:05 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, no tune info: using qs/gnfs crossover of 95 digits 01/20/24 01:03:05 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, **************************** 01/20/24 01:03:05 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, rho: x^2 + 3, starting 1000 iterations on C133 01/20/24 01:03:05 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, rho: x^2 + 2, starting 1000 iterations on C133 01/20/24 01:03:05 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, rho: x^2 + 1, starting 1000 iterations on C133 01/20/24 01:03:05 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, pm1: starting B1 = 150K, B2 = gmp-ecm default on C133 01/20/24 01:03:05 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, current ECM pretesting depth: 0.00 01/20/24 01:03:05 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, scheduled 30 curves at B1=2000 toward target pretesting depth of 40.92 01/20/24 01:03:05 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, Finished 30 curves using Lenstra ECM method on C133 input, B1=2K, B2=gmp-ecm default 01/20/24 01:03:05 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, current ECM pretesting depth: 15.18 01/20/24 01:03:05 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, scheduled 74 curves at B1=11000 toward target pretesting depth of 40.92 01/20/24 01:03:08 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, Finished 74 curves using Lenstra ECM method on C133 input, B1=11K, B2=gmp-ecm default 01/20/24 01:03:08 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, current ECM pretesting depth: 20.24 01/20/24 01:03:08 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, scheduled 214 curves at B1=50000 toward target pretesting depth of 40.92 01/20/24 01:03:14 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, Finished 216 curves using Lenstra ECM method on C133 input, B1=50K, B2=gmp-ecm default 01/20/24 01:03:14 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, pm1: starting B1 = 3750K, B2 = gmp-ecm default on C133 01/20/24 01:03:15 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, current ECM pretesting depth: 25.34 01/20/24 01:03:15 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, scheduled 430 curves at B1=250000 toward target pretesting depth of 40.92 01/20/24 01:04:06 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, Finished 432 curves using Lenstra ECM method on C133 input, B1=250K, B2=gmp-ecm default 01/20/24 01:04:06 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, pm1: starting B1 = 15M, B2 = gmp-ecm default on C133 01/20/24 01:04:10 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, current ECM pretesting depth: 30.46 01/20/24 01:04:10 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, scheduled 904 curves at B1=1000000 toward target pretesting depth of 40.92 01/20/24 01:11:01 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, Finished 904 curves using Lenstra ECM method on C133 input, B1=1M, B2=gmp-ecm default 01/20/24 01:11:01 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, current ECM pretesting depth: 35.56 01/20/24 01:11:01 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, scheduled 2350 curves at B1=3000000 toward target pretesting depth of 40.92 01/20/24 01:59:08 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, Finished 2352 curves using Lenstra ECM method on C133 input, B1=3M, B2=gmp-ecm default 01/20/24 01:59:08 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, current ECM pretesting depth: 40.63 01/20/24 01:59:08 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, scheduled 264 curves at B1=11000000 toward target pretesting depth of 40.92 01/20/24 02:17:24 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, Finished 264 curves using Lenstra ECM method on C133 input, B1=11M, B2=gmp-ecm default 01/20/24 02:17:24 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, final ECM pretested depth: 40.92 01/20/24 02:17:24 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, scheduler: switching to sieve method 01/20/24 02:17:24 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, nfs: commencing nfs on c133: 1903288528731676902750455535196312759858138201174732473776222460746990038786332614029501321612092971695626431723138798538440766038093 01/20/24 02:17:24 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, nfs: commencing poly selection with 8 threads 01/20/24 02:17:24 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, nfs: setting deadline of 10350 seconds 01/20/24 05:18:17 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, nfs: completed 29 ranges of size 250 in 10852.8990 seconds 01/20/24 05:18:17 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, nfs: best poly = # norm 1.177313e-012 alpha -5.984018 e 6.057e-011 rroots 5 01/20/24 05:18:17 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 8 threads 01/20/24 05:43:33 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 8 threads 01/20/24 06:13:53 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 8 threads 01/20/24 06:43:50 v1.34.5 @ AIONEL_CRUNCHER, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 8 threads |
|
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
How are the credits awarded?
(Message 1733)
Posted 11 Aug 2023 by Aionel Post: I was wondering what is the amount of credits awarded per completed task based on? It should be probably related to how complex was each task, which in turn is proportional to how long the computations took (assuming the same number of CPU cores were in use in each task), but that doesn't seem to be a case here. Check out those two tasks while they are still present in statistics: - task 8544325, took 128486 seconds (almost 35,5 hours), awarded 3233 credits, - task 8543654, took 5570 seconds (only about 1,5 hours), awarded 5379 credits. Plus both were using 8 cores of the CPU, all of them loaded near 100 % (yet there tend to run up to 8 programs that complete work at different speed, so for some time there are less and less cores used, until the last program quits and all of them are restarted again with different parameters), so the CPU time used should be about 8 times larger than the runtime. Even if the CPU time reported in both cases is equal to the runtime, this doesn't explain why a task which needed about 25 times more calculations to complete awarded less credits than the other task. |
