Thread 'Time remaining wrong'

Author	Message
Martin P. Send message Joined: 5 Feb 05 Posts: 28 Credit: 1,846,059 RAC: 0	Message 19127 - Posted: 10 Jan 2006, 9:22:14 UTC Last modified: 10 Jan 2006, 9:22:42 UTC In all my WUs I receive very weird numbers for the time remaining. Example: model 10vs_100068301_0 shows (client hadsm3 4.12): Time elapsed: 300:19:22 Percentage done: 50,98% Time remaining: 178:14:54 Do the maths! ID: 19127 · Reply Quote

Les Bayliss Volunteer moderator Send message Joined: 5 Sep 04 Posts: 7629 Credit: 24,240,330 RAC: 0	Message 19128 - Posted: 10 Jan 2006, 9:35:12 UTC Wait till you get to the sulphur models. Now they ARE way off. ID: 19128 · Reply Quote

old_user5994 Send message Joined: 31 Aug 04 Posts: 239 Credit: 2,933,299 RAC: 0	Message 19130 - Posted: 10 Jan 2006, 9:44:01 UTC The 5.2.x versions do a slightly better job of estimating. Bill Michel did suggest an even more accurate (perhaps) estimation, but the formula is more complex. Not sure if that is what stopped them from using the suggestion. I also don\'t know if BIll has been collecting the data to see if the formula he suggested is still better or not. For me, what is worse is that the current version of BOINC View uses the older method still ... the next version should be at least showing the value that the BOINC Daemon is using ... so that will be an advance ... ID: 19130 · Reply Quote

belgix Send message Joined: 5 Aug 04 Posts: 85 Credit: 2,924,043 RAC: 0	Message 19132 - Posted: 10 Jan 2006, 10:35:30 UTC - in response to Message 19128. Wait till you get to the sulphur models. Now they ARE way off. I agree and it should be horrible at the beginning of phase 5 ... ID: 19132 · Reply Quote

Martin P. Send message Joined: 5 Feb 05 Posts: 28 Credit: 1,846,059 RAC: 0	Message 19134 - Posted: 10 Jan 2006, 11:01:29 UTC - in response to Message 19130. Last modified: 10 Jan 2006, 11:02:56 UTC \"The 5.2.x versions do a slightly better job of estimating. Bill Michel did suggest an even more accurate (perhaps) estimation, but the formula is more complex. Not sure if that is what stopped them from using the suggestion. I also don\'t know if BIll has been collecting the data to see if the formula he suggested is still better or not. For me, what is worse is that the current version of BOINC View uses the older method still ... the next version should be at least showing the value that the BOINC Daemon is using ... so that will be an advance ...\" Paul, I do use BOINC Manager 5.2.13! The version number I posted above is the science-app\'s version. ID: 19134 · Reply Quote

Les Bayliss Volunteer moderator Send message Joined: 5 Sep 04 Posts: 7629 Credit: 24,240,330 RAC: 0	Message 19136 - Posted: 10 Jan 2006, 11:34:02 UTC The new version is better at estimating, but it takes time for it to learn. Possibly several models. Which is OK with the other projects, but a bit of a bore with cpdn. ID: 19136 · Reply Quote

Honza Volunteer moderator Send message Joined: 5 Aug 04 Posts: 390 Credit: 2,475,242 RAC: 0	Message 19140 - Posted: 10 Jan 2006, 13:43:42 UTC - in response to Message 19136. The new version is better at estimating, but it takes time for it to learn. Possibly several models. Which is OK with the other projects, but a bit of a bore with cpdn. Yes, I\'m using 5.3.6 from trux and running on a Pentium D CPDN exclusive - time estimates are settled down are conrespondents with command sense/math. <i>phpBB forum for CPDN, all are </i><a href="http://www.climateprediction.net/board">invited</a> ID: 19140 · Reply Quote