Yes as long as they get "their results".... of course if the 3000 WU's were spread 2 per system across the available Windows systems the researchers would get their 3000 WU's back faster than waiting on fewer systems with huge queued stacks of WU's waiting on long due dates.

IMHO

Bill F

Yes as long as they get "their results".... of course if the 3000 WU's were spread 2 per system across the available Windows systems the researchers would get their 3000 WU's back faster than waiting on fewer systems with huge queued stacks of WU's waiting on long due dates.

IMHO

Bill F

I do not agree with this statement " huge queued stacks of WU's waiting on long due dates". Long due dates besides the point, how many cores a machine has is also not much of a deciding point. Store at least ___days work is set at ten and store additional work is also set at ten days of work maximum. So, how many WU's a machine gets is still a self-limiting factor. I have a twelve thread machine which gets twenty-four WU's max. They report back pretty much at the expected time, within one month.

So, where exactly are these ' huge queued stacks of WU's waiting on long due dates" sitting and sitting they are somewhere. In the old day's we used to squirrel away WU's on floppies or alternative media. Is this still going on?
Then there are crashed hard drives which take WU's with them to the grave but they still get reported.

Yes as long as they get "their results".... of course if the 3000 WU's were spread 2 per system across the available Windows systems the researchers would get their 3000 WU's back faster than waiting on fewer systems with huge queued stacks of WU's waiting on long due dates.

IMHO

Bill F

I do not agree with this statement " huge queued stacks of WU's waiting on long due dates". Long due dates besides the point, how many cores a machine has is also not much of a deciding point. Store at least ___days work is set at ten and store additional work is also set at ten days of work maximum. So, how many WU's a machine gets is still a self-limiting factor. I have a twelve thread machine which gets twenty-four WU's max. They report back pretty much at the expected time, within one month.

So, where exactly are these ' huge queued stacks of WU's waiting on long due dates" sitting and sitting they are somewhere. In the old day's we used to squirrel away WU's on floppies or alternative media. Is this still going on?
Then there are crashed hard drives which take WU's with them to the grave but they still get reported.

So you have 12 WUs your working on and 12 queued and the results will be back in a month. How much better if you have 12 WUs and someone else has 12 WUs and the results get back in a fortnight.

The queued stacks of WUs tend to be systems where they have, say, 12 cores, download 24 WUs but then only allow 2 WUs to run concurrently alongside their other projects.

So, where exactly are these ' huge queued stacks of WU's waiting on long due dates" sitting and sitting they are somewhere. In the old day's we used to squirrel away WU's on floppies or alternative media. Is this still going on?

I assume that they are being done on laptops, which is the wrong place to do them I believe.

Better a reasonable time limit of 60 days (or 30 is OK with me).

Really don't understand the concern about "no posting" with a low RAC.
I'm a Mac user and the last job I was able to work on was in March, 2019. My RAC is 0.00 and yet I am still able to post...

Good that this has been taken care of. Boinc servers have had as a default rule to not allow to post in forums unless you have RAC > 1. That was to prevent junk posts from users who are not interested to do their bit for the project.

I STRONGLY DISAGREE! I have been running CPDN (almost exclusively) for more than 10 years, since the days of the BBC experiment. I have over 20,000,000 credits. All of this work has been run exclusively on laptops.

I STRONGLY DISAGREE! I have been running CPDN (almost exclusively) for more than 10 years, since the days of the BBC experiment. I have over 20,000,000 credits. All of this work has been run exclusively on laptops.

The time limit is the point, and also the error rate. If you can get past those, you can do them however you want insofar as I am concerned.
But on Windows, most of the errors I see are for too many suspends. I don't think that is from the desktops.

As far as storing work for later goes, I don't bother with it. I have always believed that a fast turn around is more important to science than a slow, steady trickle of results no matter what projects you are crunching for. No matter what is being modeled faster returns will mean a faster evolution of the models. Getting better models designed means getting real world applications faster.

I STRONGLY DISAGREE! I have been running CPDN (almost exclusively) for more than 10 years, since the days of the BBC experiment. I have over 20,000,000 credits. All of this work has been run exclusively on laptops.

The time limit is the point, and also the error rate. If you can get past those, you can do them however you want insofar as I am concerned.
But on Windows, most of the errors I see are for too many suspends. I don't think that is from the desktops.

Two machines is hardly statistically significant but I have one desktop and one laptop, however I see no difference in the error rates between the two.

No. No talk or testing about anything.

Yes as long as they get "their results".... of course if the 3000 WU's were spread 2 per system across the available Windows systems the researchers would get their 3000 WU's back faster than waiting on fewer systems with huge queued stacks of WU's waiting on long due dates.

IMHO

Bill F

I do not agree with this statement " huge queued stacks of WU's waiting on long due dates". Long due dates besides the point, how many cores a machine has is also not much of a deciding point. Store at least ___days work is set at ten and store additional work is also set at ten days of work maximum. So, how many WU's a machine gets is still a self-limiting factor. I have a twelve thread machine which gets twenty-four WU's max. They report back pretty much at the expected time, within one month.

So, where exactly are these ' huge queued stacks of WU's waiting on long due dates" sitting and sitting they are somewhere. In the old day's we used to squirrel away WU's on floppies or alternative media. Is this still going on?
Then there are crashed hard drives which take WU's with them to the grave but they still get reported.

So you have 12 WUs your working on and 12 queued and the results will be back in a month. How much better if you have 12 WUs and someone else has 12 WUs and the results get back in a fortnight.

I had nothing to do with how many WU"s I have and neither can I put a stop to how much I get. Fight with the server.

The queued stacks of WUs tend to be systems where they have, say, 12 cores, download 24 WUs but then only allow 2 WUs to run concurrently alongside their other projects.