I have just started my first wu and have noticed it is going to take over 730 hrs to complete, is ths normal?

I have the following :
AMD ~1916 Mhz
506.26 MB

Expect at some time even more. Haven't you read your email?

On a 2.6GHz machine it can take 4 weeks or more to crunch a unit. CPDN isn't about fast results, fast units. If you are here for fast credits (just asking ;)), then you are at the wrong address.
--------------------
Jordâ„¢

You're right. CPDN WU are very long to process. From the e-mail ...

<i> ... which typically takes a month on a fairly good computer (i.e. G5 Mac or P4/2.6GHz PC) running "24/7." ...</i>

This project is a paradise for dial-up users!

&gt; Expect at some time even more. Haven't you read your email?
&gt;
&gt; On a 2.6GHz machine it can take 4 weeks or more to crunch a unit. CPDN isn't
&gt; about fast results, fast units. If you are here for fast credits (just asking
&gt; ;)), then you are at the wrong address.
&gt; --------------------
&gt; Jordâ„¢
&gt;
Sorry about that. I did read my email but must of missed it. I don't mind how long it takes I was just use to seti@home where I could complete up to 8 a day.

~30 days -- that seems on ~ the right part of the Pitch.

It is big model and does a lot of work:
Three Phases of 259248 Time Steps each (15 years each Phase, every 30 minutes of the Model) for 19 levels of atmosphere, on a grid of 96 Longitude by 73 Latitude -- and interaction among the grid cells. Boundary layer (earth surface, including slab ocean -- upwelling, etc, not considered -- yet). Plenty of parameters -- pressure, heat flux, temperature, moisture.... Your machine will be well used, to a good end.

HTH.
________________________________________________
We have met the enemy and he is us -- Pogo

&gt; Expect at some time even more. Haven't you read your email?
&gt;
&gt; On a 2.6GHz machine it can take 4 weeks or more to crunch a unit. CPDN isn't
&gt; about fast results, fast units. If you are here for fast credits (just asking
&gt; ;)), then you are at the wrong address.
&gt; --------------------
&gt; Jordâ„¢

Greetings, Jord,

You are right-on with regard to fast results. But -- is it not true that, when all is done, a massive pile of Cobbles will accrue to those who persevere?

I'm not here chasing rewards but appreciate that some folks are. I think we should encourage them to participate, too, because a month of CPDN crunching should reap big rewards.

And, as belgix noted, this project should reap large rewards for dial-up users -- no need to be connected multi- times per day.

The BIG reward is, IMO, the satisfaction of contributing to the greater good. However, if recognition brings in participants -- I'll drink to that.

(OT I remember reading your posts from boinc/beta/AP. Good to see you here. /OT)
________________________________________________
We have met the enemy and he is us -- Pogo

&gt; You are right-on with regard to fast results. But -- is it not true that,
&gt; when all is done, a massive pile of Cobbles will accrue to those who
&gt; persevere?

I would assume so, after all, credit is granted by the amount of CPU time spent on the WU. A month of processing should amount to a fairly hefty amount of credit.

I don't know if the project will ever appeal to the credit chasers though, because of the long payoff. They generally aren't very patient and want to see results right away.

I haven't actually worked out "credits" yet, I was thinking trickles should be "incremental" (i.e. partial, unverified) credit until the end of a run where it's "validated"?

PS for estimated completion times for a run you can peek at my new cpu-timing page (preliminary, based on 1000 trickles):

<A HREF="http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/cpu.html">CPDN/BOINC Stats/Timings By CPU/OS/etc</A>

&gt; I haven't actually worked out "credits" yet, I was thinking trickles should be
&gt; "incremental" (i.e. partial, unverified) credit until the end of a run where
&gt; it's "validated"?

That sounds like a good concept. The more similar the project can appear to other projects running under the BOINC framework, I think will prove to be good for the project.

&gt; PS for estimated completion times for a run you can peek at my new cpu-timing
&gt; page (preliminary, based on 1000 trickles):

Thanks for the info! It's interesting to look at. Looks like there's still some funky benchmarking going on with this version of the CC.

Summat does not compute about those trickle calcs Carl - You list "Avg_TS_per_sec" &amp; "Est_WU_Comp_Days" and they don't appear to match up. ie. low "Avg_TS_per_sec" doesn't match a low "Est_WU_Comp_Days" in reality does it. :? Mebbe that oughta read "Avg_secs_per_TS" instead....?

The top few look ridiculously fast anyways - like they're running fast processing iceballs..? First reasonable figure when gauged against benchmark figures is the Athlon FX53. Although, do P4s run CP-boinc a lot faster 'cause of using a different compiler..?

Wish I knew how to get rid of "Unknown CPU Type Pentium" :lol: Should be "2.6GHz AMD Athlon XP-M" or something like that. 1.949 s/ts and 17.542 days to completion is about right though... ;-)

&gt; The top few look ridiculously fast anyways - like they're running fast
&gt; processing iceballs..? First reasonable figure when gauged against benchmark
&gt; figures is the Athlon FX53. Although, do P4s run CP-boinc a lot faster 'cause
&gt; of using a different compiler..?
&gt;
May be part of it, but more likely it's the way it's figuring out times when running two models at once on dual or hyperthreaded CPUs. Certainly the time to compute one workunit doesn't quite make sense though, unless one work unit is 45 years total instead of one model run.

&gt; &gt; The top few look ridiculously fast anyways - like they're running fast
&gt; &gt; processing iceballs..? First reasonable figure when gauged against
&gt; benchmark
&gt; &gt; figures is the Athlon FX53. Although, do P4s run CP-boinc a lot faster
&gt; 'cause
&gt; &gt; of using a different compiler..?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; May be part of it, but more likely it's the way it's figuring out times when
&gt; running two models at once on dual or hyperthreaded CPUs. Certainly the time
&gt; to compute one workunit doesn't quite make sense though, unless one work unit
&gt; is 45 years total instead of one model run.

Timings are spot on for my HT P4s (they stand out because I'm running Windows 2000 and there are only three system running 2 models on that combination).


<a href="http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/team_display.php?teamid=3"><img src="http://www.teampicard.net/templates/fisubice/images/phpbb2_logo.jpg"></a>