It doesn't help immediately, but it will help reduce the length of the
problem.

jm7

[email protected] wrote on 07/14/2009 12:24:19 PM:

> "Lynn W. Taylor" <[email protected]>
> Sent by: [email protected]
>
> 07/14/2009 12:24 PM
>
> To
>
> [email protected], BOINC dev <[email protected]>
>
> cc
>
> Subject
>
> Re: [boinc_dev] Optimizing uploads.....
>
> Slowing work assignment is going to help, but if we're talking about too
> many simultaneous downloads, it's already too late: the downloads are
> already assigned.
>
> If we're talking about too many uploads, those were assigned possibly
> days ago -- slowing work assignment today will take a while to show a
> result.
>
> At the same time, just battering away at the servers will also show some
> success, and as uploads or downloads complete, by itself that'll lower
> the load.
>
> To be effective, you want something that can produce a result fast.  We
> may not be able to get that, but should be able to get a result in an
hour.
>
> -- Lynn
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Unfortunately, the upload server cannot know anything about the host
that
> > is sending the file up as that would require database access per
upload.
> > The upload server could possibly inform the rest of the server system
about
> > failed uploads due to overloads.  This could be used to limit task
creation
> > and delay deadline enforcement.
> >
> > jm7
> >
> >
> >

> >              "Josef W. Segur"

> >              <jse...@westelcom

> >              .com>
To
> >              Sent by:                  [email protected]

> >              boinc_dev-bounces
cc
> >              @ssl.berkeley.edu         "Lynn W. Taylor"
<[email protected]>
> >
Subject
> >                                        Re: [boinc_dev] Optimizing

> >              07/14/2009 10:28          uploads.....

> >              AM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You're correct that skipped opportunities to try uploads do not count
as
> > "failed", they simply don't count at all. Typical hosts with continuous
> > connection try again every two hours on average because the actual
backoffs
> > are randomized, so get 12 retries a day until the upload problem is
> > cleared. Hosts with only one hour a day connectivity will retry at the
> > beginning of that one hour and have a 25% chance of another retry in
that
> > one hour.
> >
> > With failed uploads disabling downloads, it seems to me that hosts with
> > limited connect times due to IT department restrictions ought to be
> > given the best possible chance of getting new tasks when they are
allowed
> > to connect.
> > --
> >                                                       Joe
> >
> >
> > On 13 Jul 2009 at 21:38, Lynn wrote:
> >
> >> I'm actually limiting connectivity to 1 hour out of 24.
> >>
> >> With the current backoff algorithm, the timer runs out at four hours,
> >> the state goes to "suspended" and the moment the appointed hour rolls
> >> around the uploads start, two by two.
> >>
> >> If those first two succeed, then the rest would continue, with two
> >> connections at all times -- no matter how many you had.
> >>
> >> I don't think attempts while suspended would count as "failed."
> >>
> >> -- Lynn
> >>
> >> Josef W. Segur wrote:
> >>
> >>> My suggestion is to reduce the retry count for each retry attempt
> > skipped
> >>> because a host has network activity turned off. A rough approximation
> > of
> >>> that could be done by saving the time a host disables network
activity,
> >>> get the interval when it is reenabled, divide that by half the
maximum
> >>> backoff and subtract the integer portion of the result from the retry
> >>> count (with a floor of 0 retries, of course). A host with network
> > activity
> >>> disabled for 23 hours out of each 24 would automatically be back at
> > minimal
> >>> retry count and therefore at minimal backoff at the beginning of each
> >>> active period, but a short period of manually disabling network
> > activity
> >>> would have no effect.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > boinc_dev mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
> > To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
> > (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> boinc_dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
> To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
> (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
>

_______________________________________________
boinc_dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
(near bottom of page) enter your email address.

Reply via email to