I checked in a fix (at least, I tested it and it seemed to work). -- David
On 25-Jan-2013 5:32 PM, Daniel Carrion wrote: > Just wondering if any of the boinc devs have considered this issue any > further? We usually use the latest wrapper at boinc/sample as it seems to > be receiving new features, however, if this CPU time calc problem isn't > going to be considered as a real issue/bug we may have to fork... > > Can someone from BOINC dev team indicate either way so I know what path to > go down with this? > > To summarise the issue again: CPU time is calculated incorrectly as wrapper > checkpoints and moves onto next tasks. It affects UNIX machines, i.e. > Linux, Darwin, Android, etc... Debug output showing incorrect > checkpoint_cpu_time calculation as tasks switch. > > ========================================================================================= > $tail -f stderr.txt > wrapper: starting > 17:52:25 (9875): wrapper: running fit_sed (1 filters.dat observations.dat) > checkpoint_cpu_time = starting_cpu (0.000000) + final_cpu_time (447.131944) > 17:59:53 (9875): wrapper: running fit_sed (2 filters.dat observations.dat) > checkpoint_cpu_time = starting_cpu (447.131944) + final_cpu_time > (897.368082) > 18:07:25 (9875): wrapper: running fit_sed (3 filters.dat observations.dat) > checkpoint_cpu_time = starting_cpu (1344.500026) + final_cpu_time > (1350.548404) > 18:14:59 (9875): wrapper: running fit_sed (4 filters.dat observations.dat) > ========================================================================================== > > --- Daniel > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Daniel Carrion <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On my Linux machine: >> >> Cloned the main git repo. Compiled BOINC followed by sample wrapper. >> Copied wrapper over to project dir in place of existing/old wrapper - >> Fairly significant size difference. I'm guessing it's that zipping >> functionality. >> >> Unfortunately...Same problem seems to be happening. I.e.: >> >> ---------------------- >> >> >> daniel@snm-boi01:/var/lib/boinc/slots/0# tail -f wrapper_checkpoint.txt >> 2>/dev/null >> 1 448.900054 >> 2 1351.808482 <-- should be 904 >> 3 2710.013364 >> daniel@snm-boi01:/var/lib/boinc/slots/0# cat stderr.txt >> wrapper: starting >> 17:31:17 (30673): wrapper: running >> ../../projects/ec2-23-23-126-96.compute-1.amazonaws.com_pogs/fit_sed (1 >> filters.dat observations.dat) >> 17:38:52 (30673): wrapper: running >> ../../projects/ec2-23-23-126-96.compute-1.amazonaws.com_pogs/fit_sed (2 >> filters.dat observations.dat) >> 17:46:27 (30673): wrapper: running >> ../../projects/ec2-23-23-126-96.compute-1.amazonaws.com_pogs/fit_sed (3 >> filters.dat observations.dat) >> 17:54:04 (30673): wrapper: running >> ../../projects/ec2-23-23-126-96.compute-1.amazonaws.com_pogs/fit_sed (4 >> filters.dat observations.dat) >> >> ------------------------ >> >> Notice the checkpoint times are way off the mark. E.g. 17:54:04 - 17:31:17 >> != 2710 seconds. They're adding CPU time incorrectly as sub-tasks are >> finishing, check-pointing and moving onto next. >> >> I don't have immediate access to Windows build environment for BOINC, so I >> can't test if that "0 second" report time problem is still occurring with >> the latest wrapper. However, I'm more concerned about that incorrect CPU >> checkpoint time at the moment. >> >> I just want to re-emphasise that this issue does not occur with >> server_stable branch wrapper release. >> >> Here's some actual live runs to show you the difference between CPU time >> between versions: >> >> Wrong CPU time (most recent version): >> http://ec2-23-23-126-96.compute-1.amazonaws.com/pogs/result.php?resultid=1492571 >> Right CPU time (old version and with fix): >> http://ec2-23-23-126-96.compute-1.amazonaws.com/pogs/result.php?resultid=1487356 >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:07 PM, David Anderson <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> The looks like an old version of wrapper.cpp. >>> Try the one in trunk. >>> -- David >>> >>> On 06-Jan-2013 7:23 PM, Daniel Carrion wrote: >>>> This concerns wrapper.cpp provided under >>> boinc/samples/wrapper/wrapper.cpp. >>>> Seems like we're getting wrong CPU times calculating under Linux, and I >>>> believe same goes for Mac. >>>> >>>> Section of code this concerns (as subtasks finish in main()): >>>> >>>> 804 checkpoint_cpu_time = task.starting_cpu + task.final_cpu_time; >>>> 805 >>>> 806 fprintf(stderr, "checkpoint_cpu_time = starting_cpu (%f) + >>>> final_cpu_time (%f)\n", >>>> 807 task.starting_cpu, task.final_cpu_time); >>>> 808 >>>> 809 write_checkpoint(i+1, checkpoint_cpu_time); >>>> >>>> Note: I added the above fprintf line for debugging. >>>> >>>> We see this in stderr.txt file as subtasks run (and checkpointed as they >>>> finish) >>>> >>>> $tail -f stderr.txt >>>> wrapper: starting >>>> 17:52:25 (9875): wrapper: running fit_sed (1 filters.dat >>> observations.dat) >>>> checkpoint_cpu_time = starting_cpu (0.000000) + final_cpu_time >>> (447.131944) >>>> 17:59:53 (9875): wrapper: running fit_sed (2 filters.dat >>> observations.dat) >>>> checkpoint_cpu_time = starting_cpu (447.131944) + final_cpu_time >>>> (897.368082) >>>> 18:07:25 (9875): wrapper: running fit_sed (3 filters.dat >>> observations.dat) >>>> checkpoint_cpu_time = starting_cpu (1344.500026) + final_cpu_time >>>> (1350.548404) >>>> 18:14:59 (9875): wrapper: running fit_sed (4 filters.dat >>> observations.dat) >>>> >>>> See how the final_cpu_time is causing the checkpoint_cpu_time to be >>>> incorrect and therefore the starting_cpu_time in the next task since it >>>> uses this value. If I change the checkpoint_cpu_time to be >>> final_cpu_time >>>> only, the problem goes away. >>>> >>>> Something else that we noticed is that the CPU time reported on Windows >>>> machines is nearly always 0.0 seconds. Not sure if this is related as I >>>> haven't looked into it further. >>>> >>>> One more thing to note, I don't see this issue on Linux with the wrapper >>>> provided at server_stable branch on old SVN repo. >>>> >>>> I'm hoping that David A. Picks this up. Tried to keep it as short as >>>> possible - let me know if more details required. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
