[boinc_dev] Aborted (by user)?

2011-04-18 Thread Bernd Machenschalk
HI!

I recently learned that newer clients automatically abort tasks that have not 
been started and are already past the deadline. I like this better than 
the previous ... consider aborting it message. However this is something the 
user has no control about. So the text aborted by user at various 
places (at least in the web code) is outdated and somewhat misleading.

Additionally I, as a project manager, would really like to know whether a task 
was aborted by the client because it passed the deadline (which might 
suggest an extension of the deadlines), or whether it was aborted manually for 
other reasons. Is there a way to distinguish these two cases? If not, 
could there be made one e.g. by using a different exit status? The way the web 
code should be updated / fixed would clearly depends on whether these 
cases can be distinguished.

Best,
Bernd

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


Re: [boinc_dev] Aborted (by user)?

2011-04-18 Thread Richard Haselgrove
My apologies - I gave Bernd that impression on the strength of
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/changeset/17399

and lines 1143-1158 of the current (trunk) client_state.cpp

Changeset 17399 contains
#define ERR_UNSTARTED_LATE  -233

which again appears in current code, but appears not to be listed on that 
Wiki page.



 Actually the client doesn't make the decision to abort tasks;
 it's instructed to do so by the scheduler.

 It's possible to discriminate most cases: see
 http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/JobStatus

 -- David

 On 18-Apr-2011 1:29 AM, Bernd Machenschalk wrote:
 HI!

 I recently learned that newer clients automatically abort tasks that have 
 not
 been started and are already past the deadline. I like this better than 
 the
 previous ... consider aborting it message. However this is something 
 the
 user has no control about. So the text aborted by user at various 
 places
 (at least in the web code) is outdated and somewhat misleading.

 Additionally I, as a project manager, would really like to know whether a
 task was aborted by the client because it passed the deadline (which 
 might
 suggest an extension of the deadlines), or whether it was aborted 
 manually
 for other reasons. Is there a way to distinguish these two cases? If not,
 could there be made one e.g. by using a different exit status? The way 
 the
 web code should be updated / fixed would clearly depends on whether these
 cases can be distinguished.

 Best, Bernd

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


Re: [boinc_dev] #GPUs #cores

2011-04-18 Thread David Anderson
Bernd:
Please verify this experimentally; I'm not convinced.
-- David

On 15-Apr-2011 1:12 AM, Bernd Machenschalk wrote:
 On 15.04.11 08:00, David Anderson wrote:
 The client tries to use all GPUs, even if this overcommits the CPUs.
 The assumption is that this maximizes throughput.
 Is there evidence that it doesn't?

 There are two types of GPU applications: such that run almost entirely on the 
 GPU and just need a small fraction of a CPU core, and such that use the
 GPU mainly as a coprocessor for certain parts of the computation (e.g. FFT) 
 and require a full CPU core. I'd say the assumption is true for the
 former, but not for the latter. So similar to the distinction made between 
 these two types of Apps in assigning process priority, I'd do this in
 resource counting, too.

 Best,
 Bernd

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