Posts by WuJJ

1) Message boards : Number crunching : No long tasks (Message 2387) Posted 30 Dec 2024 by WuJJ Post: Short tasks are available, but not for x86 platform. If you look at the applications page, you will see that only ARM applications are available. The server status page only shows a total number across all platforms. Meanwhile, your client log is saying there is no task for its platform. Both are correct. This can surely look misleading, but it's more of a limitation of BOINC's server status page. The only way to get short tasks now is to run anonymous platform and there are instructions for Linux on the forum.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : SiDock@home is not F1... (Message 2366) Posted 13 Dec 2024 by WuJJ Post: I read there is adaptive replication to deal with these cases. https://github.com/BOINC/boinc/wiki/Adaptive-Replication I don't know if any of the number there can be tuned though, like how many consecutive tasks a host needs to be trusted. If the validator can also periodically flag results from trusted hosts to double check, it might just be enough to automatically weed out cheaters. At least their cheating is going to be harder.
3) Message boards : News : Target # 23: Ebola GP1 (Message 2354) Posted 9 Dec 2024 by WuJJ Post: If going to ARM-only architecture is true, seems like a chicken before the egg scenario.. they have to attract people with ARM devices before switching over otherwise echoes until people realize. I hope Hoarfrost post was out of context somehow and it's not happening. But if it is please blog post the reasoning why. It's the same source code and data format. You just need to compile from source for your native architecture (x86 in this case). If you compile for your native OS too, the resulting binary executes the tasks natively and there is no emulation involved. In theory, there is nothing preventing the project from releasing official x86 binaries for the short tasks on both Linux and Windows, just like other projects that supports multiple architectures. kotenok2000 uses WSL1 on Windows likely because the host is Windows but the compiled binary is for Linux. I followed his guide for building the binaries on Linux but my host is Linux, so I've been running the short tasks natively. I did this mostly because the previous long tasks were too long for my preference. So before Ebola, my x86 hosts exclusively ran short tasks. The runtime of Ebola is totally fine though and hopefully the next long task won't be day long again. If you manage to get it compile under Windows, it will be a native Windows application, removing any need of Linux VM, including WSL.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Is it possible to turn on the setting "Max # of simultaneous tasks" ? (Message 2279) Posted 27 Jun 2024 by WuJJ Post: seems admin does not care their project fails WUs from others. Anyway i stopped crunching Sidock I don't think it's that admin doesn't care. hoarfrost clearly responds to posts often. However, monitoring random hosts that one has no information or control isn't exactly easy task. BOINC is designed to tolerate such hosts, and those WUs simply get re-issue to other hosts. So long as they don't fail in a row exceeding the limit, the project gets their results. As I explained, because Sidock has very long tasks, this puts all other projects at risk of missing deadlines and missing credits I'm curious what's your buffer setting (that "store at least XX days of work")? BOINC client really shouldn't fetch too many work. Setting that to a very low number like 0.001 should prevent excessive work from being fetched even with initial estimate and without project_max_concurrent setting. Btw, I saw you have one client on v7.16. Make sure you upgrade to at least 7.20 before doing that app_config.xml. There was actually a bug related to the project_max_concurrent config that could result in excessive fetch of work in older versions.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Is it possible to turn on the setting "Max # of simultaneous tasks" ? (Message 2278) Posted 27 Jun 2024 by WuJJ Post: This is a local setting and you have to configure it on each host. Go to your BOINC data directory, inside projects/www.sidock.si_sidock folder, create the app_config.xml with content shown above. Once done, go to BOINC manager -> Options -> Read config files to read the new config.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : No short tasks (Message 2273) Posted 25 Jun 2024 by WuJJ Post: I don't think there is a max job limit, unless it's some sort of multiple of number of cores. I easily get way more than 12 jobs at a time. Could it be your local preference settings or app_config?
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Very low credit for Zen 4 mobile CPUs? (Message 2171) Posted 9 Jan 2024 by WuJJ Post: This post is no longer relevant after I switched to anonymous platform. Thanks.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Very low credit for Zen 4 mobile CPUs? (Message 2170) Posted 7 Jan 2024 by WuJJ Post: I just signed up for the project recently and has been playing with different machines I have. I happen to have both desktop and mobile Zen 4 CPUs (7950X and 7840HS). Given they have the same micro-architecture, I generally expect similar performance scaled by frequency. At worst a bit lower due to smaller cache on the mobile CPU. I get such expected result from a few other BOINC projects. However, on sidock, the mobile CPU is getting around 1/10 to 1/8 of credit for a similar runtime. This seems to be incredibly low for a modern CPU. 7950X: https://www.sidock.si/sidock/results.php?hostid=54061&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid= 7840HS: https://www.sidock.si/sidock/results.php?hostid=54054&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid= I'm curious why and if this indicates the mobile CPU are not suitable for the workload and I'd be better off moving them to other projects. Thanks. PS: The mobile CPU is a mini-PC, not laptop. I've verified it's running at expected frequency, not thermal throttled.
9) Message boards : News : CmDock source code (Message 2169) Posted 6 Jan 2024 by WuJJ Post: I'm inclined to try building my own binary, but I realized even my newly signed up hosts get tasks of quorum 1. That's probably not a great idea in general when the reliability and correctness of a host is unproven. I remember BOINC has some option to turn on additional validation until a host is proven to generate reliable results. Would I get additional validation if I switch to anonymous platform? The last thing I want is accidentally generating bogus results because of some compiler difference. Or would `-Dtests=true` be enough confidence that my compiled binaries are correct? When I tried to compile on Ubuntu 23.10, I've already had to make one change. $ git diff diff --git a/src/lib/Rbt.cxx b/src/lib/Rbt.cxx index e953312..7cf5bb2 100644 --- a/src/lib/Rbt.cxx +++ b/src/lib/Rbt.cxx @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ #include <algorithm> //For sort #include <climits> //For PATH_MAX +#include <cstdint> //For uint64_t #include <cstdlib> //For getenv #include <ctime> //For time functions #include <dirent.h> //For directory handling @@ -581,4 +582,4 @@ bool Rbt::endsWith (std::string const &fullString, std::string const &ending) { } else { return false; } -} \ No newline at end of file +} Also thanks to @kotenok2000. I haven't got to the anonymous platform part yet, but your comment will likely make that far easier for me. :-D