Message boards : Number crunching : Incorrectly reported run time
Author | Message |
---|---|
I notice that the run times reported for Python tasks on Win10 are much larger than the actual elapsed clock time; rather it is mirroring the value of CPU time. Example, a recently completed WU took just shy of 14 hours to complete (50739 seconds exactly based on first and last time reported in the log) while the Completed Tasks list shows the task taking 208,842.7 seconds to complete. Curious, is this a new anomaly? | |
ID: 60015 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I notice that the run times reported for Python tasks on Win10 are much larger than the actual elapsed clock time; rather it is mirroring the value of CPU time. Example, a recently completed WU took just shy of 14 hours to complete (50739 seconds exactly based on first and last time reported in the log) while the Completed Tasks list shows the task taking 208,842.7 seconds to complete. Curious, is this a new anomaly? ________ Not a new issue. Go to the news section and then the Python concerning thread. Every issue is covered in that thread. | |
ID: 60016 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
I notice that the run times reported for Python tasks on Win10 are much larger than the actual elapsed clock time; rather it is mirroring the value of CPU time. Example, a recently completed WU took just shy of 14 hours to complete (50739 seconds exactly based on first and last time reported in the log) while the Completed Tasks list shows the task taking 208,842.7 seconds to complete. Curious, is this a new anomaly? Thanks. Searched a bit, but obviously not in the correct location. | |
ID: 60017 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
The posts about this ARE in there. | |
ID: 60018 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Not quite. | |
ID: 60019 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
But neither the run_time or cpu_time is correctly reported on ANY of my hosts. | |
ID: 60021 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
[Edit] OK, I see what you are talking about. You are referring the time recorded in the job_log for the task aren't you? Actually, no - I'm not relying on historical logs. I'm looking at the real-time data interchange between BOINC client and BOINC server. I've just reported task e00006a07567-ABOU_rnd_ppod_expand_demos29_2_exp3-0-1-RND8382_1 The event log messages relating to that task are: Mon 06 Mar 2023 12:34:06 GMT | GPUGRID | Computation for task e00006a07567-ABOU_rnd_ppod_expand_demos29_2_exp3-0-1-RND8382_1 finished Mon 06 Mar 2023 12:34:26 GMT | GPUGRID | Sending scheduler request: To report completed tasks. Mon 06 Mar 2023 12:34:26 GMT | GPUGRID | Reporting 1 completed tasks Mon 06 Mar 2023 12:34:27 GMT | GPUGRID | [sched_op] handle_scheduler_reply(): got ack for task e00006a07567-ABOU_rnd_ppod_expand_demos29_2_exp3-0-1-RND8382_1 That report was accomplished by sending a file called sched_request_www.gpugrid.net.xml The significant content of that file was: <result> <name>e00006a07567-ABOU_rnd_ppod_expand_demos29_2_exp3-0-1-RND8382_1</name> <final_cpu_time>79615.790000</final_cpu_time> <final_elapsed_time>30189.014614</final_elapsed_time> ... So, the CPU and elapsed times were different when the report left my machine. But they are the same on the website: Run time 79,615.79 CPU time 79,615.79 Neglecting the possibility that it was intercepted by a trojan router between northern England and eastern Spain, I'm asserting that the change happened within the GPUGrid server. | |
ID: 60023 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
OK, poTaytoe - poTahtoe | |
ID: 60024 | Rating: 0 | rate: / Reply Quote | |
Message boards : Number crunching : Incorrectly reported run time