Hello,

I have a 24-way dual-core server. It makes about 10000 points/day.
Now I get such messages:

Requesting 338315 seconds of new work, and reporting...
Scheduler RPC succeeded [server version 509]
Message from server: No work sent
Message from server: (reached daily quota of 400 results)
Deffering communication for 2 hr 50 min 34 sec
Reason: requested by project

Is it means that this server is too fast for Rosetta?

Regards,
Mateusz

You could increase your 'Target CPU run time' so that each WU runs for longer.

According to your machine info, it's a 48-way, not 24-way. Either it's dual core or HT.

In any case, with 48 threads, and WU run time set to 24 hours, you need only 48 per day. Well under the 400 limit.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

According to your machine info, it's a 48-way, not 24-way. Either it's dual core or HT.

In any case, with 48 threads, and WU run time set to 24 hours, you need only 48 per day. Well under the 400 limit.

I said that's 24-way because it runs 24 physical CPUs.
HT or multi-core doesn't change it.

Anyway, in this computer's information there's such field:
Maximum daily WU quota per CPU 100/day

48x100 makes 4800, not 400...

Mateusz

You misunderstand. The limit of 400/day is per machine, not CPU (or thread). the number of physical chips is meaningless.

In any case, you can fix that yourself. Just make each task run longer, then you won't need so many. You can do this on your account page => Rosetta@home preferences => Target CPU Run Time.

Just FYI: The number of chips has nothing to do with the number of "CPUs" as BOINC sees it. If a machine has HT enabled, BOINC sees 2 CPUs per core. If a machine has two quad core Xeons, BOINC sees it as 8 CPUs.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Ignoring the debate about cores etc.

Just increase the runtime length, this also lowest you bandwidth a lot :D, and givethe CPU more itme to crunch rather than transfer large files.

---

Team mauisun.org

You misunderstand. The limit of 400/day is per machine, not CPU (or thread). the number of physical chips is meaningless.

In any case, you can fix that yourself. Just make each task run longer, then you won't need so many. You can do this on your account page => Rosetta@home preferences => Target CPU Run Time.

Just FYI: The number of chips has nothing to do with the number of "CPUs" as BOINC sees it. If a machine has HT enabled, BOINC sees 2 CPUs per core. If a machine has two quad core Xeons, BOINC sees it as 8 CPUs.

Thanx for info... I've changed this setup from 3 to 6hrs. Should help.

PS. I said only that I have 24-way dual-core server.
24-way means physical chips.. that's it.
FYI It makes no sense to enable both HT and dual-core in this server because 24x2x2=96. Max for W2K3 Datacenter is only 64...
I work with 32-way datacenter servers since 2000 but I thank you for the lesson about cores and so on...

Not to mention the fact that HT is rubbish cos it just splits the CPU's resources into two threads, each half as powerful as the CPU itself. And it can lead to overheating.
"Chillerworks", may I just ask how you got 24 CPU's into a single box?!

---

Not to mention the fact that HT is rubbish cos it just splits the CPU's resources into two threads, each half as powerful as the CPU itself. And it can lead to overheating.
"Chillerworks", may I just ask how you got 24 CPU's into a single box?!

In fact it can contain 32 CPUs (Xeon MP or Itanium) and 512GB of RAM.
It's called Unisys ES7000/one.

chillerworks.com, If you need help with that monster. You could ship it to me and I'll get it set up. Might take me 9 months to "burn in", but I'd do it for you. LOL

I'm just that helpful.. Hehehehehe

Wow! What a great problem to have!

The limit is 100 per day per host. I'm not sure why the BOINC message showed you 400. I guess I'm not positive which number is correct. Can't say I've run in to anyone that reached 100 per day without ending each one in error (which is why a limit exists by the way).

Yes, assuming you leave that beast powered on 24/7, I would increase the preferred runtime right up to the 24hrs. Because even at 6hrs, times 48 threads, you still have the ability to crunch much more then 100 per day. Sometimes tasks will end before your runtime preference too. So by upping the preference to 24 hrs, you should crunch through about 50 per day, and that still leaves you some room to have a few that end prematurely, or to build up a bit of a cache of work to help span any project downtime.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

Wow! What a great problem to have!

The limit is 100 per day per host. I'm not sure why the BOINC message showed you 400. I guess I'm not positive which number is correct. Can't say I've run in to anyone that reached 100 per day without ending each one in error (which is why a limit exists by the way).

Yes, assuming you leave that beast powered on 24/7, I would increase the preferred runtime right up to the 24hrs. Because even at 6hrs, times 48 threads, you still have the ability to crunch much more then 100 per day. Sometimes tasks will end before your runtime preference too. So by upping the preference to 24 hrs, you should crunch through about 50 per day, and that still leaves you some room to have a few that end prematurely, or to build up a bit of a cache of work to help span any project downtime.

Thank you for the answer.
I'll try with 6hrs first. Strange thing is that I didn't have such problem since this server is running.

PS. On Monday I'm going to setup and start the second one...
That's a pity that Intel doesn't make "Core 2"-like Xeons 7xxx, but they are still based on Pentium 4. With new core it should be 2,5x faster and 5x for quad core (But MS has to change their Datacenter first because 32 Quads make 128 cores. The limit for W2K3 Datacenter is 64)

There's always linux. No CPU limit there.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Wow! What a great problem to have!

The limit is 100 per day per host. I'm not sure why the BOINC message showed you 400. I guess I'm not positive which number is correct. Can't say I've run in to anyone that reached 100 per day without ending each one in error (which is why a limit exists by the way).

100 per day, per core; maximum 4 cores. So you can run two dual-core CPUs, with each getting 100 WUs.

---

Small update: Intel is going to start with their new "Tigerton" Xeon MP based on "Core" in September.

Model/Cores/GHz/L2/W/$
Xeon X7350 4 2,93 8 130 2301
Xeon L7345 4 1,86 8 50 2301
Xeon E7340 4 2,4 8 80 1980
Xeon E7330 4 2,4 6 80 1391
Xeon E7320 4 2,13 4 80 1177
Xeon E7310 4 1,6 4 80 856
Xeon E7220 2 2,93 8 80 1177
Xeon E7210 2 2,4 8 80 856

Source: Digitimes, June 2007

Only small addition to what has been said.According to MS,the limit is for number physical CPUs not cores,so even XP Pro can have 8 cores,but only two CPUs and still it would be OK.
Or does the limit mean number effectivly used CPUs?

I alwyas thought Micorosft CPU limit was Physical Processors, not effective processors no of processors, though with Datacentre it may be different and they may be stingy ;)

Some programs do use effective number of processors though (but even that may have changed now)

---

Team mauisun.org

Only small addition to what has been said.According to MS,the limit is for number physical CPUs not cores,so even XP Pro can have 8 cores,but only two CPUs and still it would be OK.
Or does the limit mean number effectivly used CPUs?

Unfortunately it's not true. I had this server started with both dual-core and HT. 24x2x2 should give 96 CPUs but OS could see only 64.

Anyway, 64 CPUs look pretty cool in Task Manager.

I alwyas thought Micorosft CPU limit was Physical Processors, not effective processors no of processors, though with Datacentre it may be different and they may be stingy ;)]

Nope, you can stack up as many CPU's as you want, the limitation is with the OS itself and the effective # of threads ("cores") it can take.

Chillerworks is indeed correct.

No Windows version supports more than 64 cores.

Unfortunately, Windows server 2008 ("Longhorn") won't change that either.

Linux is your best friend ITPC ;)

---

Faust.

FluffyChicken is correct when it comes to XP (and maybe Vista too).

XP home supports only one chip, but no limit on the number of threads (up to 64, I guess).

XP Pro supports up to two chips, but no limit on the number of threads (up to 64, I guess).

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA