In looking at the work units currently assigned to my clients, I see many instances where work units with a Report Deadline of 7,8,9-Nov are not being scheduled yet in favor of work units with deadlines of 24-30th Nov.

I just watched it complete one unit, due late in the month, and start another one with a Report Deadline of 24-Nov, yet there are a number of units with report deadlines of 7-9 Nov.

All units show 'ready to start'

I understand from friends that the scheduling approach is sophisticated, but surely it should not be calculating on units that are 20+ to expiry when there are units that are only 4 days to expiry?

Or is there some kind of server messages indicating that some units already have been reported by others, and so the priority of reporting those units is less than ones that no one has started?

Thanks!

...but surely it should not be calculating on units that are 20+ to expiry when there are units that are only 4 days to expiry?

Why not? Tasks are processed first in, first out... unless BOINC sees that a task would miss deadline if not working. Then (and only then) that task is put into "Earliest Deadline First" (EDF) mode, also called "High Priority", until it is finished or BOINC decides by recalculating that the danger of missing deadline is over.

Gruß,
Gundolf

---

Computer sind nicht alles im Leben. (Kleiner Scherz)

...but surely it should not be calculating on units that are 20+ to expiry when there are units that are only 4 days to expiry?

Why not? Tasks are processed first in, first out... unless BOINC sees that a task would miss deadline if not working. Then (and only then) that task is put into "Earliest Deadline First" (EDF) mode, also called "High Priority", until it is finished or BOINC decides by recalculating that the danger of missing deadline is over.

Gruß,
Gundolf

Well, but wouldn't the tasks have been assigned to you first in first out from the server as well? That would mean that the assignment date/time would be consistent with the due date.

What I mean is that it seems unlikely that the server would give me 60 work units, 40 of which are all due within say 3-5 days, and 20 of which are due in 27 days in a order opposite to the time to expiry.

That is what would have to happen for me to be working on the 20 units due in 27 days instead of the 40 units due in the very immediate future.

Additionally, it would create an inefficiency of sorts- working on the units that COULD have been postponed [27 days out] leaves less time for the ones that then become high priority because they weren't worked on soon enough.

Update: Anyway, it does appear that the date assigned is not consistent with the date due [ie: maintain about the same window of compute time], as per Gundolf. Sometime this afternoon, it must have crossed the time-to-deadline boundary, because it flipped the 40 units due shortly all to high priority, and pushed out the work on the 20 due towards the end of the month, even suspending some work in progress.

As I said, sort of like a firedrill....

Well, but wouldn't the tasks have been assigned to you first in first out from the server as well?

Yes, they would.

That would mean that the assignment date/time would be consistent with the due date.

No, it wouldn't.

What I mean is that it seems unlikely that the server would give me 60 work units, 40 of which are all due within say 3-5 days, and 20 of which are due in 27 days in a order opposite to the time to expiry.

It might seem unlikely, but exactly so it works. At Seti there are (at least) three types of tasks: AstroPulse (very long), "normal" MultiBeam and short MB (about a quarter of normal). Each type has of course another time frame until deadline; and they are assigned randomly, not in deadline order.

Gruß,
Gundolf

[edit] And how could tasks from different projects be distributed in deadline order? [/edit]

---

Computer sind nicht alles im Leben. (Kleiner Scherz)

In looking at the work units currently assigned to my clients, I see many instances where work units with a Report Deadline of 7,8,9-Nov are not being scheduled yet in favor of work units with deadlines of 24-30th Nov.

I just watched it complete one unit, due late in the month, and start another one with a Report Deadline of 24-Nov, yet there are a number of units with report deadlines of 7-9 Nov.

All units show 'ready to start'

I understand from friends that the scheduling approach is sophisticated, but surely it should not be calculating on units that are 20+ to expiry when there are units that are only 4 days to expiry?

Or is there some kind of server messages indicating that some units already have been reported by others, and so the priority of reporting those units is less than ones that no one has started?

Thanks!

Scheduling is not only based on deadline, the amount of 'Resource Share' you have granted to each project plays a role. It is based on weather the amount of time from the resource share percentage, estimated run time of each task, how long your copmuter stays on, how long boinc stays on, cache size, connect interval, network usage limits and other factors if each task will complete before its deadline. It is a complicated process. So your situation is normal.

Good question! In fact, I oftem have to abort some work units as I approach their deadlines because of this. A part of the answer might be in the number of days you ask to receive work units for to work on. I've cut this down to 4 days from 7. I have no idea if this will allow me the additional time that I need to get all of them done, but I'll see.

John

---