I agree; ideally most of the items in Task Properties should be available as selectable columns; resource usage (#CPUs/GPUs) should be a separate column.
Doing this would be a medium/large task. I'll talk with Rom/Charlie about if/when we can do this. If someone on this list wants volunteer, let me know (it would involve lots of ugly WxWidgets code). -- David On 20-Nov-2014 5:06 AM, Jacob Klein wrote:
Hi David, While I disagree that the display of this status should be buried so low, I appreciate your efforts to make it somewhat easier to find. Thank you for making the changes. It still seems like a pain, however. It sounds like you believe that showing it on the Task's "Status" column is "too visible", and I get that. That "Status" is used on both the Simple View and the Advanced View. So I've thought of another compromise, which we might implement in the long term. Please hear me out. Basically, it is my opinion that any property that the user might ever want to know about a Task or Project... should be exposable, as columns, on the grid. The user should get to choose which columns they want to see, including things like "Project Computer ID" and "Project Duration Correction Factor" and "Task Estimated Computation Size" and "Task Working Set Size" and "Task Directory". ... and then, of course also, "Task Prioritized to Meet Deadline", which would show as a checkbox column. That way... it's not visible by default, will never show on the Simple View, requires no flags to turn on, and leaves the user in full control. The way an "Advanced View" should be! Thoughts? > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:03:43 -0800 > From: da...@ssl.berkeley.edu > To: jacob_w_kl...@msn.com > CC: john.mcl...@sap.com; elliott...@comcast.net; r.haselgr...@btopenworld.com; boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu > Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] High priority status message removed. > > I changed things so that if the cpu_sched_debug log flag is set, > the log will show what's being run high-priority, e.g.: > > 19-Nov-2014 11:54:56 PM | BOINC test project | [cpu_sched_debug] scheduling > wu_1414335002_513578_0 (high priority) > 19-Nov-2014 11:54:56 PM | BOINC test project | [cpu_sched_debug] scheduling > wu_1414335002_513580_0 > 19-Nov-2014 11:54:56 PM | BOINC test project | [cpu_sched_debug] scheduling > wu_1414335002_513916_0 (high priority) > > Since scheduling happens at least every minute, > info about what's running high-priority will always be near the end of the log. > > I think this is the right place for it; > "high priority" is really low-level information that makes sense > only to the people who understand how BOINC schedules jobs. > > -- David > > On 14-Nov-2014 3:44 PM, Jacob Klein wrote: > > David, > > > > Again I suggest showing "Running immediately" in the UI status texts. Right now, > > there is nothing in the UI to relay that status, and I can't even find the debug > > flags to find the status. :( > > > > In my opinion, you took away something that was quite useful to users like me. I > > realize that only advanced users should care, and I realize that the original "high > > priority" message was confusing. But, especially when troubleshooting, some of us > > kind of need easy-to-access text to explain the situation. > > > > Would you consider having the text say "Running immediately" for tasks that are > > prioritized to run immediately due to deadline? > > > > Thanks, > > Jacob > > > > > > > From: jacob_w_kl...@msn.com > > > To: john.mcl...@sap.com; elliott...@comcast.net; boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu; > > r.haselgr...@btopenworld.com; da...@ssl.berkeley.edu > > > Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 09:34:54 -0400 > > > Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] High priority status message removed. > > > > > > And a user might want to know why such tasks are running ahead of other tasks > > that would otherwise have been chosen to run. > > > > > > I have a new proposal... which expresses the urgency, expresses the reasoning, > > and doesn't use "priority". > > > David: What do you think of: > > > "Running immediately to meet deadline" > > > > > > > > > From: john.mcl...@sap.com > > > To: elliott...@comcast.net; jacob_w_kl...@msn.com; boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu; > > r.haselgr...@btopenworld.com > > > Subject: RE: [boinc_dev] High priority status message removed. > > > Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 13:00:15 +0000 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is one I had forgotten about. BOINC is probably correct in running these in > > EDF as there is likely to be a bit more than 2 days of work on that machine, and if they > > > waited their turn, they would be returned late. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Richard Haselgrove [r.haselgr...@btopenworld.com] > > > > > > Received: Saturday, 04 Oct 2014, 8:49AM > > > > > > To: Charles Elliott [elliott...@comcast.net]; McLeod, John [john.mcl...@sap.com]; > > jacob_w_kl...@msn.com [jacob_w_kl...@msn.com]; boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu > > [boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu] > > > > > > Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] High priority status message removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just observe. I'm currently running two SIMAP tasks which were issued with a > > two-day deadline (additional replications required for validation - they must be using > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <reliable_reduced_delay_bound>X</reliable_reduced_delay_bound> > > > > > > > > > When a need-reliable result is sent to a reliable host, multiply the delay bound > > by reliable_reduced_delay_bound (typically 0.5 or so). > > > > > > > > > Set a two day queue, and BOINC panics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't judge every BOINC operation by the relaxed timings used at SETI. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Charles Elliott <elliott...@comcast.net> > > > > > > To: "'McLeod, John'" <john.mcl...@sap.com>; jacob_w_kl...@msn.com; > > r.haselgr...@btopenworld.com; boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2014 1:37 PM > > > > > > Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] High priority status message removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can still easily get into deadline trouble with either large queues, > > > > > > or multiple projects and an occasional tight deadline > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Proof? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: McLeod, John [mailto:john.mcl...@sap.com] > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 3, 2014 10:54 PM > > > > > > To: jacob_w_kl...@msn.com; > > > r.haselgr...@btopenworld.com; > > > > > > boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu; > > > elliott...@comcast.net > > > > > > Subject: RE: [boinc_dev] High priority status message removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can still easily get into deadline trouble with either large queues, or > > > > > > multiple projects and an occasional tight deadline. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Charles Elliott [elliott...@comcast.net] > > > > > > Received: Friday, 03 Oct 2014, 10:10PM > > > > > > To: 'Jacob Klein' [jacob_w_kl...@msn.com]; 'Richard Haselgrove' > > > > > > [r.haselgr...@btopenworld.com]; McLeod, John [john.mcl...@sap.com]; > > > > > > boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu [boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu] > > > > > > Subject: RE: [boinc_dev] High priority status message removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > On my computer, which is allocated about 300 AP WUs at a time, in late > > > > > > September Boinc was running AP WUs due in late October. Then when October > > > > > > 1 came it seemingly panicked and stopped doing anything but processing AP > > > > > > WUs > > > > > > due October 17. That behavior was useful when we could download thousands > > > > > > of WUs, but I think it should be questioned now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Charles Elliott > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: boinc_dev [mailto:boinc_dev-boun...@ssl.berkeley.edu] On Behalf > > > > > > > Of Jacob Klein > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 3, 2014 9:24 AM > > > > > > > To: Richard Haselgrove; McLeod, John; > > > boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] High priority status message removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to see "Prioritized to meet deadline" in the UI, next to > > > > > > > "Running". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > From: Richard Haselgrove<mailto:r.haselgr...@btopenworld.com> > > > > > > > Sent: 10/3/2014 9:19 AM > > > > > > > To: McLeod, John<mailto:john.mcl...@sap.com>; > > > > > > > boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu > > > > > > <mailto:boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu%3cmailto:boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu> > > > > > > <mailto:boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] High priority status message removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The removal followed a question and answer session at the BOINC > > > > > > > workshop in Budapest earlier this week. The OS scheduler mis- > > > > > > > interpretation was one that I highlighted, but there was also a problem > > > > > > > with users thinking that High Priority was a project-chosen queue- > > > > > > > jumping facility. I think we're much better off without those > > > > > > > confusions over terminology, but I agree with John that it would be > > > > > > > good if the reason for non-FIFO running could be marked in some way - > > > > > > > if we can find a less-frightening word. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >________________________________ > > > > > > > > From: "McLeod, John" <john.mcl...@sap.com> > > > > > > > >To: "boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu" <boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu> > > > > > > > >Sent: Friday, October 3, 2014 2:01 PM > > > > > > > >Subject: [boinc_dev] High priority status message removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >OK, High Priority made it sound like it was running at High OS > > > > > > > Scheduler Priority, but some tag that it is not in the normal RR > > > > > > > schedule might be good for helping diagnose problems. > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > 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.
