for long3 i have runtimes of under 2 hours.
note that the shown runtimes aren't correct, because boinc has problems when you load 9 wus and only compute one after the other. once i have wus which i got alone without other wus, the runtimes are correct. right time is the time in seconds shown at the bottom of the stderr out

heres my app-config.xml for an i7-5820k:

<app_config>

<app_version>
<app_name>srbase</app_name>
<cmdline>-t9</cmdline>
<avg_ncpus>9</avg_ncpus>
</app_version>

<app_version>
<app_name>srbase2</app_name>
<cmdline>-t9</cmdline>
<avg_ncpus>9</avg_ncpus>
</app_version>

<app_version>
<app_name>srbase3</app_name>
<cmdline>-t9</cmdline>
<avg_ncpus>9</avg_ncpus>
</app_version>

<app_version>
<app_name>srbase4</app_name>
<cmdline>-t9</cmdline>
<avg_ncpus>9</avg_ncpus>
</app_version>

<app_version>
<app_name>srbase5</app_name>
<cmdline>-t9</cmdline>
<avg_ncpus>9</avg_ncpus>
</app_version>

<app_version>
<app_name>srbase6</app_name>
<cmdline>-t9</cmdline>
<avg_ncpus>9</avg_ncpus>
</app_version>

<app_version>
<app_name>srbase7</app_name>
<cmdline>-t9</cmdline>
<avg_ncpus>9</avg_ncpus>
</app_version>

<app_version>
<app_name>srbase8</app_name>
<cmdline>-t9</cmdline>
<avg_ncpus>9</avg_ncpus>
</app_version>

<app_version>
<app_name>srbase9</app_name>
<cmdline>-t9</cmdline>
<avg_ncpus>9</avg_ncpus>
</app_version>

<app_version>
<app_name>srbase10</app_name>
<cmdline>-t9</cmdline>
<avg_ncpus>9</avg_ncpus>
</app_version>

<app_version>
<app_name>srbase11</app_name>
<cmdline>-t9</cmdline>
<avg_ncpus>9</avg_ncpus>
</app_version>

<app_version>
<app_name>srbase12</app_name>
<cmdline>-t9</cmdline>
<avg_ncpus>9</avg_ncpus>
</app_version>
</app_config>

last result for long3 here

Given my longs 3 threads and still running up against deadlines on some of them.

Why does BOINC start a WU with only 12 hours left that took 3 days to run?

Guessing BOINC is ignorant and only the server here would have the data on average run times and would have to determine the WU couldn't complete and do the cancellation on it's end, right?

I had self abort 8+ longs per machine by using my own deadline calculations.

A longer deadline or more aggressive server cancellations would be appreciated so I can reduce my management time.

Mine work using <cmdline>-t4</cmdline>

Wuprop only counts 1 thread though.

Mine work using <cmdline>-t4</cmdline>

Wuprop only counts 1 thread though.

That REALLY sucks... I was going to increase thread count to 6 until noticing your comment and now really want to reduce it back to 1 and abort all long WU that don't have 6 days deadline.

One of my main goals it to complete 100,000 hours per work unit at WuProp.

Reduce hours counted by 1/3 on longs will mean it might be 4 years to reach 100,000 hours since WU here are intermittent and I shut down work in the summer to avoid contributing to global warming with A/C since our community still uses coal and natural gas fired power plants.

<avg_ncpus>4</avg_ncpus>

Just make the number the same as your <cmdline>-t4</cmdline> number.

I'm running some long2 and long3 tasks right now, on a non-AVX computer. The long2 tasks will take about 11 days to run. They also were queued up for a few days, so they'll finish about 4 days after the deadline. Starting them late is my fault.

There's 3 different things I'd like to mention, however:

1) The discussion in this thread about multi-threading confuses me. Does multithreading even work? If so, then how? At PrimeGrid, our wrapper is modified to specifically pass the "-t#" parameter to LLR, but in doing so it has to convert "-t#" to "-t #". Unless the wrapper here passes the parameter to LLR, and converts it to the correct format, I don't see how you could actually get multithreading to work. When I tried it, CPU temperatures dropped dramatically, indicating that only one core was being used.

2) Looking in the in-progress stderr.txt file, it's obvious that the BOINC manager is not reporting the correct progress done amount.

3) Maybe the deadline should be long enough to let computers without AVX to finish?

1) The discussion in this thread about multi-threading confuses me. Does multithreading even work? If so, then how? At PrimeGrid, our wrapper is modified to specifically pass the "-t#" parameter to LLR, but in doing so it has to convert "-t#" to "-t #". Unless the wrapper here passes the parameter to LLR, and converts it to the correct format, I don't see how you could actually get multithreading to work. When I tried it, CPU temperatures dropped dramatically, indicating that only one core was being used.

1) The discussion in this thread about multi-threading confuses me. Does multithreading even work? If so, then how? At PrimeGrid, our wrapper is modified to specifically pass the "-t#" parameter to LLR, but in doing so it has to convert "-t#" to "-t #". Unless the wrapper here passes the parameter to LLR, and converts it to the correct format, I don't see how you could actually get multithreading to work. When I tried it, CPU temperatures dropped dramatically, indicating that only one core was being used.

it works the same way as it works at Primegrid

with -t8 my i7-5820k needs about 11-12 hours for one task

3) Maybe the deadline should be long enough to let computers without AVX to finish?

When I tried it, CPU temperatures dropped dramatically, indicating that only one core was being used.

I just can't understand why the MT is not enabled / config by default and distributed with the standard app, it is just insane to try to run these monsters without the MT on.

When I tried it, CPU temperatures dropped dramatically, indicating that only one core was being used.

Noticed this also, there appears to be a 1 to 4 minute delay (depending on the computer's stats) where the long1 and long2 (haven't observed all WU's for the behavior but no noticeable lag on shorts) run a single core as the data set is being initialized.

Just mentioning so that anyone else maybe new to SRBase multithreading know about this lag and don't conclude they've made a mistake after seeing single core execution for 2 minutes.

I just can't understand why the MT is not enabled / config by default and distributed with the standard app, it is just insane to try to run these monsters without the MT on.

Its only defined by the user, smaller runtimes are not affected by the -t command and are slower in runtime. Also every user has different amount of cores.

Having to play around with config file (and I remember this one is really not easy to do) really limits the potential number of users willing to try to do this.

Longs really shouldn't be run on a 2 core machine, which would generally be 8 year old Core 2 Duos, so excluding them would be setting an appropriate boundary.

so. all my long2 are now marked for resending...I'm 2-3 days away from finishing...
____________

Longs really shouldn't be run on a 2 core machine, which would generally be 8 year old Core 2 Duos, so excluding them would be setting an appropriate boundary.

Most modern Core i3 CPUs are 2c/4t.

All but the highest end laptops tend to be 2c/4t. Most Mobile Core i5 CPUs are 2c/4t, unlike their desktop counterparts. Unless I'm mistaken, many mobile Core i7s are also 2c/4t.

You don't have to go back 8 years to find dual core CPUs in common use.

Longs really shouldn't be run on a 2 core machine, which would generally be 8 year old Core 2 Duos, so excluding them would be setting an appropriate boundary.

Most modern Core i3 CPUs are 2c/4t.

All but the highest end laptops tend to be 2c/4t. Most Mobile Core i5 CPUs are 2c/4t, unlike their desktop counterparts. Unless I'm mistaken, many mobile Core i7s are also 2c/4t.

You don't have to go back 8 years to find dual core CPUs in common use.

When I said Core2 Duo, the implication was 2c/2t. But to be specific, 2c/2t machines. The benchmarks of 6th -> 9th gen 2c/4t are much greater than the Core2 Duos and can do the work of a long1 or long2, slowly.
BOINC will see 4 threads unless an owner actually turned off hyperthreading.

I wouldn't want to be doing long SRBase work units on even a modern 2c machine with hyper threading turned off and no available processing power to even use Chromium. LLR is pretty aggressive even set to idle priority.

BTW, only 1st gen i7 600 series were 2c/4t, all later have been 4+ real cores. 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th gen i3/i5s had quite a lot of low power 2 cores sold (desktop i5's were 4 core), 6th gen and later (after Jan 2015) are 2/4, 4 and 6.

Longs really shouldn't be run on a 2 core machine, which would generally be 8 year old Core 2 Duos, so excluding them would be setting an appropriate boundary.

Most modern Core i3 CPUs are 2c/4t.

All but the highest end laptops tend to be 2c/4t. Most Mobile Core i5 CPUs are 2c/4t, unlike their desktop counterparts. Unless I'm mistaken, many mobile Core i7s are also 2c/4t.

You don't have to go back 8 years to find dual core CPUs in common use.

When I said Core2 Duo, the implication was 2c/2t. But to be specific, 2c/2t machines. The benchmarks of 6th -> 9th gen 2c/4t are much greater than the Core2 Duos and can do the work of a long1 or long2, slowly.
BOINC will see 4 threads unless an owner actually turned off hyperthreading.

I wouldn't want to be doing long SRBase work units on even a modern 2c machine with hyper threading turned off and no available processing power to even use Chromium. LLR is pretty aggressive even set to idle priority.

BTW, only 1st gen i7 600 series were 2c/4t, all later have been 4+ real cores. 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th gen i3/i5s had quite a lot of low power 2 cores sold (desktop i5's were 4 core), 6th gen and later (after Jan 2015) are 2/4, 4 and 6.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. There's a lot in what you said that I completely disagree with.