Subject: Discussion related to cado-nfs
List archive
- From: Emmanuel Thomé <Emmanuel.Thome@inria.fr>
- To: canny georgina <cannysiska@gmail.com>
- Cc: cado-nfs-discuss@lists.gforge.inria.fr
- Subject: Re: [Cado-nfs-discuss] Cado-nfs-discuss Digest, Vol 73, Issue 5
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:18:43 +0200
- List-archive: <http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/cado-nfs-discuss/>
- List-id: A discussion list for Cado-NFS <cado-nfs-discuss.lists.gforge.inria.fr>
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 04:01:22PM +0700, canny georgina wrote:
> when i tried to somewhat compute what time it took from (for example 1.3%
> to 1.4%), im confused since what the ETA shows is weird (for me).
> when I collect them all just like this:
> > ok (*1.3% => ETA Tue Jul 17 01:40:07 2018*)
> > ok *(1.3% => ETA Tue Jul 17 07:43:21 2018)*
> > ok (*1.4% => ETA Tue Jul 17 01:58:11 2018*)
> > ok (*1.4% => ETA Tue Jul 17 04:24:17 2018)*
> i'm confused about how to compute it when it's *01:40:07 ** going forward
> to this hour **( 07:43:21) and backward at this hour ( 01:58:11) and going
> forward again at this hour ( 04:24:17)*
No bug here.
The ETA is computed as
start_time + work_to_do * (now - start_time) / work_done.
At the beginning of the computation, you have enough irregularity in the
speed per workunit to account for jitter that adds up to hours or days
when multiplied by "work_to_do/work_done".
E.
- Re: [Cado-nfs-discuss] Cado-nfs-discuss Digest, Vol 73, Issue 5, canny georgina, 07/10/2018
- Re: [Cado-nfs-discuss] Cado-nfs-discuss Digest, Vol 73, Issue 5, Emmanuel Thomé, 07/10/2018
- Re: [Cado-nfs-discuss] Cado-nfs-discuss Digest, Vol 73, Issue 5, canny georgina, 07/12/2018
- Re: [Cado-nfs-discuss] Cado-nfs-discuss Digest, Vol 73, Issue 5, paul zimmermann, 07/12/2018
- Re: [Cado-nfs-discuss] Cado-nfs-discuss Digest, Vol 73, Issue 5, canny georgina, 07/12/2018
- Re: [Cado-nfs-discuss] Cado-nfs-discuss Digest, Vol 73, Issue 5, Emmanuel Thomé, 07/10/2018
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.