Message boards : Number crunching : Official Word on no more Work Units...!!!!
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 7 · Next

AuthorMessage
Scott Brown

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 16
Credit: 15,568
RAC: 0
Message 5078 - Posted: 10 Nov 2004, 17:52:50 UTC - in response to Message 5071.  
Last modified: 10 Nov 2004, 17:53:45 UTC

> I would agree with that with regard to it running under the BOINC platform
> itself. There is a heap of science being done without any credit whatsoever,
> however, so the question becomes one of "how to stimulate Joe Average into
> participating". Is the glory of an abstract number so valuable, really? I have
> a hard time grasping that.

Just because you have a hard time 'grasping' social and psychological forces does not mean that they are not real!

>
> > @Trane (and many others)
> >
> > Please stop using the "for the science" phrase. This rather overused
> wording has about as much meaning as "let's do it for the children".
>
> I'm afraid I have yet to see why "for the science" is an invalid/unwanted
> expression for participating in science projects. Try again, Scott.

Okay, I never said that scientific reasons for participating were invalid (Indeed, as a PhD scientist, a set of scientifc reasons is behind my own motivation to participate). What I said was that the generic "I'm in it for the science" has 1)no real meaning and 2)has an implied sacred (or self-righteous) tone. Instead of using the generic phrase, why not be more specific about your motivations (e.g., I am in SETI for the discovery of alien life, for the advancement of radio astronomy, for furthering the tool of distributing computing, etc.)?


> > Please note that I am not trying to insult anyone by saying this,
>
> Bollocks, that's precisely what you're doing. You (and many, many others)
> can't stand the thought of actually acknowledging the egotistical aspect of
> competing for something that has no real value, and the difficulty here is
> that the perceived value, IMO, changes significantly depending on one's
> viewpoint.
>

First, if I wanted to insult you, I could do so much more thoroughly and articulately. Second, nowhere in my post does anything appear regarding the 'credit' motivation for participation, so I am unsure why you chose to lump me into a group that cannot acknowledge the egotistical aspect of competing for things of no real value.

> Now, why would I invest in the effort to administer these systems and enable
> them to participate in BOINC projects? My slowest system is a dual P-II 300.
> My fastest is a P-III 1 GHz box. Not one is leading edge, so if it were about
> credits, why would I even bother? I wouldn't. My BOINC position falls in
> triple digits daily. Just wait till the masses from S@H join! So, why
> participate? SCIENCE! There is no other reason.

Great, your motivation is science. Can you be more specific, or are you really motivated to do distributed computing projects simply because they are defined as science? There are many reasons to particpate in these projects. Many are neither 'scientifc' reasons nor reasons based on credit/competition, and ric has listed several of these.

Perhaps I should put it this way: Think about how the discussion of credits as
a motivation grates on your nerves. As a scientist, that is exactly how I feel when someone uses the meaningless "for the science" phrasing.


ID: 5078 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Michael Berger

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 126
Credit: 49,653
RAC: 0
Message 5079 - Posted: 10 Nov 2004, 19:15:07 UTC - in response to Message 5074.  

> Exactly, The Credits are a necessary evil to attract enough people to
> participate in the Projects...

Poorboy,

Speaking of credits and evil... Cheating by merging clients to get to the top of the list, hmmm, just like PCZ.

ID: 5079 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Trane Francks

Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 04
Posts: 71
Credit: 28,399
RAC: 0
Message 5085 - Posted: 11 Nov 2004, 6:21:29 UTC

Guys, I reread what I posted and it sure comes off unfriendly and know-it-all. Ick. Sorry about that. After so many years on the net, I really do know by now not to sit down in front of the PC when I'm on the wrong end of a stressful day. I apologize.

> Can you be more specific, or are you really motivated to do distributed
> computing projects simply because they are defined as science?

I'm a software engineer, so the whole paradigm of distributed computing excites the dickens outta me. I'm also a fairly rabid amateur astronomer and general science buff. After five years of full-time participation in such projects, it's still a kick to be able to contribute to things that I do not have the skill or resources to pull off on my own.

Everybody should have the room to participate and enjoy the projects for whatever reason that floats their boat. This is a point that I utterly failed to acknowledge in my previous post.

@Michael Berger: Please explain exactly how merging hosts cheats. Merging hosts does nothing but combine the totals of different IDs assigned to the same host system. Overall credits done by the host remain the same, so there's no list (of which I'm aware) to climb. I've seen several instances of random problems causing new IDs to automagically appear for several of my systems. Of course, I merged them. It makes it easier for me to monitor their health.

Cheers, gents.

trane

ID: 5085 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Michael Berger

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 126
Credit: 49,653
RAC: 0
Message 5086 - Posted: 11 Nov 2004, 7:07:38 UTC - in response to Message 5085.  
Last modified: 11 Nov 2004, 7:24:06 UTC

> @Michael Berger: Please explain exactly how merging hosts cheats. Merging
> hosts does nothing but combine the totals of different IDs assigned to the
> same host system. Overall credits done by the host remain the same, so there's
> no list (of which I'm aware) to climb.

Just because you're not aware of which list is effected doesn't make your statement true. Top Computers is the list I'm speaking of. Combining totals is cheating for it serves no other useful purpose. Just ask PoorBoy and PCZ, that's how they got to the top of the list!

ID: 5086 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Trane Francks

Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 04
Posts: 71
Credit: 28,399
RAC: 0
Message 5087 - Posted: 11 Nov 2004, 8:04:49 UTC - in response to Message 5086.  

> Just because you're not aware of which list is effected doesn't make your
> statement true. Top Computers is the list I'm speaking of. Combining

Yep. I took a look at it.

> totals is cheating for it serves no other useful purpose. Just
> ask PoorBoy and PCZ, that's how they got to the top of the
> list!

It's totally clear why you're whining about two guys "cheating". Man, that's just silly. Who made the rule that it's not okay for a single host to display all its totals? Probably the guy sitting in 3rd place, eh?
ID: 5087 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
STE\/E

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 352
Credit: 1,393,150
RAC: 0
Message 5090 - Posted: 11 Nov 2004, 9:35:39 UTC - in response to Message 5079.  
Last modified: 11 Nov 2004, 9:56:12 UTC

> > Exactly, The Credits are a necessary evil to attract enough people to
> > participate in the Projects...
>
> [b]Poorboy,
>
> Speaking of credits and evil... Cheating by merging clients to get to the top
> of the list, hmmm, just like PCZ.
==========

Michaels right Trane, somehow 2 different Computers of mine got Merged together & it moved the newly Merged Computer into second place on the Total Credits List ...

I really don't know how that happened Michael as I've been trying to be careful not to do that, I haven't even bothered to look at my Computers since the Site quit giving out work units ...

The only thing I can think of is I started running Seti again and I had to do a lot of Merging of Computers over there because I had to re-attach them all to the Seti Site & somehow 2 different ones here got automatically merged together also ...

Actually it kinda piss's me off because I had the Top RAC Computer here and now I don't anymore, I'll have to start building the RAC up on it again once the Site comes back up but by then everybodys RAC will be low also so it might not be to bad to get it back ...
ID: 5090 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
STE\/E

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 352
Credit: 1,393,150
RAC: 0
Message 5091 - Posted: 11 Nov 2004, 11:10:10 UTC - in response to Message 5076.  
Last modified: 11 Nov 2004, 11:11:33 UTC

> >So, why participate? SCIENCE! There is no other reason.
>
> -Fun
> -testing own hardware
> -test if a new cpu cooler is keeping the temp and keeping quiet
> -challenge, how much downclock/adjust memory timings is needed to
> "generate" the maximum of possible, "well done", coherence, valuable
> for science AND credits;-)
>
> Unfortunately those numbers ARE the only interface to see, if running propper
> and if the CPUs are not only used to warm up the Behausung/dwellings.
>
> -passive helping people at LHC developing future version of project clients
> -active helping to build the now virtual existing particle accelerator.
> -As a Swiss, helping the "swiss project" (cern/lhc international oriented)
> -As a Swiss, helping the brave Swiss people crunching hard
==========

I agree with you Ric, it is man's nature to compete so what better way to do it that here at the projects. And if Science gets helped out as a by-product of that competition then so much the better I figure ... Do it for the Science or do it for the Credits, either way it's a win win situation for the Projects & neither side should put the other side down because the finished WU's are just as important no matter why your crunching them...IMO
ID: 5091 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Trane Francks

Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 04
Posts: 71
Credit: 28,399
RAC: 0
Message 5092 - Posted: 11 Nov 2004, 11:21:01 UTC - in response to Message 5090.  

> > Speaking of credits and evil... Cheating by merging clients to get to the
> > top of the list, hmmm, just like PCZ.
> ==========
>
> Michaels right Trane, somehow 2 different Computers of mine got Merged
> together & it moved the newly Merged Computer into second place on the
> Total Credits List ...

Then Michael is categorically wrong. "Somehow got merged" isn't cheating. Cheating is intentional. That doesn't seem to be the case with you. Michael's comment was out of line.
ID: 5092 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Michael Berger

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 126
Credit: 49,653
RAC: 0
Message 5095 - Posted: 11 Nov 2004, 15:21:49 UTC - in response to Message 5092.  

> Then Michael is categorically wrong. "Somehow got merged" isn't cheating.
> Cheating is intentional. That doesn't seem to be the case with you. Michael's
> comment was out of line.

No Trane, you're wrong. The process required to merge identical hosts can't happen accidentally. You're telling parties on both sides of this issue that they're wrong, and that, my meddlesome friend, reeks of stupidity. The only comments out of line here are yours.

ID: 5095 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Morcant

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 3
Credit: 16,040
RAC: 0
Message 5096 - Posted: 11 Nov 2004, 16:22:19 UTC

Merging different computers - I wouldn't call it cheating, I would call it a loophole. I didn't think you could do that & in fact in BOINC beta, I had a duplicate listing of my ONE computer & couldn't even merge it because the OS description was slightly off. I have no idea why since I hadn't changed anything.

It seems that here you can merge ANY 2 computers with the same OS & processor, which seems like a glitch to me. Your total credit may be the same but the total for an individual host won't represent the work it has actually done. I had thought that one of the purposes of BOINC was that work would be sent to SPECIFIC computers for "tracking purposes" or whatever, but this type of merge seems to defeat that.

What's the difference between merging 2 of your own computers (intentionally or by accident) & 2 people using the same email & account to merge their computers in different locations?

Cathy
ID: 5096 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scott Brown

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 16
Credit: 15,568
RAC: 0
Message 5097 - Posted: 11 Nov 2004, 16:23:07 UTC

Actually Michael, Trane is correct. PoorBoy indicated that he believed that some merging he did on the SETI side might have also caused the merge here at LHC. Thus, while the SETI merger would be intentional, the LHC merger would be by accident. Calling someone a cheater is a serious accusation, and you should be more careful when doing so.

@PoorBoy
I am curious about what happened with this merger issue since I participate in several projects. If you find out more detail on it, please post a reply. Thanks.
ID: 5097 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
STE\/E

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 352
Credit: 1,393,150
RAC: 0
Message 5098 - Posted: 11 Nov 2004, 16:40:19 UTC
Last modified: 11 Nov 2004, 16:41:34 UTC

@PoorBoy
I am curious about what happened with this merger issue since I participate in several projects. If you find out more detail on it, please post a reply. Thanks.
==========

Right now I don't have a clue as to what happened, the first I knew about it was when I came in the forum this morning and read Michaels post. I checked my Computers and indeed the 2 with the same CPU & OS with the SP2 update had been merged together and all the RAC gone for both of them, but the Total for both added together into 1 Computer.

All I know is the reason I had to merge at the Seti Site was because I was completely detached from the project with all my computers so I had to re-attach & when I did that it created duplicate listings in my account for all of them. So naturally I merged each one back together with the original listing for that computer...

ID: 5098 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Michael Berger

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 126
Credit: 49,653
RAC: 0
Message 5100 - Posted: 11 Nov 2004, 18:16:08 UTC - in response to Message 5097.  
Last modified: 11 Nov 2004, 18:36:03 UTC

ID: 5100 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile MAGIC Quantum Mechanic
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Oct 04
Posts: 1009
Credit: 47,490,934
RAC: 4,568
Message 5101 - Posted: 11 Nov 2004, 18:30:20 UTC
Last modified: 12 Nov 2004, 7:08:38 UTC

ID: 5101 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Gaspode the UnDressed

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 506
Credit: 118,619
RAC: 0
Message 5103 - Posted: 12 Nov 2004, 6:03:16 UTC - in response to Message 5101.  
Last modified: 12 Nov 2004, 6:04:42 UTC

ID: 5103 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile MAGIC Quantum Mechanic
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Oct 04
Posts: 1009
Credit: 47,490,934
RAC: 4,568
Message 5104 - Posted: 12 Nov 2004, 6:57:19 UTC
Last modified: 12 Nov 2004, 9:09:28 UTC

ID: 5104 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile sysfried

Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 04
Posts: 282
Credit: 1,415,417
RAC: 0
Message 5105 - Posted: 12 Nov 2004, 8:37:34 UTC - in response to Message 5100.  

ID: 5105 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Gaspode the UnDressed

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 506
Credit: 118,619
RAC: 0
Message 5106 - Posted: 12 Nov 2004, 9:25:25 UTC - in response to Message 5104.  
Last modified: 12 Nov 2004, 9:28:25 UTC

ID: 5106 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile MAGIC Quantum Mechanic
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Oct 04
Posts: 1009
Credit: 47,490,934
RAC: 4,568
Message 5108 - Posted: 12 Nov 2004, 11:51:34 UTC
Last modified: 12 Nov 2004, 11:54:48 UTC

ID: 5108 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ric

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 190
Credit: 649,637
RAC: 0
Message 5109 - Posted: 12 Nov 2004, 12:47:41 UTC - in response to Message 5108.  
Last modified: 12 Nov 2004, 12:48:40 UTC

>message board relativity
Please no. Still looping with Einsteins Relativity

> With that said.......I finally got a couple of my computers to D/L some LHC
Long running Tunescans?

This morning, I created a merging situation, fully awaring of it.
Due I'm only using the legal possibilities offered by boinc to everybody,
I see no problem with it.

Situation
===========

Yesterday was thinking, now no more new work will be available.
turned 5 (LHC Q) empty clients to seti. some I updated to CL version 4.53, some
I deleted the old cl, defraged and completely reinstalled Boinc Clients 4.53
for SETI (33%). Additonally I (of course!) attached to LHC(66%).
coming back at home for lunch na starting weekend, NO!
One client, the AMD 2700, crunching for seti, got 6 long running tunescans.
LHC only those WUs would use 6-7 Hours each.
even with good pausing/preeming. the time esimates would bee sunday/monday till work done.
Due the project is in final stage, I think, perhaps wrong, I would be nice to to "legal" things to accelerate the processing.

So I stopped the client.
Made a copy backup of the c:\boinc folder, (this folder has both projects)

restarted cl, disabled network. detached SETI. LHC left.
Now the client can use 24h of possible 24 for those tunescans only.
estimate finishing, something saturday/sunday.
Then the client is "empty".
now I restore the prior saved c:\boinc and disable network, stop work.
Detach (the done) LHC project, and now seti only. Probaly I will reattach this client fo LHC too. I do delay the SETI work for finishing asap the LHC work.
Using the possibilities of BOINC.
Whats bad with?
OK one new ID for SETi and one for LHC is created. And so what?.
Sure I will merge if possible.
Merge is a public function, a checkbox to click.


As mentioned in the profile, running here first steps of local Work Queues. (We have seen this in seti classic)
Some of the DB entries, are showing 1 host. The nearest english word I'm finding to "descrip" is
they are upload/download streaming units.
Behind every "entry", several "CPUs" are doing the work. A mix of w2k, w2003, and XP. The "local delivery" is automated.
This one-time experiment, still in legal brackets, is showing (me) the wonderfull possibilities of BOINC.

And I cant stop to reput:
I'm not interested about "Credits", sure they are nice, they reflect the effort. Yes I watch them.
Its like a car edometer. Basically nice to see whats the car totaly distance is done, but it looses importance, only going from A to B (with the car).

More important 4me is to return propper, welldone work, usable for the build of the string.


The day we see a LHC Work Unit labeled
v64-Guido-seventeen
THEN, the word "Tweak" could be used in a "common sence" way.

If I wounded somebody, I do offer my apology.

ric
ID: 5109 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 7 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Official Word on no more Work Units...!!!!


©2022 CERN