LHC@home

a question to the LHC admins....
the weekend is over... my clients are running low on wu's.. (i know that the idea behind boinc is to run multiple projects so you never really out of work)...

will we get new LHC wu's soon?

sysfried

---

> a question to the LHC admins....
> the weekend is over... my clients are running low on wu's.. (i know that the
> idea behind boinc is to run multiple projects so you never really out of
> work)...
>
> will we get new LHC wu's soon?
>
> sysfried
>

Yes, we are preparing more work and it should appear very soon.

Ben Segal / LCH@home

---

Yes, we are preparing more work and it should appear very soon.

Ben Segal / LCH@home
==========

Yippie ... ;)

> Yes, we are preparing more work and it should appear very soon.
>
> Ben Segal / LCH@home
> ==========
>
> Yippie ... ;)
>
Very much thankyou Ben, for spending your time and answering this burning question.

Unfortunately I didn't understood all

Is this very soon happening this week or more next week?

anyway good luck for preparation process.

hungry babies are waiting...

They do have non LHC work, but they prefere LHC

deleted double

Thankyou for that very soon!

All my Computers Belly's are full again, just downloaded a mess of v64boince WU's to each one of them ... Burp ... hehe

Makes me wonder if we are running them out of work faster than expected still ...

:)

---

yeah, seems like the limited community of LHC members has more crunching power than CERN needs! ;-)

> Makes me wonder if we are running them out of work faster than expected still
> ...
>
> :)
>

---

From what I understood about the process CERN is using, they release a whole lot of units and then, analyse those results in order to decide on what type of units with whatever parameters, to send out next. So the whole thing does tend to go along in fits 'n' starts.

Slainte,

David

---

> From what I understood about the process CERN is using, they release a whole
> lot of units and then, analyse those results in order to decide on what type
> of units with whatever parameters, to send out next. So the whole thing does
> tend to go along in fits 'n' starts.
>
> Slainte, David
==========

Thats the way it always has been here at LHC & to be expected ...

News

8.3.2005 17:34 UTC
Server is running out work soon, but more will come.
We found some bugs regarding the zero CPU time and progress meter problems in our client. We will test and release new versions soon. Please be patient.



@ LHC Admins...

We are! (Most of us!) ;-)

---

<B>Server Status</B>

Up, out of work.

Still :(

9.3.2005 16:30 UTC
Bug fixing and testing will continue until next week.
In the mean time there will be very little work available.

so this will be a weekend without lhc work....

---

Yes, but if history is a guide we run them out of work anyway.

I wish right after they get one dataset started that they would start a second line of expiriment. Then when we exhaust the datasets in the first run and they are analyzing the results for the first one, which will then become exp #3; we would then be chewing through the data for exp #2, whose output would become the input for exp #4

WIth an interleave like this, we would never run out of work.

Then again, this is the reason I run all available projects ...

---

> With an interleave like this, we would never run out of work.
Really??

Full of respect Paul, but I don't would underline that.

Every published workset, anyway the number, will be crunshed down, because it has to be and we all are here for that.

When you go to a children school for example and start to give some candies away for free, you will see more and more children lurking around to get the free sweeties and bonbons. As more you give, as more you have to give to avoid a single childrens cry.(human behaviour)

The other thing is, some of the experiments are probaly based on earlier runs,
so might it's not possible to run parallel worksets.


patiently waiting

> > With an interleave like this, we would never run out of work.
> Really??

Yep.

> Every published workset, anyway the number, will be crunshed down, because it
> has to be and we all are here for that.

Agreed. I was simply pointing out that I would PREFER to devote more of my effort to LHC@Home, for example. One of the issues I take with the proposed mechanism for SETI@Home and Astropulse is that they will run a single project. To be honest, I did SETI@Home because there was not much else, and what else there was did not run that well.

With BOINC that changed. Now there are projects that are in areas I have a lot more interest ... my personal science bent is towards physics and away from the life sciences and the, um, weird ...

Truth be told, looking for ET is kinda weird. I don't deny that it is something that needs to be done, but, more as a hobby than as a serious pursuit.

Astropulse however is another project that I would like to support almost to the complete exclusion of the actual SETI@Home project.

> The other thing is, some of the experiments are probaly based on earlier
> runs,
> so might it's not possible to run parallel worksets.

They are. Which is why I was hoping that they could come up with two threads of experiments so that while one is in the the "thinking" stage, the other is in the "doing" stage.

I think that long term that this will happen as they figure out what can be done and other people decide that they want to tap into this "super-computer" we have going. RIght now, the most significant performance limitations are almost all on the SERVER side of the system. And we still have not migrated the vast majority of the users from the old SETI@Home Classic.

---

> Astropulse however is another project that I would like to support almost to
> the complete exclusion of the actual SETI@Home project.

I'm with you on this one - I think it would we quite wrong of them to make Seti and Astropulse a joint project instead of two individual ones. I am not so interested in the search for extraterrestrials but very interested in projects like LHC, Einstein and Astropulse.
Perhaps we should write a petition to make them individual projects? ;-)

---

> Perhaps we should write a petition to make them individual projects? ;-)

You can TRY, but Dr. Anderson was quite firm when I pointed out the issues last year ...

---

>
> > Perhaps we should write a petition to make them individual projects? ;-)
>
>
> You can TRY, but Dr. Anderson was quite firm when I pointed out the issues
> last year ...
>
>

Well, they should be a little bit more open minded and realize that Astropulse and SETI are two different things. Maybe if they do not want to accept that, they will end up with plenty of people dismissing the SETI project.

To me personally it would be a lack of respect to those that have participated in the initial steps of Astropulse and that if we made our interest for it, was for Astropulse, not for Seti to be intermixed with it.

It is also too bad by the way, that we are running so soon out of work, here in LHC!!

---