Message boards :
Number crunching :
running out of work
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 18 Sep 04 Posts: 35 Credit: 250,303 RAC: 0 |
> > > > > 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!! > Unless someone is willing to donate a duplicate hardware setup for Berkeley, I don't see how they cannot run SETI and Astro as a single project. Then again, with the increase in database size, I don't see how they can. Catch 22. <img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/teambanner.php?teamname=GasBuddy"> <img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=84c0cf7846cbf28338406e54b3eb8a83"> |
![]() Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 16 Credit: 65,275 RAC: 0 |
@Paul & @Kenneth: I'm totally with you on Astropulse vs. SETI. I think SETI is a whimsical project, especially considering the limitations of the search capabilities (Arecibo has limited bandwidth capabilities, operates in northern hemisphere = horrible view of the galaxy). Astropulse in my thinking would be a great way to reevaluate all of the SETI data and search for celestial bodies we would have a much stronger chance of finding IMHO. My bent is toward physical and life sciences, so LHC, Einstein, Predictor, and Astropulse would be me top receiving projects. I've basically all but phased out SETI, using CPDN as my "backup" work in case of downtime! @Pete: I'm afraid you're probably right. Unless they could come up with some grants or donations, the necessity of running AP on the same hardware setup is probably inevitable... @all: I think they reason they are probably so adamant about running the project interleaved with SETI is that they have the largest crunching base in the entire BOINC spectrum available to them. Why jeopardize that size by running a separate project that we all know people aren't necessarily going to join when you can just shuffle in the AP workunits while they're not looking. Maybe I'm coming off just a little too cynical here, but they've got all the resources on hand they really need, and my thought is that searching for pulsars isn't nearly as cool as searching for aliens to the average Joe Q. Cruncher. Unfortunately, though, that means that AP may lose potential crunchers like me who don't want to mess with SETI anymore. That's really too bad... Regards, Clint ![]() www.clintcollins.org - spouting off at the speed of site |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 30 Sep 04 Posts: 112 Credit: 104,059 RAC: 0 |
And many of you seem also to be forgetting that long before BOINC was a reality, there was Astropulse...At one time it was probably invisioned that there would be seperate projects, but with hardware, bandwidth and server room limitations to consider, it was likely more prudent and economically feasable to give BOTH projects a common platform to run from which became what we all know now as BOINC. ![]() ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 545 Credit: 148,912 RAC: 0 |
> And many of you seem also to be forgetting that long before BOINC was a > reality, there was Astropulse...At one time it was probably invisioned that > there would be seperate projects, but with hardware, bandwidth and server room > limitations to consider, it was likely more prudent and economically feasable > to give BOTH projects a common platform to run from which became what we all > know now as BOINC. Well, not quite. Astropulse was the first beta Science Application. Once it was working they moved to SETI@Home and worked that Science Application with finalizing the initial BOINC. So, during beta we had a Science Application called Astropulse that was doing SETI@Home work units. Anyway, we went live and by then then name had changed and we were on the go. Now, the issue we are discussing has to do with the distribution of work. If Astropulse is part of the SETI@Home project, then depending on the availability of work you will be issued a SETI@Home or an Astropulse work unit to process. You have no say in the matter. Kinda like here at LHC@Home, you get a 10,000; 100,000; or 1,000,000 turn model at the projects discression. With SETI@Home and Astropulse in the same project you again have no say in which work you will do. In my case, I would choose Astropulse over SETI@Home anyday. And I would tend to support Astropulse with a top tier allocation of my time. With it embedded into SETI@Home it will only get the bottom tier allocation. Not that it matters I suppose, as I said elsewhere, one participant more or less is insignificant. I just think that it is kind of underhanded to say, come crunch with us to find ET, and then you find out that you have been doing something else entierly. At least here at LHC@Home, the difference is in the run time of the work, not in the TYPE of work. Anyway, I HAVE voted with my feet as it were in that I have reduced SETI@Home's allocation to 10% and that will likely go down as there are more projects added to BOINC. Later it is probably going to be restricted as to which computers are running it also. |
![]() Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 378 Credit: 10,765 RAC: 0 |
My guess for why AP and Seti are joined is because the science and math of looking at radio waves from a telescope is likely the same for each project, with the exception of a few parameters used in calculation. (ie.. which frequencies they look at) My reason for giving my pc more LHC and Einstein units is because even if the Seti guys actually find something tomorrow, it doesn't change anything on this planet. But, computing for physics and science and getting a science esperiment running in a couple of years is a cool thing. What would be really interesting is if the new accelerator were to find data which disproves string theory, because then, the math and the science gets really interesting and new theories will have to be created. I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 30 Sep 04 Posts: 112 Credit: 104,059 RAC: 0 |
Ahhh.....wheels within wheels within wheels within wheels. True enough that no one here knows the real reasons why the seti project admins chose to do things the way that they did back in the past to reach the point we are at now with their research and BOINC. I guess for any people who feel 'let down' by Berkeley because of this, it's like one prior poster said before: <B><I>{paraphrase} "I voted with my feet and reduced seti to 10% CPU allocation and that will likely go down as there are more projects added to BOINC. Later it is probably going to be restricted as to which computers are running it also.</B></I> I suppose that if enough people did this, it might make the sleeping giant open it's eyes for a bit, but would it ultimately make enough of a difference to get the giant to sit up and take notice and actually do something about the concerns being voiced? Probably not as Berkeley knows full well that a smaller pool of dedicated/fanatical participants can generate a similar amount of completed work product compared to a larger pool of people crunching only for the sake of crunching something when their project of choice is out of work or down. If small amounts of participants leave the S@H project those numbers probably ultimately matter not to Berkeley in the grand scheme of Distributed Computing under the BOINC platform. OR to sum it all up using a tried and true Star Trek Saying: {To Berkeley} "A Difference which makes no difference IS no difference" ![]() ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 1 Sep 04 Posts: 275 Credit: 2,652,452 RAC: 0 |
AP was suposed to be a seperate project at first. I think the troubles with running two seperate server setups in testing convinced them that it would be more prudent to run them as one project. The AP application and workunits are a good deal different from seti. Seti takes 107 seconds of data and divides it into 128? frequency bands then sends it out. The AP workunits use the full spectrum of data. This may be another reason why they decided to combine the projects, AP produces much fewer workunits per tape. BOINC WIKI ![]() ![]() BOINCing since 2002/12/8 |
Send message Joined: 17 Sep 04 Posts: 69 Credit: 26,714 RAC: 0 |
When seti brought the new server online. Matt lebofsky stated that the new server was handling the 250K results/day handily. He also stated that it was Setis' goal/plan to get the new servers to handle 1M results/day. that is max for the new server. (I'm not sure if that's max with the current config or with all the extra CPU and Ram slots filled) at that time we had 71k hosts attached. If we bring onboard the 270K hosts from seti classic than we'll reach the goal/plan handily. I wonder how they plan on running AP when the server is maxed out with seti units alone? They'll have to bring on new hardware or reduce the 1M seti results/day plan. Change it to say 750K seti and 250K AP/day. tony Formerly mmciastro. Name and avatar changed for a change ![]() The New Online Helpsytem help is just a call away. |
![]() Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 16 Credit: 65,275 RAC: 0 |
@mmciastro: You hit the problem right on the head and drove it through the board! :) If they introduce Astropulse as a subset of SETI, not unlike how Paul described it earlier using the 10,000, 100,000, and 1,000,000 million analogy here at LHC, there won't be an effective run on the bank for their servers. Everyone will be connected to one project, so the odds of a tremendous growth in SETI just becuase the Astropulse application was added are pretty slim. @everybody: In general, I see a couple of things here: 1) I understand their desire to not have to duplicate any hardware setups. The current one they have has been troublesome enough and I don't blame them for wanting to utilize it to the maximum. In this respect, I can sympathize with the folks at Berkeley. 2) Astropulse will be reparsing through the same identical datatapes as SETI, so in that sense it could be considered similar enough to be the same; except that the goals of the project really aren't that similar. If this was a line of reasoning, I have to respectfully disagree with the Berkeley crew. 3) I remember hearing that they're having trouble keeping enough workunits ready to meet demand. It would seem logical to distribute more workunits that are doing similar (kinda-sorta: see reason 2) work to keep everybody happily crunching. While I can agree with this in principle, because the projects have two very different goals, I respectfully disagree here as well. 4) This really isn't a line of reasoning for them so much as it is for me. I have done like Paul has and voted with my feet. Let me emphasize that this is not because of the server outage situation, but because of the science. I think that SETI is pretty impractical compared to scientifically useful applications like Einstein, LHC, and Predictor. Yes, CPDN is conspicuously absent because I don't find it as personally exciting. I have now shaved SETI down to the bare minimum (and on some machines removed it) and use CPDN as my time-filler application since it is fairly stable. Besides, those workunits last forever, so they are the perfect space filler in case of downtime from all three of the projects I favor. Now that I've rambled on, it basically comes down to the fact that I would love to crunch Astropulse units, but I don't want to crunch SETI units. If I have to chance it that I'll get either Astropulse -OR- SETI units in order to crunch Astropulse, I'm very likely not to do it. Besides, I'd rather get credit for a separate entity listed as Astropulse than for SETI. Basically, whenever somebody looks at my little stats signature, I'd like them to be able to tell which projects I am all about. (right now, SETI is still my second high, but that will change in due time...) So anyway, I'm not trying to be pain in the butt, or longwinded for that manner. Maybe I've failed at both! :) I guess it's just disappointing that this won't be separated out like the "purist" in me would like. Oh well.. That's more than my two cents. Regards, Clint ![]() www.clintcollins.org - spouting off at the speed of site |
Send message Joined: 1 Sep 04 Posts: 506 Credit: 118,619 RAC: 0 |
Forgive me for asking, but what has this thread got to do with LHC? Shouldn't it be in Cafe LHC, or on the SETI boards? Gaspode the UnDressed http://www.littlevale.co.uk |
![]() Send message Joined: 18 Sep 04 Posts: 34 Credit: 4,133 RAC: 0 |
> Forgive me for asking, but what has this thread got to do with LHC? Shouldn't > it be in Cafe LHC, or on the SETI boards? > > > You are very correct!! The problem is it all started way down in the messages line when we run out of LHC units and kinda continued engaging ourselves into the SETI/AP discussion. Yes, perhaps we should all transfer our thoughts to the SETI message boards. By the way, any new news on LHC having more units? Have you finished debugging? ;-) |
Send message Joined: 25 Oct 04 Posts: 3 Credit: 3,604 RAC: 0 |
I don't mind about workunits which are not available, but it would be nice to know WHEN they will be available. Thanks |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 17 Sep 04 Posts: 103 Credit: 38,543 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I want to thank all of you for posting your opinions on here. I have always been an adimate SETI follower; however, after reading the reasons and opinions in this thread I may have to rethink my stand. I don't know if I will change or not, but at least you have given me something to consider. :) Jim |
![]() Send message Joined: 18 Sep 04 Posts: 34 Credit: 4,133 RAC: 0 |
> I want to thank all of you for posting your opinions on here. I have always > been an adimate SETI follower; however, after reading the reasons and opinions > in this thread I may have to rethink my stand. I don't know if I will change > or not, but at least you have given me something to consider. :) > > Jim > I have initiated a thread in the Seti@home message boards on this theme of Astropulse and/or SETI. Are we going to collide units ... sorry ... crunch for LHC soon? |
![]() Send message Joined: 27 Sep 04 Posts: 282 Credit: 1,415,417 RAC: 0 |
However... another weekend without LHC... *sniff* Cheers, Sysfried ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 22 Oct 04 Posts: 39 Credit: 46,748 RAC: 0 |
We could use a short update on how things are progressing on the WU front. HINT !!!!! :) ![]() |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 352 Credit: 1,748,908 RAC: 3 ![]() ![]() |
> However... another weekend without LHC... *sniff* > > Cheers, > > Sysfried ========== Much to my amazement I received 1 v64boince WU this morning ... :0 ... ;) So maybe their getting close to releasing more WU's to everybody ... ??? |
![]() Send message Joined: 28 Sep 04 Posts: 15 Credit: 176,263 RAC: 0 |
Still waiting for LHC WU ... hope that soon I will get one. ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD! Potrebujete pomoc? ![]() |
Send message Joined: 17 Sep 04 Posts: 190 Credit: 649,637 RAC: 0 |
|
![]() Send message Joined: 28 Sep 04 Posts: 15 Credit: 176,263 RAC: 0 |
|
©2025 CERN