LHC@home

> People who up their contact period in order to download extra units do 2
> things.
>
> First, and most obviously, they prevent others from getting units.
>
>
If there are thousands of WUs waiting to be issued, how is having a larger queue preventing anyone from getting WUs?

---

> People who up their contact period in order to download extra units do 2
> things.
>
> First, and most obviously, they prevent others from getting units.

somehow.. I don't know why.... I don't feel bad about it. I'm running LHC@home within legal boundaries. What's wrong about that?

I think it's more important to be a reliable source of crunching power (high average of WU's returned within deadline) and safety (not overclocking the host, so results always get back valid)

that's my 2 cents.

And btw, we've had enough WU's for EVERYONE for the past WEEKS!!!! WHY are you whining already? NO offence meant... (well, maybe a little bit) ;-)

Cheers,

Sysfried

---

Well, really I just let that one fly by without making it an argument, because I didn't expect anyone to take the guy seriously. It's just natural to have work units cached locally.

You should NOT feel bad about keeping several days worth of work. You were given the opportunity to cache some work for one reason or another, and you took it. There is nothing wrong with that at all. The person (or people) who would complain about this SEEMINGLY NORMAL activity, well.. aside from accusing someone of not being able to apply cognitive thought to the situation, they just don't know what they are talking about. BOINC was created to provide better access to cached work. Take it from someone who has been with the development of BOINC since (Pre-Alpha)version 0.09, If you choose to keep more than others, My hat goes off to you. Good job.

Aaron Finney

> > People who up their contact period in order to download extra units do 2
> > things.
> >
> > First, and most obviously, they prevent others from getting units.
>
> somehow.. I don't know why.... I don't feel bad about it. I'm running LHC@home
> within legal boundaries. What's wrong about that?
>
> I think it's more important to be a reliable source of crunching power (high
> average of WU's returned within deadline) and safety (not overclocking the
> host, so results always get back valid)
>
> that's my 2 cents.
>
> And btw, we've had enough WU's for EVERYONE for the past WEEKS!!!! WHY are you
> whining already? NO offence meant... (well, maybe a little bit) ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sysfried
>

---

The point adrianxw is trying to make is that if there are a lot no wu's left it is better to let other people help crunching instead of letting one person do all the work. The results get posted back quicker so LHC can validate it. If one person does all the work we could be waiting for two weeks and then get u's tat have not been crunched and the rest still needs to crunch then. Now that would really be a pitty. However if people got for the highest available credits then by all means put your download/ get results thing to 2 weeks then you are sure you 'll be crunching for awhile (matter of speach of course)

Luckily it seems that LHC@home has gotten the production cycles up and running so I don't expect the be without wu's for the next coming month (and yes my download is at 0.1 days)

that's my 2 cents. No offence meant Sysfried :)

Chao,

Xav

---

Yes, I can understand it be a problem if you set your window to a week but too short can also be a problem if the network goes down. I have set mine to one day.

---

From a network analysts point of view it all depends on your setup and how your system is configured.

If your system meets the following criteria....

1. It is on ALL the time
2. It is set to crunch work for BOINC ALL the time
3. It is connected to the net at ALL times (Or has the ability to connect)
4. You don't plan on deleting/uninstalling BOINC, or your OS anytime soon

You should at the very least have 3-4 days worth of work cached locally. LHC will create more work as they run out, so running out of work is a non-issue. In fact, on the global side of things it's actually better for everyone to cache MORE work, because in the interim time that it takes LHC to create MORE work, computers could still be crunching. If you want to get technical, criterion 1, 2, and 3 are even accounted for when you set your cache size so they are not as important so long as there are no wild fluctuations in computer availability to utilize BOINC.

One of the major benefits of this (and one of the main reasons BOINC was created) was to better enable computers to crunch during periods of network instability or server/work outages. From time to time, and for one reason or another, the project will be down and you will not be able to get more work from it. It would be wise, under these conditions to have a set aside cache of work for you to complete, hence the ability.

In the beginning, it was realized by Berkeley staff that some projects may want shorter deadlines for their work to be returned and others would want MUCH longer deadlines. This is what the "Deadline" is for. This was to give better power to the specific needs of each project. If LHC determines that it needs the work sooner than 10 days, then it should set the deadlines to a shorter time period.

Do not confuse DEADLINE with CACHE size. They are entirely different calculations.

---

I personnally have run at 0.1 days and at 3.0 days. and feel better running at 3.0 days (thank you very much). I do like to keep work on hand, I do run the latest official release (4.45/4.43) but I still like to have work on hand. During the last nonsense with SETI@Home it was nice to have some "reserve" though later I turned off new work to run dry so I could document attempts to install an optimized client.

But, I still like to have work on hand and as I am still within *MY* rule of thumb for work on hand ... well ... I am happy. And that is what BOINC is about. It is about having fun. And if someone wants to get spun up because I am "hoarding" too many work units, well, that is THEIR problem.

---

Interesting. Kind of as expected, a few people actually understood what I meant, and the implications of hoarding to the community and the projects.

A noisy few, (no offence... :P), defended their right to hoard regardless of it's implications.

Such is life.

---

Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

> I personnally have run at 0.1 days and at 3.0 days. and feel better running at
> 3.0 days (thank you very much).....

Amazing who you run into in all sorts of places making all sorts of statements :).

I would have thought that Ye Olde Grande Wiki Master would have seen the merit in not further inciting the masses into choosing settings that would put even greater strain on said Grande Wiki Master to further produce explanatory documentation to extricate said masses from the morass that will develop as a direct result of unrealistic resource share choices combined with over eager cache size settings. By the way, the preceding sentence was designed to be deliberately obfuscatory in order to match the mood of said masses as they try to fathom the ever increasingly complicated documentation needed to guide them out of the said morass. That is, of course, provided that the said masses manage to find their way into the relevant sections(s) of said Wiki in the first place :).

Somewhat more seriously, I've noticed a seemingly increasing trend for many people to want to support several projects with a resource share of something like 85/5/5/5 and then compound that with a 5 day cache setting just to make sure that they don't really need to run their backup projects if at all possible. Then they gripe like mad when one or more backup projects hogs the crunch time for vastly excessive times just to partake of the deadline dance. And then they get even more upset when the main project takes over and creates a deadline drought where there are no work units allowed to be downloaded for the backup projects for weeks at a time.

And to cap it all off they then do crazy things like indiscriminate resetting and aborting left right and centre just to try and tame their self created monster. They set an entirely inappropriate mishmash of resource share and cache size and then they tear it all down when it behaves ever so predictably.

So for smart people like yourself, Mr Ye Olde Grande Wiki Master, who knows exactly how to handle the deadline dance, please keep your personal cache choice to be exactly that -- personal :). Please tell said masses that a cache size of 3 days or more is a mortal sin whereas 0.5 days is just the bees knees and will take them directly to Nirvana or whatever other form of higher plane they want to be on :).

Disclaimer and EULA
All characters in this drama are entirely fictional and any resemblance to any person, real or imaginary, is entirely coincidental. No plants, animals, insects, birds, whales or dolphins were hurt, killed or even offended in any of the stunts performed. You are hereby expressly forbidden from taking umbrage at any statement contained herein even if you can prove that said statement is directly defamatory to yourself. You are expressly forbidden from reading any of the foregoing until you have agreed to this EULA. Your reading of any character, word, symbol or phrase contained herein automatically binds you to acceptance of this EULA.

> You are expressly forbidden from reading any of the foregoing until you have >agreed to this EULA. Your reading of any character, word, symbol or phrase >contained herein automatically binds you to acceptance of this EULA

It sounds like software companies who put on the outside of the box, "by opening this box you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions which can be found inside the box."

---

> Somewhat more seriously, I've noticed a seemingly increasing trend for many
> people to want to support several projects with a resource share of something
> like 85/5/5/5 and then compound that with a 5 day cache setting just to make
> sure that they don't really need to run their backup projects if at all
> possible. Then they gripe like mad when one or more backup projects hogs the
> crunch time for vastly excessive times just to partake of the deadline dance.
> And then they get even more upset when the main project takes over and creates
> a deadline drought where there are no work units allowed to be downloaded for
> the backup projects for weeks at a time.

You are right, there are some people who like to mismanage things and wind up confusing themselves. That doesn't mean that a 85/5/5/5 with 5 day cache is "wrong" either. (I personally have 55/25/8/10/1/1 with 10 day cache, but I know what the hell is going on with deadlines and resource commitment)


> And to cap it all off they then do crazy things like indiscriminate resetting
> and aborting left right and centre just to try and tame their self created
> monster. They set an entirely inappropriate mishmash of resource share and
> cache size and then they tear it all down when it behaves ever so
> predictably.

This is... of course unfortunate, but surely eventually they will learn better how to manage their own settings. That's how you learn. I don't feel you should be aborting work or resetting things just to fix your credit standings however, but of course.. such is life! The goal is to not let these people rile you. The projects are set up in such a way to account for them so just let it be :)


> So for smart people like yourself, Mr Ye Olde Grande Wiki Master, who knows
> exactly how to handle the deadline dance, please keep your personal cache
> choice to be exactly that -- personal :). Please tell said masses that a
> cache size of 3 days or more is a mortal sin whereas 0.5 days is just the bees
> knees and will take them directly to Nirvana or whatever other form of higher
> plane they want to be on :).

In defense of Techmaster PDB, I think it would also be an injustice to tell people that they should keep their cache sizes so low as to be useless. There is a reason why the default is kept very low, and that reason is so that the general uninformed (un.. educated?) populace doesn't start screwing things up.

Here's a quote for you..

"You can't save anyone from themselves. You will lose everything attempting to play savior. You will never ever heal the terminally wounded.... They'll never feel beautiful enough no matter how beautiful they are to you. They'll never feel loved enough no matter much you fu$%ing adore them.... They won't be happy until you're as miserable as they are."

---

- "Bravo!!!!",(Handclaping in front of the stage, excited masses call your name, they want to see the face of the director of the play just presented)-"I'll give you a +1 as a reward"

---

<img border="0" src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=2328&amp;trans=off" />
<img border="0" src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=2328&amp;prj=5&amp;trans=off" />

This space in the original page was formerly occupied by a three word neutral statement that at least one person found pejorative, and upon reflection I decided that they were correct that it is absolutely true that saying that a person might contain or might not contain any of the following qualities, hence:

<li>Stating that some people are &quot;full&quot; does indeed draw attention to the fact that some people may indeed have more of some substance or capability inside than others and this would tend to indicate that some unfortunates are somehow less than others with their lack of a complete and total quantity of what ever &quot;it&quot; is that we are measuring or discussing. Therefore, bringing up unfair and reprehensible comparisons to the &quot;full&quot;-challenged individuals shall not be tolerated.</li>
<li>Moreover, the despicable use of the word &quot;of&quot; which as you know from your dictionary, when used in conjunction with a person does indicate that this word is &quot;used as a function word to indicate the cause, motive, or reason by which a person or thing is actuated or impelled&quot; Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged; &copy;1976, Page 1565, lower center column and this does tend to lend itself to the possibilities that one individual may have a less than sterling derivation than some other persons. Henceforth I shall endeavor to cast no aspersions or to impugn any living or dead persons quality of their &quot;of&quot; in any statement.</li>
<li>Also, &quot;it&quot; is unjustly harsh. So, hence forth, never again will I make the rude statement that you or any other person has any &quot;it&quot;-ness associated with them, under any circumstances.
</li>

And let it be stated with firm conviction that I shall always endeavor to eschew obfuscation of missives with an ocular directed in such a manner that aspersions of a negative bent shall be lumbering towards the mitigation of attribution thereby transmuting inverted approbation communiquÈs, and therefore capsizing those notional non-positive edicts; rendering them impotent, with negated impact, and in all cases when presented by the obstreperous, afflicted by pedanticism, those with impugnable motivations or those with improsperous linguistic wherewithal, those expropriators even those that evince unprepossessing mien, or even those infatuated with a polysyllabic obscurantist style; and henceforth and hereafter are less than able to portend a diminution in the positive acclaim acknowledged, in all probability, within any less than favorable circumstances; with presumably a full intent to ensure that any repetition of duplication shall also not impact or render moot any and all engendering of any positive, negative, or neutral duplicity, complicity, or connivance on the part of the aforementioned authors, their aspirations and potentially lubricious and monomaniacal pursuit of the muse with any restraints mitigated by a non-negative application of a modicum of effervescent humoristic epistle development imparted under deprecation with full intent to circumvent non-indirect application of defenestration with the conjectural intent to stifle luminarist gossamer drollness, which, by fortuitous divination will not not-fail engendering solicitude and expurgation.
<p />
Furthermore; I know you believe you understand what you think I said but I am not sure you realize that what your read is not what I meant.

---

> @ PDB

Pardon?

---

It's not the speed, but the quality - Until I get a faster computer.

> > I personnally have run at 0.1 days and at 3.0 days. and feel better
> running at
> > 3.0 days (thank you very much).....
>
> Amazing who you run into in all sorts of places making all sorts of statements
> :).
>
> I would have thought that Ye Olde Grande Wiki Master would have seen the merit
> in not further inciting the masses into choosing settings that would put even
> greater strain on said Grande Wiki Master to further produce explanatory
> documentation to extricate said masses from the morass that will develop as a
> direct result of unrealistic resource share choices combined with over eager
> cache size settings. By the way, the preceding sentence was designed to be
> deliberately obfuscatory in order to match the mood of said masses as they try
> to fathom the ever increasingly complicated documentation needed to guide them
> out of the said morass. That is, of course, provided that the said masses
> manage to find their way into the relevant sections(s) of said Wiki in the
> first place :).

If you read the first 2,730 pages in the Wiki you will only see suggestions that the "ideal" is 0.1 if you have always on Internet. It also gives the rule-of-thumb of 7 days divided by number of projects.

THAT being said ... I run with 3 days. Sue me.

The argument that I somehow make the world less safe for democracy because I use a slightly larger cache setting than you would like is, um, silly. I deprive you of nothing. When I get 4.7x that has the fix for properly estimating processing time I will strongly consider making an adjustment. At the moment, my 3 day setting gets me about 1.5 days of work ... tops ...

Now, if there was another setting so I could have a match of CPDN work units to number of CPUS, I would be more than happy to have 0.1 days as my setting. The question as I saw it was "what do you use". I use 3 days. I also use 4.45/4.43 ...

And all this time I thought the people in the LHC@Home project avoided for the most part belittling other people ... oh, well, I will keep that in mind. Don't express your opinion if you write for the Wiki ...

---

Oh for heaven's sake! Haven't you lot got anything better to do?

It seems to me that micromanaging your BOINC cache is a suitable pastime for you. It stops you cluttering the boards with this junk.

Live long, and meet your deadlines!

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

> > @ PDB
>
> Pardon?

That is what I said to the last person that annoyed the heck out of me ... get out your dictionary ... them are all real words ...

Oh, and they are correctly used ... who says working for the federal government for 25 years does not teach you anything.

---

Hey, I just dumped predictor due to the problems they are having and am only running LHC and SETI. Since BOINC only likes you to have a maximum of half the earliest deadline before it goes into EDF mode I can now safely lift my cache to 7 days and still have "normal" operation of boinc (since both LHC and SETI have "14" day deadlines). While running pred as well I could only safely have a max of 3 days of work cached, which in reality turned out to be about 1.5 days. So with a contact server set at 7 days I might be able to succesfully cache 3.5 days of work - even though I run 4.72.

So you can sue me as well.

Live long and crunch.

---

Paul
(S@H1 8888)
BOINC/SAH BETA

>>> I just dumped predictor due to the problems they are having

Isn't that charming.

---

Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

> >>> I just dumped predictor due to the problems they are having
>
> Isn't that charming.
>
My comps are not always connected to the internet. When a project is off line the debt level for that project builds up. With the new wu scheduler, if the debt level is high enough, BOINC will not download work on projects that are crunchng OK until you run out of work. If my comp(s) runs out of work when it/they is/are not connected to the internet then I will fret and loose sleep over it. After such a long outage I find it's best to "dump" a project until it is online again. I hate loosing sleep over BOINC.

I prefer to crunch the projects that best suit my requirements, that is the beauty of BOINC. Each to their own!

Live long and crunch.

Paul.