LHC@home

What are these new workunits?
http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=700416

It has a different name and takes much longer to compute.

w5_lhc_coll_IP15_trip_meas__34__64.31_59.32__4_6__6__63_1_sixvf_boinc15971

---

Linux Users Everywhere @ BOINC
[url=http://lhcathome.cern.ch/team_display.php?teamid=717]

These are beam collimation studies. See the page in the Wiki for a breakdown of the name components

---

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

One of the problems with LHC@Home is that the work unit can end at almost any time. I once tried to see if I could make a histogram of the results so I could get better average times on the turn counts ... no such luck...

Now that I have a better "feel" for the work unit contents I may try again ... the only thing that may be a problem is that I am not sure that the "order number" is in the same character position ...

---

<blockquote>One of the problems with LHC@Home is that the work unit can end at almost any time. I once tried to see if I could make a histogram of the results so I could get better average times on the turn counts ... no such luck...

Now that I have a better "feel" for the work unit contents I may try again ... the only thing that may be a problem is that I am not sure that the "order number" is in the same character position ...</blockquote>

Good old engineering--no need to spend any more cycles if 'x' happens. The only way I can track which WUs may hop out early is by the amplitude numbers. They're always even; I see 4_6, 6_8, and 16_18 in my queue right now. The lower the amplitude number, the higher the chance to go full term. Also, once you get up around 8_10, the WU processing time will get shorter as well. I'll be surprised if that 16_18 WU goes longer than an hour. Now that I write that and actually check the WU information, the first result went 230 sec.

As long as you have an always-on connection, it doesn't get to be too big a problem, but between 4.72's bumping the runtime for all WUs after I get one of the 12-hr ones, and the WUs that are only 20 minutes long, I run a 4-day queue for my main LHC box, just to make sure I get enough work to keep the fires lit.

Me, I love the short ones--something about the old days of SETI Classic's 1 WU = 1 credit still burned into my noggin. Wish BOINC had the 'search for sweet WUs' button that SetiQueue had. 8)

(j)
James

That is an advantage of BOINC, you don't get to "cherry-check" anymore than I do. Besides, the point of this is to do science ... :)

But old thought patterns are hard to break sometimes ... of course I fell in love with BOINC some time ago so I am not sure why I even wasted my time with SETI@Home Classic ... :)

I guess what I like best is that I can help LOTS of research ...

---

Yeah, in SETI Classic days, I set the sweet WU parameter in the .ini file to true, 1, or however it was stated. But if you think about it, it would be of little value in BOINC.

In classic one got 1 credit regardless of how long it took the comp to process the WU. So shorter WUs would give more credit. But in BOINC, if it takes longer to process, it's going to take longer to process (and not for just one's own computer). One will get more credit for the WU, so it tends to balance out in the end anyhow.

Which reminds me of another setting for another project (folding@home) where one could set the large WU download to true. Those WUs would take several days to complete but tended to carry a credit weight of around 600 credit pts (and I had seen more on occasion) each. It wasn't enabled by default there, as not everyone's computer has the memory to meet the requirements for such bulky WUs. According to task manager I had seen some of them WUs take 250 MB of RAM...

---

If you are purely into credit, then the "best" project is CPDN ...

I do like credit, I am only human (well, I *HAVE* gotten debate on this in the past), but, the science is most important to me. As far as credit, I am most interested in my world standings. Which are reasonable at the moment. Though if, and when, the remainder of the SETI@Home Classic people come over I may not last too long ...

And no new computers probably for a year ... :(

Though I did get the two Xeons this year, so I guess I should not complain TOO much ... but now, so many projects, so little time ...

---

<blockquote>One of the problems with LHC@Home is that the work unit can end at almost any time. I once tried to see if I could make a histogram of the results so I could get better average times on the turn counts ... no such luck...

Now that I have a better "feel" for the work unit contents I may try again ... the only thing that may be a problem is that I am not sure that the "order number" is in the same character position ...</blockquote>

That's right, but all my wjun4C_v6s4hhpac WUs were finished between 6 and 12400 seconds, the w5_lhc_coll_IP15_trip_meas WUs are taking up to 22300 seconds.

---

Linux Users Everywhere @ BOINC
[url=http://lhcathome.cern.ch/team_display.php?teamid=717]

I've been getting a lot of these recently it would seem, but a lot of them are bombing out after about 2 minutes with a client error (process exited with code 12 (0xc)).
I've got one that's at 50%, and it seems I've completed quite a few as well.

Linux, Kernel 2.6.11 with a 3.0Ghz P4, 1GB RAM, no overclocking. Stable with other projects, and was rock solid with LHC before.

---

<blockquote>That's right, but all my wjun4C_v6s4hhpac WUs were finished between 6 and 12400 seconds, the w5_lhc_coll_IP15_trip_meas WUs are taking up to 22300 seconds. </blockquote>

You're right. They take me about two and a half times longer than a normal WU. I got a set today that wrapped up in under 30 seconds. 16_18 amplitudes never last long... 8)

Clearing those two short units earned me 5 more WUs--thank goodness that correction factor they put in 4.72 cuts both ways. I've been getting LHC WUs that say they'll take 8 hours for a regular WU, which is double my normal times.

@Paul - Interesting philosophical question: Wouldn't it just be a preference issue as to whether a user wants a short WU (less BOINC credit) or a long WU (more BOINC credit)? That would give me less overall credit, since I'm chewing up 100 0.1 credit WUs instead of one 20 credit WU. Gives the number-hugry a chance at more credit, and me a chance to fill my dream of actually using all that DL quota I've got laying around.... 8)

(j)
James

<blockquote>
@Paul - Interesting philosophical question: Wouldn't it just be a preference issue as to whether a user wants a short WU (less BOINC credit) or a long WU (more BOINC credit)? That would give me less overall credit, since I'm chewing up 100 0.1 credit WUs instead of one 20 credit WU. Gives the number-hugry a chance at more credit, and me a chance to fill my dream of actually using all that DL quota I've got laying around.... 8)
</blockquote>
James,

I am not sure I understand your question.

What I was trying to say, was that, within the overall goals of supporting science, and my interest in specific aspects of science (physics over biology for example), my personal competitive desire is for relative rank on all projects vs. only in one.

As an example, I don't really have much commitment to SETI@Home, though, I have been continuing to downplay my allocations,but am more interested in my "place" within the projects. That being said, I am also more interested in my BOINC standing than my SETI@Home standing.

=== Edit

CPDN 22%
Einstein@Home 20%
LHC@Home 17%
PPAH 0%
Rosetta@Home 22%
SETI@Home 14%
SZTAKI 5%

PPAH "Hung" my computer overnight again with a pop-up alert box costing me as much as 8 hours of CPU time ... so, they can sit on the sidelines ... I can complain (I did in the past, and this morning), and I can vote with my feet ...

---

<blockquote>
James,

I am not sure I understand your question.
</blockquote>

I was kind of pondering a justification framework by which I could request a BOINC-style 'get sweet WU' option'... It was more thinking out loud than anything else....

(j)
James

<blockquote>
@Paul - Interesting philosophical question: Wouldn't it just be a preference issue as to whether a user wants a short WU (less BOINC credit) or a long WU (more BOINC credit)? That would give me less overall credit, since I'm chewing up 100 0.1 credit WUs instead of one 20 credit WU. Gives the number-hugry a chance at more credit, and me a chance to fill my dream of actually using all that DL quota I've got laying around.... 8)

(j)
James</blockquote>

The danger with this is that every user might opt for long WUs (or short ones), leaving a whole load unprocessed. Since BOINC aims to allocate the same credit for the same productive work it shouldn't matter whether the WUs are short, long or in between. How sucessful BOINC has been in this remains moot.

This isn't the same as providing different applications under one project. I have heard talk that AstroPulse (a search for quasars and similar) will be added to SETI@Home, and participants will be supplied both. Since I don't support SETI's objectives any more I am only interested in running AP, but I won't do it if I have to 'waste' time on SETI units.

---

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

<blockquote>This isn't the same as providing different applications under one project. I have heard talk that AstroPulse (a search for quasars and similar) will be added to SETI@Home, and participants will be supplied both. Since I don't support SETI's objectives any more I am only interested in running AP, but I won't do it if I have to 'waste' time on SETI units.</blockquote>

That is the plan, but, I agree that I am not sure I can get that awful wrapped up in SETI@Home anymore. To the point where I have been wondering if the world would not be better off if the project died ...

---

Oh, come on, wouldn't it be fascinating to locate and decipher an extra terrestrial signal.. which would motivate the planet to develop space technology .. only to finally build it all and get there to find out the signals travelled in space for so long that by the time we got there they had evolved from physical beings to a state of pure energy?

I watch too much sci-fi.

---

<blockquote>Oh, come on, wouldn't it be fascinating to locate and decipher an extra terrestrial signal.. which would motivate the planet to develop space technology .. only to finally build it all and get there to find out the signals travelled in space for so long that by the time we got there they had evolved from physical beings to a state of pure energy?

I watch too much sci-fi.</blockquote>
Well, I read Sci-Fi, but, the probability that ET is using THIS frequency to commnicate is of very low order of probability. So, it would be fun. But as likely as I will win the lottery. Of course, if I win the lottery, one of us smells new computer equipment just around the corner ... I mean, who can't use 25 dual Xeons?

---

<blockquote>Oh, come on, wouldn't it be fascinating to locate and decipher an extra terrestrial signal.. </blockquote>

SETI is searching for extraterrestrial intelligence. We've never seen any sign that there is any. If there is, it's statistically unlikely that it's nearby. We're searching only a narrow part of the spectrum, based on some idea we have that that's a good place to look. Why? And why should another alien race share that opinion? Even if we find a signal, we won't know what it is (it could still be natural, just previously unobserved).

If we find a signal, and it is thought to be intelligent, what then? There is a school of thought that believes we shouldn't do anything for fear of advertising ourselves to some hostile race. Even if we reply, the chances are our answer won't arrive for decades, or maybe centuries. Even when it arrives, will it be understood for what it is?

In short, we're looking for a needle in a field full of haystacks, hampered only by the fact that we don't know what a needle is, nor a haystack, nor where the field is. When we find it we're going to use it to stitch together a signal balloon in the hope that that the aliens will spot it. Not that they, in turn, know what a signal balloon is, or even that they should be looking for it.

It might be fun, but my estimate of success is very very very close to zero.

---

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

Yes, the SETI search is within a very narrow band, and for good reason. We cannot look for signals of a wavelength longer than 1cm, because these signals are absorbed by the atmosphere. Signals longer than 30cm will earn us nothing but noise from background radiation.

That's still a very wide window. So these boffins are limiting the search to what is called the water hole - 18 to 21cm. These wavelengths correspond to spectral lines of the hydroxide and hydrogen ions respectively. These are chosen because it is thought that an intelligent extra-terrestrial species would need water for life too, and would also surmise that we do too. And would also realise that they too need to restrict their signal frequencies, and would also choose the water hole. There is a whole string of assumptions here, but each one is reasonable. This is the 'idea' that we have that the water hole is a good place to look.

But I agree completely; we have no idea what we are looking for. We won't know till we find it, thus; the birth of BOINC.

---

We do have to start some where, and this is as good of a starting place as any. I am just saying that the probabilities are so low that it is, well, almost insane. Does not mean we should not do it, or not have fun ...

Maybe I am too depressed ... :)

---

To continue with the dreary prospects for SETI, it's not only a matter of listening to the right portion of the sky at the right frequency at the right time, but also of actually detecting the signal.

Arecibo may be huge, and SETI nice and sensitive, but you're not going to be picking up incident RF "leakage" at any distance. There's an FAQ out there that happens to mention theoretical detection distances for various transmitters. The only type of signal that SETI could detect at more than 1 light-year are ones which are very narrow-band and very powerful. A 1GW EIRP 0.1Hz "wide" signal should be detectible from 5 light-years, and a 1TW EIRP signal at 150 light-years. The chances though that such a powerful signal is going to be directed at us (and furthermore, remain on us when Berkeley gets around to confirming the signal) are, well, abysmal.

I do still run SETI though for the very reason Travis DJ mentioned. The probabilities may be infinitessimal, but it would turn the world on it's head. Definatly worth at least some of my CPU time! :)

Puffy

---