LHC@home

.... the fact that you're deliberately doing something which *slows* down the project,
....

The above statement is an unproven assertion.

No, it isn't.

{quote]
No one has presented any evidence that the PROJECT would advance any faster.
{/quote]
Yes, they have.

Some work units **may** finish sooner.

Yes, they will.

But, that doesn't imply that the project can or would use them faster.
Nor does it prove that more work would become available sooner.

The above statement is an unproven assertion.

As has been pointed out, the project owners understand deadlines and daily work limits.

And, the fact that they have chosen NOT to restrict either, implies that the work is chugging along just fine.

please, say it again, I didn't hear it the first 300 times.

Perhaps you didn't - but where is the proof that you assert exists, that shows that the PROJECT (as contrasted to indivual work units) would advance faster?

---

Fact 1: There have been multi-month gaps between batches of work units.
Fact 2: Even the slowest computer with the biggest cache isn't going to hold the project up for more than a couple of weeks.
Fact 1 + Fact 2 means that there is slack time on the project side.
Conclusion: Hoarding work units is not responsible for slowing down the project.
Most likely they are working on other things and not too concerned about the work units finishing ASAP.

wohoo! a proof! I feel like I'm in high school all over again.

Prove me wrong.

Note: I myself do not do this. I just leave my settings alone and let BOINC handle it. I usually run out of work within a day or two of the project running dry. I just think this argument is silly and people shouldn't be chastised for doing something that is allowed by the project settings.

---

- A member of The Knights Who Say NI!
My BOINC stats site

Here's where I came in on this thread on the 29th May.....

Hey, who's bothered?
There are plenty of projects on BOINC to keep your PC busy...........

We are all arguing round in circles now, so for the sake of sanity, could everyone PLEASE read THIS and then just drop the subject please!

---

Here's where I came in on this thread on the 29th May.....

Hey, who's bothered?
There are plenty of projects on BOINC to keep your PC busy...........

We are all arguing round in circles now, so for the sake of sanity, could everyone PLEASE read THIS and then just drop the subject please!

Must we?

I like to keep bumping it up to encourage everyone willing to listen to lower their cache time...

---

Here's where I came in on this thread on the 29th May.....

Hey, who's bothered?
There are plenty of projects on BOINC to keep your PC busy...........

We are all arguing round in circles now, so for the sake of sanity, could everyone PLEASE read THIS and then just drop the subject please!

Must we?


OK, lets talk about somthing serious like Starving children in New York city's upper east side or who is the best actor in the Monty Python series?

I like to keep bumping it up to encourage everyone willing to listen to lower their cache time...

---

Let's crunch for our future.

We are all arguing round in circles now...

Just like the nuclei in LHC.

Yes - we have become CERN's biggest accelerator to date!

Keep it up!

---

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

All is fine if you return your results before deadline.

If you all go to bed and get your beauty sleep, when you wake up in a couple of hours, you'll feel good again.

Now let this thread rest in peace!

---

I find it quite amusing that this arguement would be non-existent if the project consistently had work. I am glad to see that there are people around that are just as stubborn as I am.


At birthday parties as a kid, we used to argue over who got the bigger slice of cake. Kids are kids..... This arguement about caching workunits sounds errily similar. So what if someone gets a few more workunits. What is the consequence? I think HomeGnome stated this point in a different way.

I disagree with HomeGnome that we should "let this thread rest in peace" if there are still a number of regular individuals discussing it. A leader once said "True peace is not merely the absence of tension, IT IS THE PRESENCE OF JUSTICE.

To adress the issue of "caching," I do not feel it violates any moral or ethical grounds. All that users are doing, including myself, is getting the maximum amount of workunits that boinc will allow at any one time. I do not use any optimized clients, or cheat with my benchmarks. Once BOINC says "I won't finish in time" I start crunching all of the workunits I have gotten until that time. While I have workunits cached, I leave my computer on 24/7 so that they usually finish in 2 days, long before the BOINC client "thinks" I will finish them. I have NEVER missed a deadline on ANY of my projects I crunch for. Besides, this project is unique in the fact that they may terminate early if the particles are "out of bounds." BOINC does not recognize this and thinks that the workunit will take 3 hours when in reality it may only take 3 minutes. If there are more workunits, I will continue to do the same thing.

I am not going to be critical of any one person or arguement here. I will continue this practice until the BOINC client is changed, or the project shortens its deadlines to the point that one cannot cache x amount of workunits at a time.

---

I find it quite amusing that this arguement would be non-existent if the project consistently had work. I am glad to see that there are people around that are just as stubborn as I am.


At birthday parties as a kid, we used to argue over who got the bigger slice of cake. Kids are kids..... This arguement about caching workunits sounds errily similar. So what if someone gets a few more workunits. What is the consequence? I think HomeGnome stated this point in a different way.

I disagree with HomeGnome that we should "let this thread rest in peace" if there are still a number of regular individuals discussing it. A leader once said "True peace is not merely the absence of tension, IT IS THE PRESENCE OF JUSTICE.

To adress the issue of "caching," I do not feel it violates any moral or ethical grounds. All that users are doing, including myself, is getting the maximum amount of workunits that boinc will allow at any one time. I do not use any optimized clients, or cheat with my benchmarks. Once BOINC says "I won't finish in time" I start crunching all of the workunits I have gotten until that time. While I have workunits cached, I leave my computer on 24/7 so that they usually finish in 2 days, long before the BOINC client "thinks" I will finish them. I have NEVER missed a deadline on ANY of my projects I crunch for. Besides, this project is unique in the fact that they may terminate early if the particles are "out of bounds." BOINC does not recognize this and thinks that the workunit will take 3 hours when in reality it may only take 3 minutes. If there are more workunits, I will continue to do the same thing.

I am not going to be critical of any one person or arguement here. I will continue this practice until the BOINC client is changed, or the project shortens its deadlines to the point that one cannot cache x amount of workunits at a time.

someone using logic!
Isn't it more fun just to argue our emotional opinions?
;-)

---

....
Big caches are for slow computers on dial-up. Nobody else needs them....

I understand that you may be bored ....

---

Well, I am a slow computer on dial-up and I got NO wus this time. OR the last time.

Fair?

I think not!!

Dora

---

PS.

Even though I have set my cache to max, because my capacity is so limited, it would only download 5 or 6 which would finish in PLENTY of time since I am always on....

Keep on truckin' all you farmers.... ;-)

Dora

---

Wow, there's something like 13400+ work units in progress and I got *three* that took a grand total of *68 seconds* to process. Amazing. And it'll probably be another 2-4 weeks before I see any more LHC work.

What's worse is that I run three other projects and I'm about 3 hours from running completely dry. SETI's currently down for maintenance, Einstein isn't sending me work for some reason (maybe debt related), and SZTAKI is in the middle of testing new work units of which I can't get any (apparently they're designed for some fairly uncommon platform). I never thought that I'd completely run out of work with 4 projects. Too bad LHC's batch is all gone. That *could* have held me over for a little while, at least until SETI came back up.

---

KABLAM!

I had no idea my random idea to chew on would create THE BIGGEST FIGHT EVER!!!

---

-----

I had no idea my random idea to chew on would create THE BIGGEST FIGHT EVER!!!

Who's fighting? I've got no LHC work units, but there's plenty of work in other projects. Big deal.

And if they all run dry, my computers get a rest.

---

homegnome said
"If you all go to bed and get your beauty sleep, when you wake up in a couple of hours, you'll feel good again."

checked the progect last night NO NEW WORK 10 W/U IN PROGRESS (roughly)

checked the project this morning NO NEW WORK 10308 W/U IN PROGRESS ?????

WOW THAT WILL TEACH ME TO GO TO SLEEP

NEXT TIME IT GETS LOW I WILL SET BOINC TO ALLOW NEW TASKS EARLIER even if it takes a week or so for new work to arrive and adds extra a little work to the server if that is the only way i can get work so be it

this project never used to be like this i used to be able to run 16 projects and get work on a steady basis i.e at least one w/u a day for about a week or so until it ran dry
oh well the good old days are now gone

unleash the (w/u)HOGS of war

there is always next month or two or three
just have to keep checking back

:-(
as yoda says there are plenty of other projects and i still have work to crunch but i have been checking back here daily to check for new work
just think i wasted my time the last couple of weeks

rant over NOW i feel better lol

---

checked the progect last night NO NEW WORK 10 W/U IN PROGRESS (roughly)

checked the project this morning NO NEW WORK 10308 W/U IN PROGRESS ?????

Same here, and I always have LHC set to allow new work - I must have blinked...
Seems as though the only way to get any LHC units is to have your machine running and connected to the Internet 24/7

What's worse is that I run three other projects and I'm about 3 hours from running completely dry.

Well, I keep my processor warm by being connected to seven projects: LHC, Rosetta, Einstein, Predictor, QMC, Seti and Xtremlab (i.e. effectively six :-) ). This gives a mixture of long and short deadlines, and BOINC suspends work fetch and uses earliest deadline first scheduling if there's ever any danger of being overcommitted. It works for me anyway, as I tend to have my machine on for most of the day, and I haven't missed a deadline since the days when I was using a 266MhZ PII running Seti@home classic only.

My advice, for what it's worth, is if you always want work, don't give up on LHC, just connect up to as many other projects in addition to LHC as it takes to keep your machine occupied. For those who care about credits, you may not get as many credits for LHC, but you will get more overall, and I find you don't get stressed if one or two projects are down or don't have work.

---

I agree with Rob.

I'm attached to nine projects -


At this moment in time, I have a couple of LHC WUs to crunch, I'm waiting for work from Predictor and Rosetta, HashClash has no work. I'm also waiting for SETI to come back online so I can upload completed WUs and get some more.

Life is good......

I am glad to see that there are people around that are just as stubborn as I am.

There is another name for this attitude, it is called greed.

This is what I hear when I read your post:

I want more.
Give me more.
I have a right to get more.

Just because the project doesn't equitably distribute work and permits the large caches of WUs does not mean that it is right or fair.

Just because the project doesn't equitably distribute work and permits the large caches of WUs does not mean that it is right or fair.

(1) What does it mean then?
(2) How can you know whether anyone uses a large cache or not?
(3) How is it unfair to you?