LHC@home

but then again how do you make just this project do more work and have eienstien@home do normal amount of units...
I thought boinc only does one preference (home/work/school) at a time?

and you can go up to how many days in cache?

---

Hidden comps in your LHC@home preferences for Boinc I think he means.

Account data for bowlingguy300 LHC@home
LHC@home member since 1 Sep 2004
Country United States
Total credit 3,825.87
Recent average credit 5.48
Team None
Computers hidden
Message board posts 13

Hidden comps in your LHC@home preferences for Boinc I think he means.

Account data for bowlingguy300 LHC@home
LHC@home member since 1 Sep 2004
Country United States
Total credit 3,825.87
Recent average credit 5.48
Team None
Computers hidden
Message board posts 13

Thanks Shadowcats. It's a bit strange he said he's looked at my profile and can't find he's own!! Doh! Me thinks he doth protest too much.

Hey, what about that other post, "reached daily quota of 100 results". How do you reckon that can be done? I could only get abot 16 or so at a time on most of my PC's.

---

Click here to join the #1 Aussie Alliance on LHC.

I like this project and stop everything else when work is available, fire up old Athlons that are not in use normally.
I'm not ashamed by that.
There are limits for downloading work, like this:
2006-06-18 10:36:28 [LHC@home] Message from server: No work sent
2006-06-18 10:36:28 [LHC@home] Message from server: (reached daily quota of 100 results)

I halt everything I can but I don't have a AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+ (WOW! :-) or 10 PC's.

Now I understand how you got to the project maximum per day, the Athlon dual core. I want something like that ;-) A Dual CPU motherboard for two Opteron dual core CPU's ;-D with, say, a clock speed of 4800+ 8-0

---

Click here to join the #1 Aussie Alliance on LHC.

wow... This thread is still alive? "sigh"

[lightbulb]Perhaps they're trying to beat this silly thread...[/lightbulb]

Now that cracked me up! 8-D

---

Click here to join the #1 Aussie Alliance on LHC.

wow... This thread is still alive? "sigh"

[lightbulb]Perhaps they're trying to beat this silly thread...[/lightbulb]

that thread is alive and kickin:

:)

---

Kathryn :o)
The BOINC FAQ Service
The Unofficial BOINC Wiki
The Trac System
More BOINC information than you can shake a stick of RAM at.

Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs. Greed is listed as one of the Catholic seven deadly sins, usually by the synonym of avarice.

Greedy individuals are often portrayed as harmful to society as their motives often appear to disregard the welfare of others: within a closed context of limited resources, one person's improved economic condition must come at the expense of others. However, even in a non-zero sum context, an extreme state of affluence can result only from a diversion of resources from others to the affluent.

Buddhists believe greed is based on incorrectly connecting material wealth with happiness. This is caused by a deluded view that exaggerates the positive aspects of an object.

---

98SE XP2500+ @ 2.1 GHz Boinc v5.8.8

Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs. Greed is listed as one of the Catholic seven deadly sins, usually by the synonym of avarice.

Greedy individuals are often portrayed as harmful to society as their motives often appear to disregard the welfare of others: within a closed context of limited resources, one person's improved economic condition must come at the expense of others. However, even in a non-zero sum context, an extreme state of affluence can result only from a diversion of resources from others to the affluent.

Buddhists believe greed is based on incorrectly connecting material wealth with happiness. This is caused by a deluded view that exaggerates the positive aspects of an object.

or in this case, a deluded view that exaggerates the positive aspects of a 'score'.

---

These type of threads are very sad and unproductive.

If there are 11,000 active users, thats less than 6 workunits per user outstanding. Most run more than one project so they will take longer to return.

THE ADMINS SET THE DAILY QUOTAS AND DEADLINES, IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM, THEY WOULD CHANGE THEM.

END OF THREAD - I hope

---

These type of threads are very sad and unproductive.

If there are 11,000 active users, thats less than 6 workunits per user outstanding. Most run more than one project so they will take longer to return.

THE ADMINS SET THE DAILY QUOTAS AND DEADLINES, IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM, THEY WOULD CHANGE THEM.

END OF THREAD - I hope

I hope so too. The entire thread is based on a question that already had an answer: I think we should restrict work units Maximum daily WU quota per CPU 100/day <- That's the restriction! It is set by the project. It's all we ever needed and it's been there all along. Everything else is just going around in circles.

---

Click here to join the #1 Aussie Alliance on LHC.

I hope so too. The entire thread is based on a question that already had an answer: I think we should restrict work units Maximum daily WU quota per CPU 100/day <- That's the restriction! It is set by the project. It's all we ever needed and it's been there all along. Everything else is just going around in circles.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Mike.

---

In Soviet Russia, the work unit restricts YOU!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_soviet_russia

---

I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here.

I hope so too. The entire thread is based on a question that already had an answer: I think we should restrict work units Maximum daily WU quota per CPU 100/day <- That's the restriction! It is set by the project. It's all we ever needed and it's been there all along. Everything else is just going around in circles.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Mike.

See, here's the funny thing. You guys miss the entire point of the criticism. Yes, you're not violating any rules. Yes, we know if the admins wanted faster turna round, they'd change the settings. In fact, you can repeat it some more if it makes you feel better. But it won't change the fact that you're deliberately doing something which *slows* down the project, all so you can be greedy, and get a better score. You're putting your score ahead of the welfare of the project.

But please, remind me again about how the admins can change the settings if they needed the results faster. It's what makes *you* feel better, right?

---

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

The above statement is an unproven assertion.

No one has presented any evidence that the PROJECT would advance any faster.

Some work units **may** finish sooner.

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.

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.

---

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.




Looks like we will never know.

---

But it won't change the fact that you're deliberately doing something which *slows* down the project, all so you can be greedy, and get a better score. You're putting your score ahead of the welfare of the project.

But please, remind me again about how the admins can change the settings if they needed the results faster. It's what makes *you* feel better, right?

Why are you making it a personal attack? Can you present evidence that I'm cheating? Can you prove that it's is me doing "it" and not the normal way that BOINC manager deals with debit management?

If you have a problem with me, then present some proof. Unsubstantiated accusations are impertinent.

It is clear that 1000 results spread between 1000 machines will complete faster than 1000 results spread between 20 machines. In this regard, large caches wil slow completion of a study.

It is also true that where some users are using large caches they may take a disproprtionate amount of the available work and credit in a batch project like LHC. In this regard they could be construed as 'greedy'. However, all participants can run other projects if they wish. Credit is awarded by all projects, so for those crunchers unable to run LHC presumably they can use that time to run something else and earn credit that way.

Given the pattern of this project (i.e. study, pause, analysis, next study, pause...) it it reasonable to suggest that shortening the study time by spreading the work more evenly will improve the overall provision of work. However, one key factor mitigates against this: there is only one physicist submitting work. It is unlikely that she/he has nothing else to do while a study is in progress, so reducing the time required for a study won't necessarily reduce the time between studies.

Of course, there is one joker in the pack! Those with large caches will generally return results more slowly than those with smaller ones. This means that their results will generally return later, and are more likely to encounter the infamous file_deleter bug where valid results are never granted credit.

So, for those who really want a large cache, be prepared to do more work for less reward!

---

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

This is a sad sad argument to still be going. i dont think a single person is still crunching results atm. I think it would be likely found that those WU's still waiting to be crunched are all proberbly lost units due to hardware problems and peoples computers going down. The only way they could get done any faster is shorter deadlines on returning. The will go late get reissued and then be promptly crunched. Quite possibly by those large WU junkies like me with a 99.8% resource share.

---

.... 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.

---

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.

If Project Admin thought it was broken, they would fix it.
Maybe it has to be restated so often because some seem to be hard of reading and can't grasp that concept.
If I feel I have been badly served in a shop, I don't continue to shop there.
The utopian ideal of allowing one wu per contributor until everybody has the same share just isn't going to happen. My machine does only LHC when work is available, but when it isn't, I'm quite happy to let it do Climate models or search for gravity waves, or even ET.

---