LHC@home

Hello,
For the first time in a year I had a Work Unit (19615913) ! It took 15 minutes to complete. from 16:08:35 to 16:23:50.

The server task manager said it took 11.93 CPU seconds (!!!) to complete and granted me up to 0,05 credits !!!

I hope the quality of the work done is better than the credits counting.

Merry Xmas !

Hey.

you got the mentioned wu at 16:08:35 and it was reported! by your computer at 16:23:50 that doesn\'t mean that it took \"so long\" to crunch on it. the \"beams\" probably \"crashed\" into the \"wall\" while working on it. In your case after 11.93 seconds. and after that \"crash\" your computer prepared it for reporting. which was successful at 16:23:50

Hello,
For the first time in a year I had a Work Unit (19615913) ! It took 15 minutes to complete. from 16:08:35 to 16:23:50.

The server task manager said it took 11.93 CPU seconds (!!!) to complete and granted me up to 0,05 credits !!!

I hope the quality of the work done is better than the credits counting.

Merry Xmas !

You are right, that could be a reason.
But the server says the crunch is a success.

Anyway, I am happy to crunch a WU after wainting so long.
Even for 0,05 credit ; it is better than 0 credit.

I feel sad that this european project is not able to become one of the most important project of participative computing science.

Maybe one day. Wait and see.

Bests.

You are right, that could be a reason.
But the server says the crunch is a success.

Beams crashing into the collider\'s wall is a \"successful\" result as far as the project is concerned. They tend to learn as much (if not more) from failed simulations as from successful ones. The only results that will earn no credit are ones in which the crunching process itself fails for some reason; i.e. results marked as something other than \"SUCCESS\".

Anyway, I am happy to crunch a WU after wainting so long. Even for 0,05 credit ; it is better than 0 credit.

So say we all...


-- Tony D.