Posts by alpina

21) Message boards : Number crunching : Not enough disk space :( (Message 11999) Posted 15 Jan 2006 by alpina Post: It could be because of your disk preferences, take a look at your "disk and memory usage" under your general preferences: http://lhcathome.cern.ch/prefs.php?subset=global.
22) Message boards : Number crunching : Pending credit never approved (Message 11817) Posted 4 Jan 2006 by alpina Post: best guess was that it WAS invalid, but was not flagged as such by the validator for one reason or another. I can't find that wu - is it very old? If it came in late and the other results had validated and had been purged from the system, then it might get stuck like this, always waiting for a validation that in fact has already happened. R~~ It is this workunit. It came in before the quorum was reached thus it has to be an invalid result.
23) Message boards : Number crunching : Pending credit never approved (Message 11797) Posted 4 Jan 2006 by alpina Post: You didn't do anything wrong but your computer did because the result seems to be invalid("validate state" says "initial"). It's not a big problem, unless of course, it happens very often. I also have and have had invalid results, mainly because of improper exiting of the BOINC-application.
24) Message boards : Number crunching : I am stil missing credit for 1 wu. (Message 11390) Posted 17 Nov 2005 by alpina Post: I don't think you will get any credit for this workunit. You have finished it in half the time of the other processors while they are a lot faster than yours. This suggests that your client has encountered an error, this can happen of various reasons and if it doesn't happen all the time it isn't a big problem.
25) Message boards : Number crunching : Host corruption (Message 10922) Posted 25 Oct 2005 by alpina Post: 52807 is corrupted. The client is running 4.45 on WinXP. I have no idea when the client last connected to the server since I can not get to that PC until friday.
26) Message boards : Number crunching : When will LHC upgrade so we can use 5.2.2 ? (Message 10812) Posted 20 Oct 2005 by alpina Post: This is something that could be posted on the frontpage. Keep the crunchers up to date, they like that!
27) Message boards : Number crunching : Can anyone enlighten me? (Message 10773) Posted 17 Oct 2005 by alpina Post: All his results are invalid, the client probably errors out on every workunit. Het won't get much credit fot that.
28) Message boards : Number crunching : Workunits Coming Soon? (Message 10729) Posted 14 Oct 2005 by alpina Post: <blockquote>Hi How about a message on the front page to let us all know what is going on? Keep the crunchers happy and we may process work for the project.</blockquote> Good idea. It takes only 5 seconds and it keeps the crunchers motivated.
29) Message boards : Number crunching : Quicker finishes? (Message 10708) Posted 12 Oct 2005 by alpina Post: <blockquote><blockquote>The problem is that there is a minority of hosts that use such a large cache size that these hosts are working on a rather small number of workunits for weeks while all the other hosts can't get any work. This slows the project down. Since I understand that the workflow comes in batches and the scientists have to examine these batches before they can sent out new work it is important to get in all the results of one batch as fast as possible. I think you can do this by using another type of deadline. Instead of using a fixed period of time in which the results have to be reported LHC could use a fixed deadline(a fixed date) before which the results should be reported. They could write a script that predicts how long it will take us to compute all the results of one batch depending on the recent flow of results, this script would then determine the deadline(this deadline can of course change a little bit over time depending on the throughput). In practice this would mean that hosts with a large cache can't get new work if they have a lot of work left and the current batch of workunits is almost finished. </blockquote> Great idea! That's precisely how the deadlines are set at LHC! </blockquote> But it doesn't seem to prevent some hosts from getting a massive number of workunits while the hosts with a small cache run out of work. It seems we have to live with this fact and blame it on the BOINC-system. I guess you can't force the sheduler to give out work only to hosts with a small cache size at the end of a batch?
30) Message boards : Number crunching : Quicker finishes? (Message 10698) Posted 11 Oct 2005 by alpina Post: The problem is that there is a minority of hosts that use such a large cache size that these hosts are working on a rather small number of workunits for weeks while all the other hosts can't get any work. This slows the project down. Since I understand that the workflow comes in batches and the scientists have to examine these batches before they can sent out new work it is important to get in all the results of one batch as fast as possible. I think you can do this by using another type of deadline. Instead of using a fixed period of time in which the results have to be reported LHC could use a fixed deadline(a fixed date) before which the results should be reported. They could write a script that predicts how long it will take us to compute all the results of one batch depending on the recent flow of results, this script would then determine the deadline(this deadline can of course change a little bit over time depending on the throughput). In practice this would mean that hosts with a large cache can't get new work if they have a lot of work left and the current batch of workunits is almost finished.
31) Message boards : Number crunching : Quicker finishes? (Message 10683) Posted 10 Oct 2005 by alpina Post: <blockquote>Maybe at steps like this you can put more accepted results for the last few units? Everyone gets credit, more chances of getting a fast computer working on them. </blockquote> And more important, more chances that a host with a smaller cache size is working on them.
32) Message boards : Number crunching : What's happening with this host? (Message 10652) Posted 9 Oct 2005 by alpina Post: I think there is something wrong with this host(it's not mine): http://lhcathome.cern.ch/show_host_detail.php?hostid=64455 This host finishes every workunit it gets within a few seconds, it happens with every single workunit, even those that take hours on the other hosts. It seems that it is erroring out but it reports every result as a sucess... What's going on?
33) Message boards : Number crunching : Project Update (Message 9962) Posted 7 Sep 2005 by alpina Post: <blockquote>i fully agree with this question.</blockquote> I second that!
34) Message boards : Number crunching : When will Units = zero (Message 9960) Posted 7 Sep 2005 by alpina Post: <blockquote>All out of work here, so might as well revise the countdown :D <blockquote>26654 units in progress @ 09:54 UTC Units difference = 810 Time diff. = 51 min. That's ~15.88 units/min, so I estimate the units will be done in 27 hours => 7 sep. 12:54 UTC </blockquote> 16565 units in progress @ 22:09 UTC Units difference = 10089 Time diff. = 11 hrs. 24 min. (684 min. total) ~14.75 units/min => 1123 minutes projected (18 hrs. 43 min.) => 7 Sep. 16:52 UTC Puffy</blockquote> 11093 workunits in progress @ 10:00 UTC Units difference = 5472 Time diff. = 11 hrs 51 min. (711 min. total) ~7.70 units/min => 1441 minutes projected (24 hrs. 1 min.) => 8 Sep. 10:01
35) Message boards : Number crunching : LHC@Home is NOT a science project (Message 9871) Posted 2 Sep 2005 by alpina Post: I also agree with many of the other crunchers here: communication is one of the most important stimuli to paticipate in a project. It's offcourse important that the project's subject is interesting and that it runs flawless but if you do not get any feedback(are little feedback) it all becomes a bit boring in the end.
36) Message boards : Number crunching : Resigning due to short deadlines (Message 9822) Posted 1 Sep 2005 by alpina Post: <blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>I too will be withdrawing my services from LHC. I consider these short deadline WU an attempt to hijack my computer by forcing it into emergency crunch mode, superceding the other projects I crunch for. To me, this action by LHC is on par with adware or a virus. This Project is now in 'No new work' mode and will be suspended as soon as the last WU is returned. I have not yet decided how long I will withdraw my computer, but I am considering a date of January 1st 2006.</blockquote> Nobody has forced you to crunch for LHC, that's your own choiche. The fact that you compare a virus with something that you chose for yourself is quite ridiculous.</blockquote> You are correct I don't 'have' to crunch for LHC, and I won't be for a while. However, having offered my system to help this project doesn't give LHC management the rignt to abuse my generosity. I believe my action is the best way to reinforce my point. I can only hope that others will join me in my boycott so that the point is made and other projects are not tempted to do the same in the future. </blockquote> It's your right to stop crunching for LHC as it is the right of LHC to see how far they can go with the flexibility of the crunchers. IF the short deadlines give faster results then I don't see any reason why LHC should change their deadlines. Do they have to change their deadlines just to make a couple of users happy? Or should they change the deadlines so that the project as a whole advances as fast as possible?
37) Message boards : Number crunching : Resigning due to short deadlines (Message 9817) Posted 1 Sep 2005 by alpina Post: <blockquote>I too will be withdrawing my services from LHC. I consider these short deadline WU an attempt to hijack my computer by forcing it into emergency crunch mode, superceding the other projects I crunch for. To me, this action by LHC is on par with adware or a virus. This Project is now in 'No new work' mode and will be suspended as soon as the last WU is returned. I have not yet decided how long I will withdraw my computer, but I am considering considering a date of January 1st 2006.</blockquote> Nobody has forced you to crunch for LHC, that's your own choiche. The fact that you compare a virus with something that you chose for yourself is quite ridiculous.
38) Message boards : Number crunching : Can't get new work (Message 9753) Posted 31 Aug 2005 by alpina Post: <blockquote><blockquote> May I ask you why you take such a big cache size when you are constantly connected because I can't really see the advantage.</blockquote> To be able to keep crunching when work disappears for days... the same reason caching add-ons were written for SETI-1. However, BOINC didn't implement caching properly - the cache size and connect interval need to be separate parameters. </blockquote> The problem is that this project will always have a period of time where there is no work to crunch, that is the nature of this project, you can't do anything about that. You might have some work to do if you set your cache size big enough but everyone else would have to wait until you finished your results or until they redistribute the workunits that you have in your cache. The bigger your cache size is the longer the rest of us has to wait and the longer it takes before the scientists can analyse all the results that were returned. That is the reason why they opted for shorter deadlines, to get results in as soon as possible so the global downtime is minimised.
39) Message boards : Number crunching : Can't get new work (Message 9739) Posted 30 Aug 2005 by alpina Post: <blockquote><blockquote><blockquote> What gives? Why won't my machine download more LHC units? </blockquote> LHC is now issuing units with a deadline of around 5 days. With your cache set at six days the unit will have expired before your machine uploads the result to LHC. Reduce your cache size and you should get some work when your current queue reduces. </blockquote> Cache size is not the same as connection type or interval. Even though my cache size is 7 to 10 days, the PCs are always connected and should be uploading and downloading whenever a WU is finished. This seems to be a problem in many of the recent BOINC verions. </blockquote> But if your cache size is set to 10 days you can't finish the last workunit you downloaded within the deadline limits. You just download too many workunits at the same time, the last workunits will be past the deadline by the time you want to process them. May I ask you why you take such a big cache size when you are constantly connected because I can't really see the advantage.
40) Message boards : Number crunching : New Member (Message 9646) Posted 25 Aug 2005 by alpina Post: At the moment there is no work to be processed. I think you can expect more work in the comming days. You can always check the status of the project on the frontpage.

Previous 20 · Next 20

LHC@home