Posts by Jim Baize

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Please note: this project rarely has work (Message 21360) Posted 20 Apr 2009 by Jim Baize Post: Not sure what version of Boinc you are using, but I don\'t have a max of 600K. In fact, on my 8 core machine, I have something like -32M built up on one project (CPDN of course). That debt will be paid once I get all of the currently downloaded CPD WU\'s crunched and uploaded. Jim This was my first time. With 600,000 seconds owed to LHC, all my projects had hit their limit of time owed. All I had left was CPDN coupled modules but they take over 100 days of continuous running to finish. I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ve had my debts all one sided for LHC at one point, but never had the problem that you described. All of the other projects requested work when they needed it. I never ran out of work. Hi, Folks I only have LHC set to a resource share of 12.5% of total capacity but, because there has been so little work available, my LTDs fouled up my Boinc Manager to such an extent that it wouldn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t ask for any work for anything but LHC and that had nothing to give. This was such a waste of resources that I contacted Boinc and the stuff below is the correspondence which has cured my lockup. Please note that you need to close down Boinc Manager before starting BoincDV. Apologies for the sequence being in reverse order. Message Mike Gibson
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Thank you for the work (Message 20892) Posted 29 Dec 2008 by Jim Baize Post: and I got at least one of the thousands. :)
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Please note: this project rarely has work (Message 20699) Posted 27 Oct 2008 by Jim Baize Post: I\'ve had my debts all one sided for LHC at one point, but never had the problem that you described. All of the other projects requested work when they needed it. I never ran out of work. Hi, Folks I only have LHC set to a resource share of 12.5% of total capacity but, because there has been so little work available, my LTDs fouled up my Boinc Manager to such an extent that it wouldn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t ask for any work for anything but LHC and that had nothing to give. This was such a waste of resources that I contacted Boinc and the stuff below is the correspondence which has cured my lockup. Please note that you need to close down Boinc Manager before starting BoincDV. Apologies for the sequence being in reverse order. Message Mike Gibson
4) Message boards : Cafe LHC : MyMiniCity (Message 19023) Posted 15 Feb 2008 by Jim Baize Post: Brixtonia I wish I had know you needed /ind. You are starting to have some unemployment.
5) Message boards : Cafe LHC : MyMiniCity (Message 19022) Posted 15 Feb 2008 by Jim Baize Post: Hydrogen @ Home
6) Message boards : Number crunching : The new look bugs (Message 18505) Posted 1 Nov 2007 by Jim Baize Post: Any hope of getting jump to first unread post fixed? What she said :) What they said. :-) LOL. I'm glad my request is so popular. :-) Who said what?
7) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Australian TV Item on LHC (Message 17782) Posted 23 Aug 2007 by Jim Baize Post: Very interesting reading. Thank you for sharing. Jim
8) Message boards : LHC@home Science : initiate transfer (Message 17571) Posted 27 Jul 2007 by Jim Baize Post: they have been talking about this issue on the Boinc_Dev mailing list.
9) Message boards : Cafe LHC : Massive Censorship at Predictor Boards! (Message 17376) Posted 17 Jul 2007 by Jim Baize Post: why not just leave and take your cpu cycles somewhere where they will be appreciated? I agree! Why fight to be allowed back into a place that is so bad? Why constantly expose yourself to the attack when all you have to do is never return to the project and never have to worry about loss of credits or censorship on this level?
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Merge?? (Message 17006) Posted 7 Jun 2007 by Jim Baize Post: Thanks Jim, but I pretty much stay on top up of keeping my managers updated. That particular box hasen't even done a wu yet and it's listed.....I think, if I remember right, 187 times! Would it work if I detached that box and tryed to reattach it? And do you know if I could take care of this through bam or is bam the problem? OK, the only way I can do it is to detatch that box 187 times! I'll just wait for someone to fix the problem! You may be a victim of the ghost host problem. I know it has been discussed in other threads. I'm not familiar with the problem other than to know that it exists. Sorry I can't be of more help. Jim
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Merge?? (Message 16976) Posted 4 Jun 2007 by Jim Baize Post: Nope, still not working. Getting the same thing, just tryed again. If there is a big enough difference in the version of boinc that you used on the old machine ID and the new machine ID, it may not merge. They've done some updates with the way BOINC identifies the processors in the computer, therefore the server may not recognize the machine as being the same one.
12) Message boards : Number crunching : How do we (Message 16894) Posted 15 May 2007 by Jim Baize Post: If you are talking about the message on the front page, we users do not have to do anything. The message was just simply informational about what is going on behind the scenes.
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Gone in a flash! (Message 16793) Posted 30 Apr 2007 by Jim Baize Post: Indeed... It is a common misunderstanding that "Connect to Network every X days" was not the Cache setting. Apart from correction values applied to it (Up Fraction, Online Fraction, Running Fraction etc.) it is the basic - and only - local Cache setting to date. Other supplemental Cache Options are being introduced with the current 5.9.x Alpha test series. Why they erroneously named it so misleading (as the Client will make much more frequent contact when online, regardless of this alledged Network limitation setting) is beyond me. If it was indeed a cache setting, the "connect interval" would be directly proportional to the cache setting. This is not always the case. In some instances it is directly proportional, while in others, making the "connect interval" too large will actually stop the accumulation of work on hand; therefore it is NOT a cache setting. Yes, it does affect the cache, but it is NOT a cache setting.
14) Message boards : Number crunching : Gone in a flash! (Message 16788) Posted 30 Apr 2007 by Jim Baize Post: ...Although it does affect how much work is stored locally, it is not a "cache" setting. This is a very common misunderstanding. And I suppose the amount of work stored locally is not a work cache. If that is so, then the Ulysses S. Grant in my wallet isn't cash either. That would explain why the liquor store down the street won't sell me that bottle of Patron Silver. Give me a break, Jim. It all comes down to cache, whether it bites you in the butt or not. Yes, the work stored locally is a cache, but the "connect interval" is just that, a connect interval, NOT a cache setting.
15) Message boards : Number crunching : Gone in a flash! (Message 16783) Posted 30 Apr 2007 by Jim Baize Post: Pardon my ignorance, but where does one 'adjust the cache settings'? Thanks, Joe Go to your account, General preferences, Network usage. Adjust your 'Connect to' time to whatever you think is appropriate. For this project my opinion is that 1 day or less is most appropriate. And I like peanuts! I'll wait awhile to get some. Just to point out a small discrepancy, the "Connect to" time is not a "cache" setting. Although it does affect how much work is stored locally, it is not a "cache" setting. This is a very common misunderstanding. Jim
16) Message boards : LHC@home Science : How feels the Universe? (Message 16730) Posted 22 Apr 2007 by Jim Baize Post: Weather forecast says that Entropy will be up from Yesterday. LOL... I love it!
17) Message boards : Number crunching : Because you asked.... (Message 16616) Posted 25 Mar 2007 by Jim Baize Post: What about people who have attached, zero credit, zero rac for the simple fact they couldn`t get any work. What about them? The account would still be active, it's just the computers that would be deleted. The next time the computer requests work, it would be added to the database. No different than if / when a existing user adds a new computer to his account.
18) Message boards : Number crunching : strange error message (Message 12992) Posted 11 Mar 2006 by Jim Baize Post: 06/03/2006 21:16:45\|ralph@home\|Result BARCODE_30_1acf__237_7_1 exited with zero status but no 'finished' file 06/03/2006 21:16:45\|ralph@home\|If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project. What is this project, ralph@home? [edit]Never mind. I found it.[/edit]
19) Message boards : Number crunching : going, Going, ........ , GONE. (Message 12875) Posted 25 Feb 2006 by Jim Baize Post: Well, there were a few days of WUs, but this batch went fast. Front page reports that we're outa work again... Take a look in the "science" forum. In there is a PDF of the results we have delivered. The last page of the PDF also proposes some "additional studies".
20) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Similarities (Message 12874) Posted 25 Feb 2006 by Jim Baize Post: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/research/string_membrane.html

Next 20

LHC@home