1) Message boards : Number crunching : Old Pending Credits (Message 21643)
Posted 20 Nov 2009 by Profile Irondog
Post:
I only have 2565 pending... :)
2) Message boards : Cafe LHC : Milestones (Message 19060)
Posted 22 Feb 2008 by Profile Irondog
Post:
Congrats to all on your milestones
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed 0 credits - still pending after all 5 results received (Message 18878)
Posted 25 Jan 2008 by Profile Irondog
Post:
The admins are aware of this issue (do some searching in old threads) but apparently it isn't very high on their agenda.


I'm not really sure they are aware, considering my pending date back to 2005.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Moldy results (Message 18877)
Posted 25 Jan 2008 by Profile Irondog
Post:
My oldest "moldy" result is from April of 2005!


Thought I had you beat, but mine is only Oct 2005. But I do have over 1300 WU's stuck in pending status...
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed 0 credits - still pending after all 5 results received (Message 18869)
Posted 22 Jan 2008 by Profile Irondog
Post:
At last count, I had 1318 of the 0.00 WU's stuck in pending.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Stil a pending credit (Message 18572)
Posted 9 Nov 2007 by Profile Irondog
Post:
I now have 937 pending WU's, 662 with 0 claimed credits.....
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Stil a pending credit (Message 18547)
Posted 4 Nov 2007 by Profile Irondog
Post:
I have 614 pending WU's, 507 with 0 credit. Somebody, PLEASE make them go away.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Initial Replication (Message 17739)
Posted 6 Aug 2007 by Profile Irondog
Post:
There is no need to create a new batch or delete the WU from the current batch and put it in the next batch. On all the projects I've ever crunched, if you return a result that has errored on your system then a replacement copy of the WU gets generated and put in the outbound queue within a few seconds. It gets sent out whenever another host requests work, could be only a matter of minutes if lots of hosts are requesting work. Some projects put the replacement at the head of the queue, some put it at the tail. If it goes to the tail then no problem, other WUs get sent and completed a little sooner, the replacement waits. It doesn't matter which one gets done first, it does matter how soon they ALL get done. Ya have to look at the entire forest not just individual trees.


Thanks for explaining this. I can now see how setting the IR to 5 is wasteful and can agree that once the project is stable, the admins should look into this.

As for your personal attack against me... I'm not going to drop back to that level by responding. We're done.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Initial Replication (Message 17728)
Posted 5 Aug 2007 by Profile Irondog
Post:
I've also added four machines to this project. If you’re still upset about wasting time, feel free to leave the project as you've mentioned. I'll pick up your slack.
I can always tell when I am dealing with someone of lesser intelligence when they resort to overworked cliches like the above. You have demonstrated your ability to repeat rote and very little creativity or ability to analyse the situation and generate new ideas unfetered by dogma. Now take your hackneyed "I can cover for you" attitude and ram it up your nose.


After re-reading what I said, I'll admit that was a stupid comment on my part. And reading your reply, I'd have to say our intelligence about the same. <g>
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Initial Replication (Message 17727)
Posted 5 Aug 2007 by Profile Irondog
Post:
I agree the setting IR 5 to can be a waste, but I see my questions haven't been answered, lets try again.

Sometimes the results don't match what then? What if a host machine crashes and the work is lost?


So, with IR set to 3, what happens? Does a new batch have to be created for the missing/corruped work? How long does this take (identifiying what work is missing/corrupted, creating the new batch, waiting for the work to get completed, and hoping that runs 100% error free)? Maybe 4 would be better?

11) Message boards : Number crunching : Initial Replication (Message 17722)
Posted 5 Aug 2007 by Profile Irondog
Post:
Free Ads said
Why waste computing time? If you only need a quorum of 3 why an initial replication of 5???
... if this project continues to waste resources that other (just as deserving projects) could have used to actually accomplish something then I will donate my humble resources to them.


Dagorath said
No, it does NOT give a safety margin. If you think it does then you obviously are not aware of how the quorum works. If the first 3 results match then they declare the canonical result. They do not wait for the 2 remaining results to return to see if they match with the canonical result. So how can you possibly say 5 provides a safety margin? Man, THINK about it.



If this were a perfect world, I could see your argument. But it's not. Sometimes the results don't match what then? What if a host machine crashes and the work is lost? And the one I've experienced a few times, upgrade BOINC and it wipes out the work? (Again, if this were a perfect world, I would ALWAYS back up the BOINC folder before upgrading) Now you have to reissue the missing work, and if I remember correctly, that won't happen until the batch is complete. Now the scientists have to wait, wasting time. Somewhere, someone is going to waste time. I prefer it NOT be the scientists. I'm sure most people wouldn't want to pay the scientists to sit around waiting.

Let’s also not forget that this project has just moved to a new home with new admins. I think I read somewhere that this is not a typical BOINC installation. I'm sure time is needed to figure it out, a few jobs will need to be run to make sure things are running correctly.

I've also added four machines to this project. If you’re still upset about wasting time, feel free to leave the project as you've mentioned. I'll pick up your slack.



©2024 CERN