|
21)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
When can we expect the next batch of wu's?
(Message 14521)
Posted 11 Aug 2006 by m.mitch Post: Really, I just like the word aardvark. You know about HMVS Cerberus?? Wow! I'm impressed. :-) |
|
22)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Bye all!
(Message 14508)
Posted 9 Aug 2006 by m.mitch Post: I fail to see why people hate this project so much, I have to say it has been the most reliable project I run out of 20 or so projects. When there is work to be done BOINC on my computers gets it runs it then returns it almost without fail. I check on the project web site every other month or so just to stay upto date. Andrew, would you like to join our team? |
|
23)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14351)
Posted 18 Jul 2006 by m.mitch Post: Lets all watch this video Seed: Seed Short Film: Lords of the Ring An exclusive tour of the underground accelerator at CERN led by the scientists who work there. and see if we can find out where the wu's are disappearing to so quickly.... Unfortunately Quick Time stuffed me around again. It seems ever time I use it, it wants a new bit that it can't get! Not on the server this time :-( Sounded good though. ;-) |
|
24)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14348)
Posted 18 Jul 2006 by m.mitch Post: I'm not sure if I followed all that bowlingguy300 so I'll just "respond" to what I think I understand, if you know what I mean. looking at the preferences for LHC, I noticed that the cache setting isn't in the LHC@home preferences but rather in the general preferences and apply to all attached boinc projects... Sorry, I thought that was a known. I should have added that to one of my posts not so long ago. ...to me over caching doesn't make sense on this project.... Increasing the cache reduces the chances of getting LHC work units. It will be filled with other projects work units and is unlikely to take on more work. There is even a chance that BOINC Client may wait up to 10 days to check, by then any LHC work units will be gone. NOTE: bowlingguy300, I'm not highlighting to insult you but I would like others to notice that point. I don't think I deserve any more units then anyone else, be nice to get some once in awhile.... I feel that way too. I have 5 PC's running and just a little while ago there were over 15,000 LHC work units waiting. One of my PC's was looking for work at that time and got about 10 work units, the other four got nothing so far and probably wont. They seem to be crunching a lot of work units for 3 or 4 other projects just at the moment. Don't know what to do about that, my cache is at 0.25 at the moment, LHC resources are at 20% to 40% depending on the PC. Seems to me that should have grabbed plenty but it didn't and there are still 14437 work units in progress. It's hard for anyone to get work units here. |
|
25)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Why can't I get any work?
(Message 14346)
Posted 18 Jul 2006 by m.mitch Post: I didn't get any either, and I am on 24/7.... I have five PC's running full time Dora and only one of mine got any today, about 10. There's still over 14K available but I've got to many WU's from other projects. ;-( Like HomeGnome said, c'est la vie! |
|
26)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14284)
Posted 10 Jul 2006 by m.mitch Post:
We don't disagree on that. It's been quite obviously stated so by more than one participant here. I assume they're not lying. It's also easy enough to look at the WU history of any particular computer/user in this project. I really don't have a complaint when a user has a dial-up - I do understand that they're just trying to get the best use of their equipment. Okay, now that one doesn't hold water. If we had a large stock of other project WU's, we wouldn't have room for LHC WU's when they become available.
Thankyou for suggesting I'm clever. I think you've done a pretty descent job yourself. Dancing around the only conclusion that can be drawn from the constant complaints. "I want work units!" |
|
27)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14283)
Posted 10 Jul 2006 by m.mitch Post: Hows the head Mike, got a concussion yet. I figure if I ask them enough questions they'll realise they are the problem. Let's see how that goes with the next post ;-) I've been looking forward to this answer! |
|
28)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Communication deferred
(Message 14282)
Posted 10 Jul 2006 by m.mitch Post: Hi, That happens when there is a file missing and the "get" fails. If you wait a few hours and click on update it will probably restart the normal communication deferred clock. |
|
29)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14276)
Posted 10 Jul 2006 by m.mitch Post: Just because the project doesn't equitably distribute work and permits the large caches of WUs does not mean that it is right or fair. (1) What does it mean then? (2) How can you know whether anyone uses a large cache or not? (3) How is it unfair to you? |
|
30)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Please make me the Founder
(Message 14269)
Posted 8 Jul 2006 by m.mitch Post: You're probably right, I'll have a look when I check my messages. edit: You are, of course, right. That's what I get for working from memory when I don't have any ;-) |
|
31)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Please make me the Founder
(Message 14267)
Posted 8 Jul 2006 by m.mitch Post: Thanks for the kind words John. I posted to Cats on the team forum so thought I'd let you know what I said: "I've already spoken to him in Rosetta, he politely declined." Conan was quite gracious particularly considering the trouble he's had with this on Rosetta. Although, if you want to help recruit for us, we'd be for than happy ;-) |
|
32)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14201)
Posted 27 Jun 2006 by m.mitch Post: I think they do protest too much! When the BOINC Manager has no LHC WU's it builds up debt. When the BOINC Manager has LHC WU's it reduces debt. When the BOINC Manager has processed enough LHC WU's to zero debt, it processes other projects. When the BOINC Manager is processing other projects, it takes its normal time. When the LHC project finishes supplying WU's, the last ones will be processed in normal time. Then the cycle begins again. Where is the proof that I'm taking more than my fair share of work? The failure to answer my question doesn't make the opposing argument right. I think the problem lies elsewhere. |
|
33)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14194)
Posted 27 Jun 2006 by m.mitch Post: 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. 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. |
|
34)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Pending credit not being validated!
(Message 14125)
Posted 23 Jun 2006 by m.mitch Post: I think The Gas Giant is referring to WU where a quorum has been established already and credit granted to the first 3 (or 4). Results returned later still show as pending. I have a few WU like that myself. That's been a problem for quite some time, I've tried to report it before without much success. Other participants tell me it's a known problem, somewhat brusquely, with this project. Being that it’s in beta I thought we were supposed to report problems. Silly me. |
|
35)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Pending credit not being validated!
(Message 14109)
Posted 22 Jun 2006 by m.mitch Post: I have quite a few wu's where the main result has been granted credit but since yesterday I have not had any wu's validated. Is there a problem with the validator? I wonder if that's anything to do with the DNS change? Perhaps there are quite a number of people who haven't reset their own DNS windows thing as said in another thread. It may mean a lot of missed deadlines. |
|
36)
Message boards :
Cafe LHC :
Physicist probe the fifth dimension
(Message 14096)
Posted 21 Jun 2006 by m.mitch Post: Myself, I'm a String Theory Skeptic. String Theory never made sense to me either. I mulled it around in my head since it was first explained to me and I can't get all the pieces to fit. Didn’t Hawking’s recent rebutle of his Theory of Everything include String Theory? As for gravity, it doesn't make sense until we get to the galaxy size scale. Then its compounding effect is undeniable! 8-) And I accept the current explanation for the status quo of the three other forces (there are some other bits, aren't there?). As for the Flat Earth theory, it has to correct or all the Moon landing conspiracy theories fail and that's not possible is it?? 8-D ;-) EDIT: Opps. I almost forgot, the fifth dimension is just another axis other than x, y and z. Like being able to turn right at an intersection without giving way to oncomming traffic (change right to left in applicable countries :-). That's the example I've used for the alternitaves to the fourth dimension. After all, they're just names we have given to possible environments. |
|
37)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
too many backoffs!!!!
(Message 14095)
Posted 21 Jun 2006 by m.mitch Post: can anyone tell me what this means Backoffs are failed host attempts to connect to the server. In this context, the host program has tried to connect too many times and must reset itself by getting a new copy of the master file in an attempt to "realign" the host with the client. Because the server is down, that also failed and the error message is the same (a bit stupid really, not very good programming - missed exception handling - needs another ELSEIF or similar). I'm a B/A, can you tell? ;-) I also talk like that! |
|
38)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14065)
Posted 20 Jun 2006 by m.mitch Post: These type of threads are very sad and unproductive. 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. |
|
39)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14047)
Posted 19 Jun 2006 by m.mitch Post: wow... This thread is still alive? "sigh" Now that cracked me up! 8-D |
|
40)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14046)
Posted 19 Jun 2006 by m.mitch Post: I like this project and stop everything else when work is available, fire up old Athlons that are not in use normally. 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 |
Previous 20 · Next 20
©2024 CERN