1) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14288)
Posted 11 Jul 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:

I am glad to see that there are people around that are just as stubborn as I am.


There is another name for this attitude, it is called greed.

This is what I hear when I read your post:

I want more.
Give me more.
I have a right to get more.

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.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOBGUY

I find your response to my post interesting. You take one sentence out of my post and take it out of context. On top of that, you seem to make observations that have NO bearing whatsoever. HOW CAN YOU PROVE THAT I AM BEING GREEDY? I do not appreciate your personal attack!

1. It costs me money to crunch the workunits
2. There is wear and tear on my computer components
3. I am not even close to any of the top crunchers on this project or any other seeing that I only have 1 four year old computer.
4. I have not broken any rules nor have I maliciously prevented anyone from getting workunits.

WE ALL HAVE THE SAME CRUNCHING OPPORTUNITY. NO ONE CAN ARGUE THIS POINT!

5. Just like the oil companies, it is a case of supply and demand. If you don't like the system, live in another country that uses other economic controls. Alex in a post below posted this link. Did you read it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_soviet_russia I am not trying to criticize you here.

Next time when you read my post do not hear. LISTEN!

The issue here is not about sharing equitably as you claim. The issue is about a shortage of workunits. Anyone on any project can cache workunits. What sets this project apart is the fact that there is not always work. I do not hear anyone one Rosetta complaining about caches. Do you?

I NEVER said I have a right to any workunits. It is not a right, it is a privilege and I realize that. Do you?

If you look at any dictionary, greed is defined as wanting more than what one needs or deserves, especially materialistic wise. As far as I know, I will not become rich crunching workunits nor will I be gaining anything.

Do not attack me on what you hear. Attack me on the facts and information presented.

There is more hunger in this world for peace than there is for bread - Mother Theresa -
2) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14230)
Posted 3 Jul 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:
I find it quite amusing that this arguement would be non-existent if the project consistently had work. I am glad to see that there are people around that are just as stubborn as I am.


At birthday parties as a kid, we used to argue over who got the bigger slice of cake. Kids are kids..... This arguement about caching workunits sounds errily similar. So what if someone gets a few more workunits. What is the consequence? I think HomeGnome stated this point in a different way.

I disagree with HomeGnome that we should "let this thread rest in peace" if there are still a number of regular individuals discussing it. A leader once said "True peace is not merely the absence of tension, IT IS THE PRESENCE OF JUSTICE.

To adress the issue of "caching," I do not feel it violates any moral or ethical grounds. All that users are doing, including myself, is getting the maximum amount of workunits that boinc will allow at any one time. I do not use any optimized clients, or cheat with my benchmarks. Once BOINC says "I won't finish in time" I start crunching all of the workunits I have gotten until that time. While I have workunits cached, I leave my computer on 24/7 so that they usually finish in 2 days, long before the BOINC client "thinks" I will finish them. I have NEVER missed a deadline on ANY of my projects I crunch for. Besides, this project is unique in the fact that they may terminate early if the particles are "out of bounds." BOINC does not recognize this and thinks that the workunit will take 3 hours when in reality it may only take 3 minutes. If there are more workunits, I will continue to do the same thing.

I am not going to be critical of any one person or arguement here. I will continue this practice until the BOINC client is changed, or the project shortens its deadlines to the point that one cannot cache x amount of workunits at a time.

3) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14069)
Posted 20 Jun 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:


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.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Mike.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : FUBAR! (Message 13649)
Posted 17 May 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:
5/16/2006 6:09:13 PM|LHC@home|Sending scheduler request to http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi
5/16/2006 6:09:13 PM|LHC@home|Requesting 8640 seconds of work, returning 0 results
5/16/2006 6:09:14 PM|LHC@home|Scheduler request to http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi succeeded
5/16/2006 6:09:15 PM|LHC@home|Message from server: Server can't open database
5/16/2006 6:09:15 PM|LHC@home|Project is down
5/16/2006 6:09:16 PM|LHC@home|Deferring communication with project for 3 hours, 6 minutes, and 31 seconds
5/16/2006 7:09:16 PM|LHC@home|Deferring communication with project for 2 hours, 6 minutes, and 31 seconds
5/16/2006 8:09:17 PM|LHC@home|Deferring communication with project for 1 hours, 6 minutes, and 30 seconds
5/16/2006 8:26:40 PM||May run out of work in 0.10 days; requesting more
5/16/2006 8:37:45 PM||request_reschedule_cpus: process exited


I left my computer on overnight crunching for another project. This is the error message I got with the project.

I am pretty sure this is the time the project went down because I looked at my log and I never got that error again. Maybe just a temporary glitch??
5) Message boards : Number crunching : host 61123 looks suspiscious (Message 13583)
Posted 12 May 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:
I have another one similiar to this.

http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1348168

One user successfully completed the workunit in 2 seconds where the other user completed the workunit in 14,000 seconds. Hmmmmmmmm

**Edit**

Check it out here. All of the workunits he has gotten thus far he has completed in under 3 seconds. Something is fishy here!

http://lhcathome.cern.ch/results.php?hostid=84721
6) Message boards : Number crunching : How long to wait before work is available? (Message 13495)
Posted 3 May 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:
Relax, everything's going to be just fine.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I feel River is correct, I find great humor in the newer postings of this thread. It is healthy to have a little sense of humor once and awhile.

While we are all on the pharmacopeia topic: Take a chill pill River!

**(do not take that seriously)**
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Is the user base/project participants growing a bit too large, for our server? (Message 13475)
Posted 28 Apr 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:

I have four othe projects attacked but still no luck.
I have no work from any of them. besides one evey other week.


Einstein@home, Sztaki Desktop Grid, Rosetta@home, BOINC Simap, etc.

All of those have plenty of work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see that you are running BOINC on a laptop, so it could be that your settings do not crunch if you are running on battery power? That is all I can think of.........Do you get any error messages from the projects you mentioned above?
8) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 13429)
Posted 23 Apr 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:
Thanks for your input Chrulle. Nice to see you visit us once in awhile!
9) Message boards : Number crunching : "In progress" means ?? (Message 13428)
Posted 22 Apr 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:
"Workunits in progress" means the number of workunits that have not been validated yet. If it said "results in progress" then it would be counting the number sent to individual hosts and not returned yet. At this project there are normally 5 results per workunit.

What that will say and mean when the new terms come out I am not sure. It may not change though since SETI is still using "results" and "workunits" on their website, they should have the current server package out.


-------------------------------------------------------

Wow, thanks Keck. That means when this project has 100,000 workunits there are 500,000 results to crunch (or a number pretty close to that). That is a mind boggling amount of work to fathom.
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Please sign BOINC-related petition (Message 13422)
Posted 20 Apr 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:



The argument is obviously not convincing. Only 24 people (as I write this) feel sufficiently motivated to sign, and David Anderson has already said he's not interested.

As to my calculations, it is appropriate to count all BOINC participants. Everyone has the opportunity to do what Rytis has done. So far, only one has done so, and only 23 others think it's a good idea.

I'd say the community as a whole isn't interested. Rytis should perhaps spend his time doing something more appropriate on Primegrid.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would have to agree with you that this petition will not increase the pressure on David Anderson to do anything. Perhaps Rytis, more than anyone else, realizes this due to the poor response rate. Due to the low response, it probably doesn't matter how the numbers are crunched (pun intended).

However, to say Rytis should do something on Primegrid probably is not the best attitude to have. I applaud his effort both with the Wiki and the petition. Oh well........Whatever.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : "In progress" means ?? (Message 13421)
Posted 20 Apr 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:
I think River's question would be similiar to mine. I have been wondering for awhile how they count the workunits on the front page. Each workunit is sent out around 3-5 times. Does the count on the front page include each workunit being sent out multiple times?


**Edit**

To answer River's Question

I would make the educated guess that "in progress" means that the workunit has been sent out but that the computer has not returned the workunit yet. (Just what Archer said)


12) Message boards : Number crunching : "In progress" means ?? (Message 13420)
Posted 20 Apr 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:



****************Duplicate Post****************
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Please sign BOINC-related petition (Message 13402)
Posted 18 Apr 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:

most of you would not be affected by the changes


So why make a big fuss?

Believe me, there are people who care about it.


Yes - at the time of writing, 22 people care about it. (the number of signatures on your 'petition'). That's 22 amongst tens of thousands of BOINC participants. Hardly a convincing argument. I suspect I could find more people concerned that gay whales are being discrimnated against.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rytis is trying to make this community better. If he feels he should spend his talents this way, then so be it. He is doing SOMETHING and I feel he will make everything look great.

Mike, Petitions are usually not that effective whether one has 10 or 10,000 signatures. Anyways, just because he only has 22 signatures, does not mean he does not have a convincing arguement.

I would also have to say that your calculations are a bit off. You should not count everyone in the BOINC community. You should only count those that visit the forums. From the people that visit the forums, you need to see how many DIFFERENT people visited this thread. Then, how many people were actually motivated enough to go to the website and "sign" the petition.

From what I see, Rytis is not making a big fuss. He simply posted his side of the story and responded to criticism in a polite manner. You have taken this arguement way out of context with your "gay whale analogy."

All factors considered, that aint bad! At least someone is standing up for what they believe in!
14) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 13379)
Posted 15 Apr 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:
I do not think the problem lies with the user caching the workunits. This can be easily solved by the project adjusting the deadlines as appropriate. Maybe someone can help me out here, but I do recall the fact that all the crunching work needed here is near completion. I would refer you to the Cafe boards where I beleive Ben Segal has mentioned several different applications that may be added to this website to create more work.

Anyways, not always having work can be a good thing. It will allow us crunchers to contribute to other DC projects.........Although this project is my favorite, I do also crunch for Ufluids. Eventually, I think I will join QMC. I think I could contribute to SCIENCE the most with those projects! (that is only my opinion, please do not take that as criticism)
15) Message boards : Number crunching : Please sign BOINC-related petition (Message 13378)
Posted 15 Apr 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:
You have my John Hancock. Best of wishes! I applaud your effort to make this community better!
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Progress reverted to zero (Message 13311)
Posted 10 Apr 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:
River,

I have seen workunits revert to 0, but it has never been a problem. This seems to happen only if I suspend a workunit and it has not been crunching for very long. As soon as I resume the workunit, the percentage reverts from 0 back to where it should be. I am not sure if this helps.

Alex


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
Easy solution was to change my perferences to leave applications in memory. ...

Good suggestion, but in my case I already have this set to "yes" in general prefs so I think I must have a slightly different fault.

Oddly now I have several results that I know have not had time to run, but they all show about 12 hours elapsed time. It is not quite the same figure on any two of them, but almost the same.

If anyone gets a wu sharing with host 85537 then apols in advance.

River~~

17) Message boards : Cafe LHC : Anyone have some good song selections to share? (Message 13298)
Posted 10 Apr 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:
I have a few.........

Bon Jovi - Have a nice day
Bon Jovi - Who says you can't go home
Ray Jay - One wish
Rob Thomas - Ever the same
Cascada - Every Time we Touch
Josh Kelly - Amazing


18) Message boards : Number crunching : Not HAPPY people. (Message 13263)
Posted 8 Apr 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:
It is not my viewpoint - 2 of my boxes are still asking orbit@home for work - but it takes all kinds to support a DC project.

River~~[/quote]

I don't think that is just DC, I think that is with anything that involves more than one person......
19) Message boards : Number crunching : ERROR :/ (Message 13225)
Posted 31 Mar 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:
http://lhcathome.cern.ch/show_host_detail.php?hostid=112187

This user seems to have quite a bit of errors. Is there any way to let them know that this is happening? With so little work, does it matter?
20) Message boards : Number crunching : We are going again. (Message 13199)
Posted 30 Mar 2006 by senatoralex85
Post:
Maybe it is just me but I do NOT think that LHC is too worried about turn around time at this point. They have 1 week deadlines and tons of users begging for workunits. Since work is intermittent, I am sure they have plenty of time to analyze the results. I think the lack of steady work is do to the scientist simply not having any work at all to do on here. Am I way off base?


Next 20


©2024 CERN