|
61)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Host 107106 trying to cheat?
(Message 12689)
Posted 9 Feb 2006 by Nuadormrac Post: In my pending credits, I noticed this WU... http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1158626 The host above is showing crunch times not in sync with the other 2 hosts that have returned results thus far 5979076 60871 8 Feb 2006 23:37:54 UTC 16 Feb 2006 10:44:44 UTC In Progress Unknown New --- --- --- 5979077 107106 8 Feb 2006 23:37:35 UTC 9 Feb 2006 0:02:43 UTC Over Success Done 130.25 0.24 pending 5979078 95869 8 Feb 2006 23:36:50 UTC 9 Feb 2006 8:05:20 UTC Over Success Done 3,740.19 13.44 pending 5979079 102469 8 Feb 2006 23:37:58 UTC 16 Feb 2006 10:44:48 UTC In Progress Unknown New --- --- --- 5979080 106879 8 Feb 2006 23:37:48 UTC 9 Feb 2006 3:54:20 UTC Over Success Done 8,810.53 14.87 pending So, I looked in his host, and ALL OF HIS WUs for pages and pages show a claimed credit of < 1... http://lhcathome.cern.ch/results.php?hostid=107106 He's got 100 of these WUs, that are either pending, get low credit, or even 0.00 credits. http://lhcathome.cern.ch/show_host_detail.php?hostid=107106 Just looking through the first several, where his claimed credits are not in sync with other comps, are these WUs http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1143721 http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1129716 http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1129708 http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1180150 http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1180126 http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1179903 http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1179199 http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1179198 http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1178809 http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1177896 The one's that follow, it's obvious the validator penalized this host, but granted more obvious credit to all other hosts. In the above cases, no one has gotten credit yet... http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1179015 http://lhcathome.cern.ch/results.php?hostid=107106&offset=20 http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1178797 http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1177904 http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=1176352 For quite a number of more pages this pattern continues, with 1 more side note. EVERY ONE of these 100 WUs, has a download date of February 9... |
|
62)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
LHC still requires Boinc 4.45?
(Message 12559)
Posted 29 Jan 2006 by Nuadormrac Post: I'm using the lattest version of the BOINC 5.xx client, and have not had any problems with LHC. Whether or not signup is a problem (specifically with the signup wizzard) not sure, but if it is, one can install the old version, attach, and then upgrade to the new. I did that for some projects when I built my A64, but that was when the 5.xx client was still in beta. LHC now has a password attached to it, so I'm gathering it shouldn't be, as one should be able to attach with both an email and password, rather then through the project ID... As to CPDN, I have tried a few WUs, and have not got a single one to run. I made a good faith effort to get one completed, but I keep comming home after they've run for about 50-100 hours to see they errored out. I've gone onto some other projects for now, to take it's time slice. Perhaps, with a software upgrade I might try it again, but right now, without a sucessful completion, it's just trashing WUs now as CPDN and my comp don't seem to like each other, which based on the CPDN model other comps don't then pick up... All other projects work error free though, and I doubt it's a hardware problem given this and that I have all new RAM now, had a new CPU and mobo last fall, and Prime 95 and other such tests, pass with no errors on the thing... |
|
63)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
This is odd, host computer has more credit then me?
(Message 12545)
Posted 28 Jan 2006 by Nuadormrac Post: I was just checking some stuff, when I noticed this in my LHC profile page... It's especially odd, as no one other then myself uses my computer, and BOINC has always been setup for a single person instillation. There would have been no one in my apartment (and through the locked door) to get to this host. Also, previously, there were a few other hosts that were attached and crunched some WUs. Would it not make more sense then for the user to have acquired more credit then 1 computer attached to that user acount, then for the computer to gain more credit then the user account it's attached to? http://lhcathome.cern.ch/show_host_detail.php?hostid=95869 > Total Credit 3,380.09 http://lhcathome.cern.ch/home.php OK, that isn't a link unique to my user account, but on the account page it shows up as > Total credit 2,358.33 :confused: Given no one else has attached with my computer, or has used BOINC on this box, this seems kinda wierd... |
|
64)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Why my Granted Credit is just the half GC than other who did same work?
(Message 12455)
Posted 26 Jan 2006 by Nuadormrac Post: Sepionet, There are either of 2 problems going on. And though you might not like the answer, you're best advised to check them out: - Either you're overclocking that machine beyond it's capability in producing good results (aka a hardware problem), and you really should try easing off on that clock. Whatever you got on different hardware is irrelavent. Hell, when I swapped out my RAM (you did mention a memory upgrade), I had to re-test things as my old OC value (and I have overclocked my A64 here) would no longer play with the new RAM. It isn't just the CPU itself one can end up having to test for, but the RAM also. Anyhow, 2 CPUs will not OC to the same amount simply because they have the same name on the box or whatever. What often times happens is either one can have a higher clocked CPU (OK, Intel used to do this back in the day, can't say they still do), but they have too many say Pentium 133s. Now, Intel doesn't want to flood the market with so many, as it might tend to lower prices. So, to keep the supply from becomming more abundent, they re-mark some as say Pentium 100s, and then sell them as such. It was really a Pentium 133 but re-binned to not be sold as such. If yeilds were too high for their cases, and they didn't want to lower prices (aka make less money on the higher clocked unit)... The other matter is that, there at least should be some margin of timing in the given piece of hardware. If there isn't, one isn't necessarily going to fair well. Reason is, a given clock pulse isn't gaurenteed to always time the same. Lets say one is running a 200 MHz fsb. The crystal that generates the 200 MHz fsb, will not always generate this. A margin of error in the timing means that every once in awhile the given clock might only be 199 MHz, and every once in awhile, it will be 201 MHz. If one doesn't have margin, the time it generates at 201 MHz (not because of OCing, but because the timing crystal isn't a "perfect" clock generator) could result in a crash. I have an A64 now, and due to CnQ (coon n quite throttles the CPU clock back when the CPU isn't under load), the stuff that comes with the mobo to monitor this no longer shows a fixed clock, but it varies with changes in the actual clock. In my case, CnQ is disabled (hey I don't want to have the clock lower then I'm trying to run a WU, bleh), however it still monitors. The clock is usually consistent about where it should be, but every once in awhile the CPU clock is shown to be a unit of MHz slower then the usual clock (equal to the multiplier itself), or the same number of MHz faster. This is normal, from what I just mentioned, and looking at the physics of it, itself. - The other possibility is that you're optomized client isn't returning the same result that people are getting with a standard client (aka a software error). If this is the case, you really should either go back to the default, or find another optomized science app. Optomizing to make better use of the CPU is fine, as long as the results returned are the same. If it gets better crunch time, by leaving some of the science out, or by short cutting it's way through the WU (as opposed to an instruction set optomization which does result in comparable results) then this is not OK, and of no use to the project itself. The sooner you get about testing this out, the better off you'll be. Arguing about why you should get more credit, will not result in the project managers giving you more credit for INVALID results which have no science value to them whatsoever. It's time to get down to resolving the issue, which underlies your computer returning bad results... Now, how much margin one has, depends on the specific unit, and one CAN NOT make generalizations from one to the other. The only thing the manufacturer gaurentees to work is the default clock or lower. Anything above, it's the luck of the draw. An optimized Science Application is a version of the science program compiled with a specific processor in mind. This makes the software run as fast as possible. The primary effect is to complete work faster. As a consequence the credit claim will be lower (shorter time). Some hold that this "cheats" them of credit. Of a bigger issue IMO, is what it does to other's claimed credit. If one claims less, but gets more work done, given the quorums themselves, one should already be seeing more credit (assuming everyone isn't using an optomized client). They'll just tend to see more credit granted, then they claimed in many cases. But what happens when 2 people use an optomized science app? The median value is that of an optomized client, and the 3rd person who ran the default science app, does have their own credit under-cut by the 2 other people who ran an optomized science app. It's more a concession to that possible third person (who really did spend more time crunching the WU, and not due to a slower machine), that at least in my mind it might be fair to then used an optomized CC, to try to get the benchmark to balance out. True, they could have downloaded an optomized science app too, but should they get less credit simply because they ran with the default? Hmm... So, they want to run an optimized BOINC Client with the Optimized science applications to bring everything back into "balance". The problem is that there is an implicit assumption that the optimization of the BOINC Client is indeed proportional to the speed up of the science applications. It may or may not be true. Also, different science applications run with better or worse efficiency on specific CPUs. So, optimization to "balance" for SETI@Home may unbalance Einstein@Home Yeah, this can be a problem, and of course because many of us run more then one project. What might help even it up for others who might be crunching the same WU as one's self, could end up having the opposite effect on another project where one doesn't have an optomized science app. Good point also, that the level of optomization, might not be equal on 2 pieces of software... The good news is that the newer method of counting FLOPS seems to be more stable and perhaps we can put this nightmare behind us ... though I have a feeling that the cat is out of the bag and the argument is still going to be that the modifiers know more about what the claim and grants of credit should be than the projects. One can hope. Certainly sounds good in theory. And if it can actually balance things off where an optomized science app is used, without sending other projects askew (as the current situation can), all the better... |
|
65)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Why my Granted Credit is just the half GC than other who did same work?
(Message 12448)
Posted 26 Jan 2006 by Nuadormrac Post: First of all you are claiming a lot more than you should by using the optimized CC, and some people consider this cheating or borderline cheating... Meh, hopefully it balances it all out. With an optomized SETI client, one can well see that completing the same WU in less time (due to science app optomizations), and in that case an optomized CC might make sense. However on other projects, it can inflate one's claimed credit. So, if a person using an optomized SETI app, goes to run other projects also (other then Rosseta and CPDN which doesn't use a quarum), what they'd do to keep the credits fair accross all projects, optomized science app or none at all (where not avaiable). The people with an optomized SETI app, claim credit for the actual work they do, and no optomized benchmarks to then effect other projects. Sounds good, if it will manage to sort all of that out... |
|
66)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
New work when?
(Message 11864)
Posted 8 Jan 2006 by Nuadormrac Post: I've been wondering the same thing, as my client has continually been unable tog et work, and the front page shows no work. The last update we received (on the 19th of December) indicated there would be another study after Christmas. That said there was no indication of *when, after Christmas*, or more to the point how long. Yeah there are other projects, so my CPU is busy and all, but some approximate idea of when would be nice. I could just suspend the LHC project on my comp then till that date arives, and it wouldn't continue going out on the net till then. > Best part about BOINC is the ability to spread the crunching around. I also > like the statistical competition, but contribute based on the science and my > whims. I don't consider SETI to be hard science, but I will always contribute > some to their projects for having the fortitude to create BOINC in the face of > adversity. Well, IMO searching for ET isn't a non-worthwhile goal, though that said after the planet quest project comes out, I might disconnect from SETI. Main reason is that planet quest is supposed to couple a search for ET (what SETI already does) in addition to it's search for extra-solar planets (something SETI doesn't yet do). With a certain redundancy of effort combined with a further dimention (planet search), planet quest seems the more comprehensive study. That said, if SETI's project levels fell too low (not something I'm concerned about, as they have a significant user base), well we sort of need Berkeley for the BOINC project to remain alive. In that case, I'd probably re-consider to keep BOINC around. Edit: Oh wow, after posting I've just noticed that our RAC has all been shot to hell. Not that it entirely matters (when a project is offline), as we already got the credit we had :D |
|
67)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
LHC uses very little L2 cache
(Message 11251)
Posted 7 Nov 2005 by Nuadormrac Post: The thing with L2 cache (and I'm not sure how they're data is setup wrt this) is that it helps when the active data set (the data the CPU is working on at any given time) is small enough to fit in the L2 cache. When the active data set grows too large, then the CPU would end up thrashing the cache way to often (as data has to be discarded from it, and new data re-loaded) to allow further processing. In cases like that, the limited size of the L2 cache could become a bigger bottle kneck then if one didn't use it as much... This because one is constantly loading stuff into the cache, to then be discarded to make room for what one really needs at the moment. On the other hand, if the working data set is small enough that a say 256 KB L2 cache can hold it all, then one wouldn't necessarily see much performance benefit throwing 512 KB of L2 in there. This would be similar to, the main advantage to adding more RAM is that it reduces paging out to the swap file (hard drives being slow). However, if one has so much RAM already, that everything can fit in RAM, with a ton of room to spare, then adding more RAM might not help much. AKA, a person with 512 MB of RAM might see improved performance upgrading it to 1 GB. However a person with 2 GB of RAM already might not see much advantage to upgrading it to 4 GB, unless someone really is using more then 2 GB... Some CPUs offer larger cache (albeit even 1, 2, or 4 MB of L2 isn't inexaustable depending on the circumstance), though many of these CPUs are typically used for servers (aka Opterons, Xeons, etc). Thing with L2 cache is yes it's faster, but it's also much smaller and can't contain as much data in it at any given time... |
|
68)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Host corruption
(Message 10979)
Posted 25 Oct 2005 by Nuadormrac Post: I think I've got one of these corrupted hosts. This occured when I sent a WU up just now. I'm using BOINC 4.43 under Slackware Linux here. This isn't how this host was displayed in the computers screen last week. http://lhcathome.cern.ch/show_host_detail.php?hostid=66878 Domain name win95sux.tvi.edu Some of that information makes no sense, such as 0 MB of RAM and 0 CPUs. Without a CPU or RAM, I wouldn't even be running X Windows here... BTW, this is the WU that got reported and has gotten credit http://lhcathome.cern.ch/result.php?resultid=3865047 Oh, and right around the time this happened (don't know if this is related or not), the console window that boincmgr was launched from had this displayed in it root@win95sux:~/BOINC# connect: Connection refused |
|
69)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Attention LHC Developers!
(Message 10840)
Posted 22 Oct 2005 by Nuadormrac Post: Yeah, when I reinstalled my comp following the upgrade, I had the reverse of what they describe in that thread. Tried Account mgr to add projects, and even with a password, they wouldn't attatch. Had to downgrade, add, and then re-upgrade. Now SETI won't let people attach with the account key anymore, hmm... As to testing it on LHC Alpha, I'm not able to as I don't have access. Perhaps someone else does who can get ahold of churle on this... |
|
70)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Attention LHC Developers!
(Message 10816)
Posted 21 Oct 2005 by Nuadormrac Post: It's varied from project to project. Predictor was down for sometime while upgrading, whereas Rosseta was back up latter that day and in business. Anyhow, 5.2.2 has just become the recommended version recently, and sounds as if the servers will be ready in the near future. A note on the projects front page would be good when it's done, so users can see this. ;) In the interum, I've got 5.2.1 on my home PC, and should upgrade to 5.2.2. It's been mid-terms week, so I've been swamped :D I pulled some LHC WUs at school, and a couple have got processed this week (they're still under 4.43 for Linux). BOINC Manager under 4.43/Linux does seem to have a few issues however, as when I shut down X Windows it leaves error messages about bad Windows parameters and what not. If some others aren't seeing this however, it might be some interaction with BOINC and Slackware 10.2. That said, other then error messages about bad parameters in the code and what not, it does do what it's supposed to, though the graphics in LHC won't display as they do on Windows. Haven't had time to search that out to see if it's just an under Linux thing, or if perhaps there's something going on, on my boxes there. To much in my own class projects there, to spend time on something of lower priority such as this... |
|
71)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I've just upgraded to 5.2.1
(Message 10772)
Posted 17 Oct 2005 by Nuadormrac Post: <blockquote><blockquote>I upgraded to 5.2.1 about a week or so ago (close to when it came out). Otherwise, it seems all is well.</blockquote> You make it sound as though your 5.2.1 client can talk to LHC?! Mine can't. What gives? -WM</blockquote> Oh, it doesn't (albeit I wouldn't consider this so much an issue with 5.2.1 itself, so much as a project doesn't yet support sorta thing...) I ended up disconnecting LHC for the time. Course LHC was out of work then, so it didn't matter at the time. It would now, that LHC has work. However, that said, with - 1 CPDN sulpher WU - 3 Rosseta WUs - 1 Einstein WU - 1 SETI WU - 15 Predictor WUs queued up currently, my computer has enough to keep it busy until LHC is ready to upgrade to 5.2.x... The comp at school can pull WUs for both LHC and Predictor, as it has 4.43 on Slackware Linux... Course if someone wants to do LHC WUs now, one does need a 4.x client still. |
|
72)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I've just upgraded to 5.2.1
(Message 10760)
Posted 17 Oct 2005 by Nuadormrac Post: I upgraded to 5.2.1 about a week or so ago (close to when it came out). The only issues I've noticed: - Have to connect to predictor@home on 4.45, and then upgrade. They also don't have an option to store a password, so requiring an acct key to connect, the new Acct Manager won't work. Once done, Predictor runs fine and all my returned results have validated without incident. - The graphics in Einstein@home don't display now when clicking on "display graphics" in the WU tab. Otherwise, it seems all is well, and climate predictor was able to sign up with the wizzard. Only problem there is that there project is down, and the first trickle can't report. From some people's indication 5.x might address a problem over there, where some people got a sulpher WU, and then 4.45 proceeded to pull 5 slab WUs after, at which they were like "there's no way my computer can complete all these in deadline, what do I do?" problem... |
|
73)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
What's happening with this host?
(Message 10655)
Posted 9 Oct 2005 by Nuadormrac Post: Well looking closely, most results show status pending, though a few WUs he does have credit. Others however like this one http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=715061 everyone EXCEPT for this comp had gotten credit. I'm actually wondering if this person has a cheat of some sort running. Even with my A64 benching well above what the benchmarks state for his computer's processing ability, it takes me longer then that to complete a unit (of course). At least he isn't getting much credit for this... |
|
74)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
What ports does BOINC use for network access?
(Message 10654)
Posted 9 Oct 2005 by Nuadormrac Post: <blockquote>Port 443 is 100% reserved for HTTPS (HTTP with SSL encryption) communication. http://grc.com/port_443.htm John McLeod VII was saying the 5.x clients use SSL for client-server communications and it's a fantastic idea, IMHO. Firewalls should not block port 443 by default but if for some god-forsaken reason it would, then open it. If closed, you'd never be able to do online banking, sign into your yahoo/netscape/google/aol web based email, or purchase items online from major vendors. And let me know the name of that particular firewall so I can never recommend it to any of my customers. :) Travis</blockquote> One can open it up (and luckily for me, the thing is being built on some routers (OK they didn't have spare PIX's sitting around or something) and as such they're won't be any hidden surprises. It also means I have to build it all from scratch... However some places of business likely wouldn't let it through then. I'm not sure about BOINC, but I happen to have had several teachers who had a job at Sandia (National Labs) which is located here in Albuq, at Edwards Air Force Base. Needless to say, being a military instilation security is tight. However, they won't allow any encryption in there that they themselves don't control. Let me put it this way. One professor who worked there (I guess as part of their IT staff) mentioned that he couldn't order any hardware online because of this, so sure enough it does interfere with this. Then again his employer was clear "though shalt not..." Another student jokingly suggested "well I could send you a PGP encrypted email at work. The teacher looked horrified and was like "no, please dont!!!" They also moniter their network rather thoroughly, as when one of the teachers was called in to teach networking to some of the employees at Sandia (on the base), he without thinking brought his laptop with an IP sniffer installed to teach his class there about these. Next thing he knew, everyone's beeper was going off at once, and the class told him "turn that thing off now. You're going to get us all in trouble." Most places of employment wouldn't enforce all the same policies as a military instillation however... |
|
75)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Rosetta goes to full production.
(Message 10653)
Posted 9 Oct 2005 by Nuadormrac Post: Also be aware of when you reboot with Rosseta. Specifically, check points only exist between rendered models according to the people running the project. The last 2 take the longest time to process, so anything over 81% complete, and it's completing these, a shutdown can result in a significant portion of work being done, being lost. Best when at that point, to hold off on a reboot if you can... |
|
76)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
What ports does BOINC use for network access?
(Message 10604)
Posted 6 Oct 2005 by Nuadormrac Post: Oh, thx. Was just inquiring about the ports used so as to figure out what ports I need to open up to allow BOINC through. The actual project I'm doing with honey pots, a hacking box with actual intrusion detection software to test it is a bit OT from BOINC, though I do want to run BOINC on these boxes, even with the actual box I'm running this stuff from properly isolated. As I have the hard drives dedicated to me for the semester however to setup whatever I chose on, I also decided "oh, extra crunch time", for which the teacher was also interested and plans on looking into BOINC himself now... Hence this thread. A little info if you're curious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot http://www.sans.org/resources/idfaq/honeypot3.php Obviously outisde the BOINC related question, I want to keep the specifics on what I'm doing and how I'm testing this to a minimum, as it is NOT my goal to construct a hackers guide of any sort. I'm close to graduating however (this semester) and before finishing up, this is something which was mentioned in some of my classes in passing which I'm interested in looking into, getting some experience on how it works/how to setup. Obviously also, with such boxes placed on a network, people want to tightly control what a would be hacker could do, once they're in the box designed to lure them, aka what can get out of the box. I think I've got what I need for now, though I've got class tomarrow and if I get the routers can setup the ACLs and the internal network for this, and test from there. With luck, LHC will still be able to return results and get WU, even while man in the middle attacks won't be able to leave the "honey net" area I'll be isolating off. I should know more tomarrow, assuming the teacher is able to procure the extra needed equipment by then... Course outside my project, this would probably be of use for a network administrator that has a corporate network behind a firewall and is also security conscious (but would like to use BOINC as well), in that they don't want to open any more ports then absolutely needed by the software. |
|
77)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
When Will LHC Server Be Updated to Handle BOINC 5.1.*?
(Message 10603)
Posted 6 Oct 2005 by Nuadormrac Post: Yeah, Rosseta updated to version 5.x today, and Predictor has been supporting it (I think since they did the major system upgrade, when they were offline for awhile until last week). Rosseta's staff reported no probs (for their end) and were back up in less then a day. Rosseta's progress is definitely encouraging. From what has been said here, I think LHC wants to see how things go. As 5.x is still in development and hasn't officially been released, there's no reason the LHC staff has to rush with 5.x support, and it does make sense to try it out on a test server before putting it in production... All said, I'm going to try 5.x tonight on my home PC (though the Linux boxes at school I'll keep on 4.72 (under Linux) with LHC. I'm upgrading my system (the CPU is supposed to be here this Friday) so have to format anyway. Worst case, something doesn't go, it's only about 1.5 days. I'll decide whether to go back to 4.7x here or stick with 5.x on the new install once I've had some time to evaluate 5.x. The decision for people is simple. There are plenty of projects out there (and I'm setup for 5 myself), to keep people's computers occupied doing some actual science regardless of one's choice on the CC right now. If people want to upgrade, they'll need to do work for projects on those computers which support their version of the BOINC CC, until the others have upgraded. Otherwise, they'll need to stick with the older version of the CC. |
|
78)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
What ports does BOINC use for network access?
(Message 10599)
Posted 6 Oct 2005 by Nuadormrac Post: I could check that at home. I assume they would be the same. Albeit at school, it's all installed under Slackware 10.2. I do believe there is a netstat utility under Linux, though some of the settings might be a bit different... thx |
|
79)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
What ports does BOINC use for network access?
(Message 10597)
Posted 5 Oct 2005 by Nuadormrac Post: thx Assuming all goes well, BOINC should still get out along with basic web browsing and stuff after I complete this thing. So I'm gathering for now I just need to add these ports, DNS (aka port 53), and will probably add the SSH port also, and then the rest I can deny all, and all should go well. |
|
80)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
1 gig is not enough !
(Message 10596)
Posted 5 Oct 2005 by Nuadormrac Post: Again, like with anything else it depends what one is running. I could well see that a 4 CPU box running Rosseta, one might want more. Rosseta also plans on adding other tests to their WUs, where a thread similar to this was started on their boards. I can tell you that 512 MB RAM on my winXP Pro box here is beginning to feel tight (though I wasn't swapping like now 2.5 years ago when I built this box), and I would look at 1 GB next. But 2 GBs is only a matter of time. I can also tell you that this one class I'm taking where we've got to setup multiple computers (with Windows Server 2003) in Virtual PC and run it off the hoast winXP system, they have 1 GB and are as slow as hell. Ugh, the labs take forever on those things with 3 OSes running (2 virtual PCs and one host OS). :( :thumbsdown: :( Without looking at what a person is running, it's kinda hard to advise "that's plenty and anything more is overkill". For all one knows one could have multiple Rosseta WUs running at a time (the Rosseta process takes 140 MB to itself on my comp, according to Task Manager) and does stuff with Photoshop, Auto CAD, or Life Wave on the side... |
Previous 20 · Next 20
©2024 CERN