Posts by rsbriggs

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Official Word on no more Work Units...!!!! (Message 5142) Posted 13 Nov 2004 by rsbriggs Post: http://lhcathome.cern.ch/forum_thread.php?id=580
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Something blew up in Linux (Message 4435) Posted 26 Oct 2004 by rsbriggs Post: dbernat The executable is not called boinc. cd to the directory where you unarchived the gz file to. Type ls you will see the executable with a name like this: boinc_4.09_i686-pc-linux-gnu Obviously the above example is ver 4.09. To run this you have to enter the full name: ./boinc_4.09_i686-pc-linux-gnu to get the help file: ./boinc_4.09_i686-pc-linux-gnu --help. Tip You dont have to type all of the name: type ./boinc and hit the tab key, it autocompletes for you.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Best way to remove old hosts (Message 3347) Posted 8 Oct 2004 by rsbriggs Post: You can merge computers which are similar. If they have the Same CPU OS etc. The reason for merging the inactive computers is to cut down on the number of ghost computers. I don't want to view my computers and have a lot of inactive machines in the list. Flagging these machines as inactive would be a better option but we cant do that.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Forums slow & database connection errors (Message 2926) Posted 30 Sep 2004 by rsbriggs Post: I better post something then :)
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Decision on points accumulated up to now (Message 2911) Posted 30 Sep 2004 by rsbriggs Post: I was amongst the first 1000 to sign up and as far as I can tell haven't lost any points recently. Who did lose points ?
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Best way to remove old hosts (Message 2908) Posted 30 Sep 2004 by rsbriggs Post: You cant delete a host that has credit.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Best way to remove old hosts (Message 2903) Posted 30 Sep 2004 by rsbriggs Post: I have quite a lot of computers listed that no longer contribute to the project. They can't be deleted as they have credit so the next best thing is to merge as many as I can. The thing is that they are multi CPU machines which accumulated quite a lot of credit whilst they were active. When/IF I merge them they will likely appear high up on the top computers list. I don't really want to hijack the list, so is there any other options ?
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Decision on points accumulated up to now (Message 2887) Posted 30 Sep 2004 by rsbriggs Post: I see that the scores haven't been reset yet. Can we assume from this that they will not be reset? I am easy either way just looking for clarification
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Forums slow & database connection errors (Message 2852) Posted 30 Sep 2004 by rsbriggs Post: Message board seems to be very slow at the moment. Of course as soon as I post this it will get faster again :)
10) Message boards : Number crunching : It appears that cheating has arrived for BOINC & LHC (Message 2851) Posted 30 Sep 2004 by rsbriggs Post: Michael Are you sure you aren't jumping the gun a bit here ? Maybe one of the validator servers had a stuck queue ? I guess from the numbers you quoted that someone with a total credit similar to yours jumped ahead by 3k and you want to know why. Maybe the admins will have an explanation and we can stop panicking.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : What now ? (Message 2799) Posted 29 Sep 2004 by rsbriggs Post: Do we need to reset the clients or carry on as normal ?
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Credits.. RAC... beat the system? (Message 2677) Posted 29 Sep 2004 by rsbriggs Post: sysfried If you are concerned about cheating then don't participate in the project. People are here to crunch WU's and enjoy some friendly competition. The bad old days of Seti are behind us and there is no need for self proclaimed policemen.
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Has someone tried out the Linux client? (Message 2657) Posted 29 Sep 2004 by rsbriggs Post: Compiling the linux client yourself improves the performance a lot. The benchmarks improve by about 50% and consequently so does the claimed credit. The binary distribution has been compiled with little or no optimisations hence the poor performance. Compile it yourself and it improves a lot, although your credit will be dragged down by those who are running the unoptimised binary. Athlon XP 2400 Version 4.09 linux client CPU benchmarks 2004-09-29 03:49:55 [---] Benchmark results: 2004-09-29 03:49:55 [---] Number of CPUs: 1 2004-09-29 03:49:55 [---] 1042 double precision MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU 2004-09-29 03:49:55 [---] 2519 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU 2004-09-29 03:49:55 [---] Finished CPU benchmarks Client compiled from source code CPU benchmarks 2004-09-29 03:55:19 [---] Benchmark results: 2004-09-29 03:55:19 [---] Number of CPUs: 1 2004-09-29 03:55:19 [---] 1923 double precision MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU 2004-09-29 03:55:19 [---] 3013 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU 2004-09-29 03:55:19 [---] Finished CPU benchmarks WU's seem to be taking around 28 mins.
14) Message boards : Number crunching : Decision on points accumulated up to now (Message 2656) Posted 29 Sep 2004 by rsbriggs Post: Why bother with a hall of fame. Reality check here people this is just a BETA test. Wipe the scores and go live.

LHC@home