1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Faulty Computers or Modified BOINC ?? Huge Credits
(Message 23863)
Posted 21 Jan 2012 by Galeon 7 Post: ... Thank you Igor. I appreciate not only your explanation, but the simplicity of it. So, like, can I swap those for about 100K work units to crunch? :) |
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Faulty Computers or Modified BOINC ?? Huge Credits
(Message 23859)
Posted 20 Jan 2012 by Galeon 7 Post: I have now adjusted the total_credit entries in the sixtrack data base for Just finished going through this thread. As I understand it, someone either cheated or something and I was one of four people "wingman" that benefitted with extra credits. How? As far as I know, my computers earn credits for the work they do, not someone else screwing with their own computer. I am assuming that those credits have been taken away since I have lost around 400K, specifically on 18 Jan. I don't get into the heavy number analysis like several very astute people here do, so I don't know what has happened. To that end I have opened up my computers so perhaps someone can tell me what went on. I thought I was doing honest crunching looking only at my daily totals (admittedly not every day). Have I got this right and I lost 400K of what I thought I honestly earned? For those of you that are either only science or only credits...I crunch for both. I have been on this project a long time through both thick and thin available work units. Right now, my heater is broke, but that is no problem as I am heating the house using the computer room. I have put upwards of $40,000 dollars into my systems. I don't take this lightly. |
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Please note: this project rarely has work
(Message 19415)
Posted 14 Apr 2008 by Galeon 7 Post: I suppose it is like their WORLD Series which is only competed for by US teams. There are 300M of them and none of them seem to be aware that are 8B others out here. They also don't know how to spell English on their side of the pond, either. I'm dyslexic, so sue me. |
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Please note: this project rarely has work
(Message 19413)
Posted 14 Apr 2008 by Galeon 7 Post:
I prefer US military standard: dd MMM yy 14 Apr 08 |
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
When you see work is around ...
(Message 15345)
Posted 3 Nov 2006 by Galeon 7 Post:
Great, just great! I grew up in Texas and don't understand what nary means. :( |
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14479)
Posted 5 Aug 2006 by Galeon 7 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.... Ok, I have to admit I get confused easily; but, if there is no problem why does it have to be solved? |
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Why can't I get any work?
(Message 14477)
Posted 5 Aug 2006 by Galeon 7 Post: For Conan: It is the most beutiful thing you can see. There is also a 10^(-80) probability that you unfold all the secrets of universe! Missed your appointment with your psychiatrist again this week huh? |
8)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Bye all!
(Message 14476)
Posted 5 Aug 2006 by Galeon 7 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... We're just <snif, snif> tired of it toying with our affections. |
9)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14383)
Posted 20 Jul 2006 by Galeon 7 Post: TY Dora. Six-Track is only the name of the program they're running. It has no real connecton with the actual number of tracks in the LHC. In several places they are at minimum space so six tracks wouldn't fit equipment wise and the redundancy would be a waste. The length of the old LEP and the LHC may be primarily the same at 27 Km, but the equipment in the LHC is significantly bigger. It has to be when you're out to destroy the universe, like Mike. :) |
10)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14382)
Posted 20 Jul 2006 by Galeon 7 Post: Mike, you know, teaching physics 101 to grad students really sucks :) Yeah, what I said does imply an exit point. Crossing the beams (magnetic deflection) in Alice, Atlas, LHCB and CMS are the exits I am referring to. With a drawing it is easy to see, but without, a little hard to envision that something inline can actually be an exit point. You know, they tried doing this in Ghost Busters and almost destroyed the space/time continuum don't you? And it's all your fault! Note to self. Never try to explain the difference between a quark and a qwerk to a physicist and a psychologist, because then they will get married and bring about the end of the universe. Philisophically speaking of course. |
11)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14381)
Posted 20 Jul 2006 by Galeon 7 Post: [quote .... It seems so! Take a look at your general preferences for: Connect to network about every (determines size of work cache; maximum 10 days) Bigger numbers allow you to get more work. But, you should set your "Connect to network about every" to no more than one-tenth. That is the "fair" thing to do...[/quote] Then I would assume that .04 is ok? |
12)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14375)
Posted 20 Jul 2006 by Galeon 7 Post: Perhaps this is a Social or Psychological experiment and not one of Physics... I posted the response below to the Synergy board as there were complaints there too, mostly quanderies. Exellent people, but not as personally involved in particle physics as we are. My apologies if this goes "under" your heads :) Why LHC Starts and Stops I'll admit, I like to crunch for numbers (as well as to further CERN). I consider LHC my pet project. I just think of biology projects as yucky. I always hated biology. I took LHC off of my three dinosaurs. It didn't take too long to see they couldn't take it. I did add three more P4 HTs to the two I was using only to not see enough WU's show up since. I am still waiting to see them strut their stuff. I don't know what this "Cache" thing is. I just checked my SETI specificatons and didn't see Cache mentioned anywhere. Is it the percentage of memory used? I will admit, I do stuff WU's but I can get them done in 2 days. I didn't know there was a problem until recently when I saw the low amount of WU's out there and can't grab any of them. Just now, there were about 500 and within minutes it went to 11,000 but all were taken. If I slow down CERN, I will surely back off, but I haven't seen any of my numbers busting the ones members here have set out. Wasn't this whole thing about the computing power we bring to CERN? If we weren't here, just how much further "behind" would they be on only their processors. One way or another we are a valuable asset to them, not a liability. PS: Right before people went on vacations etc. for the summer, distributed computing put out over 400 Teraflops. The fastest supercomputer in the world puts @280 Teraflops, making us the fastest computer in the world. |
©2021 CERN