|
1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Fairer distribuiton of work(Flame Fest 2007)
(Message 16402)
Posted 24 Feb 2007 by  Steve Cressman
Post:
I will never understand why anybody would morally degrade themselves by cheating to get credits that have no real world value. I would guess that these are the same type of people that would cheat at solitaire. Steve |
|
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Trojan used by dishonest BOINC cruncher
(Message 16389)
Posted 21 Feb 2007 by Steve Cressman
Post: he is not going to have any credits left to brag about. Even Ufluids disabled his account. I think this guy should end up in  for unlawful use of other peoples computers.Steve |
|
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Fairer distribuiton of work(Flame Fest 2007)
(Message 16354)
Posted 15 Feb 2007 by Steve Cressman
Post:  BoincDebtViewer  Steve |
|
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Fairer distribuiton of work(Flame Fest 2007)
(Message 16346)
Posted 15 Feb 2007 by Steve Cressman
Post: I do several projects and my boinc manager continues to ask LHC for work. I get work from almost every batch. I just adjusted my boinc settings and the scheduler does the rest without my intervention. Sure there have been a couple batches that I missed out on because the work happened to come and go while I happened to be in a long back off. It goes through a cycle starting with minute backoffs up to a 4 hour backoff. Then the cycle repeats with ever increasing interval until it gets to about 4 hours again then it goes back to doing short backoffs again. Do you now see a pattern as to how it works? But you will have better success using a small cache, hint hint. Steve 
|
|
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
LHC credits not showing up in cross-project stats
(Message 16345)
Posted 14 Feb 2007 by Steve Cressman
Post: Where is my pony? :*( 
|
|
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
LHC Creating new user hosts at a high rate
(Message 16325)
Posted 13 Feb 2007 by Steve Cressman
Post: I just checked my old posts and it has been 233 days since I posted detailed instructions how to fix this from your client. As soon as the new server is up and running the current release of boinc software (v5.09) it will no longer be an issue.  Steve
|
|
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
LHC credits not showing up in cross-project stats
(Message 16324)
Posted 13 Feb 2007 by Steve Cressman
Post: Hear Hear 
|
|
8)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Could I ask for an update on the frontpage?
(Message 16189)
Posted 24 Jan 2007 by Steve Cressman
Post: Tea breaks, who said you could take tea breaks ;) Don't forget the crumpets. Just kidding around. But a snippet of news here and there lets us know you are still alive, thanks for the update. Steve |
|
9)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Totally Disgusting
(Message 16048)
Posted 5 Jan 2007 by Steve Cressman
Post: I wouldn't bother too much. LHC needs 3 valid results. With one result claiming way too much, the granted results are lower. The "cheat" client doesn't do any good here. It doesn't hurt either. No need to worry. If you look through his results you will see there are instances where he gets in a quorum with another overclaimer and the high claims are awarded. So while a quorum does stop most of it, it does not stop all of it. And no I'm not bothered by the credits, I'm just bothered by the choices people make in life. Steve |
|
10)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Totally Disgusting
(Message 16041)
Posted 5 Jan 2007 by Steve Cressman
Post: Was looking through my results when I came across this result . I just don't know how people can live with themselves especially when they so blatantly try to cheat like this person. My claim was 27.92 and his digusting claim is 121.85 There is no way you can say that a claim that is more than 4x what it should be is a mistake. I bet this person also cheats at solitaire. And if you want to be disgusted even further look at that persons other results. |
|
11)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Not enough Disk space?
(Message 16017)
Posted 3 Jan 2007 by Steve Cressman
Post: Im not having any problems with cc5.8.0 so it might be worth changinging to that client and maybe that will jog it back to life. But as POV pointed out, the ' Use no more than 80% of total disk space' might be the problem. When I compare your settings to mine : Use no more than 5.0 GB disk space Leave at least 0.1 GB disk space free Use no more than 95% of total disk space Write to disk at most every 60 seconds Use no more than 90% of total virtual memory the only noticble thing different is mine is at 95%. Since you don't have work for LHC you may want to try just resetting or even reattaching to LHC. :) Steve |
|
12)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I found an Anomaly
(Message 15978)
Posted 3 Jan 2007 by Steve Cressman
Post: Wow, thanks Gary. And I too like to push my system. Stock speed for this one is 1.8 GHz but I'm running rock solid stable at 2.1 GHz . Been running at that speed for close to 3.5 years but ran it at stock speed for couple weeks first to break it in. With some chip coolers I could go higher but never seem to get around to picking some up. :) Steve |
|
13)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I found an Anomaly
(Message 15973)
Posted 2 Jan 2007 by Steve Cressman
Post: I've been here over two years and didn't know that and have never seen it in the results before the one I pointed out. |
|
14)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I found an Anomaly
(Message 15963)
Posted 2 Jan 2007 by Steve Cressman
Post: What's worrying is that all the recent results of that comp were deemed invalid by the validator. And got about 50% credits granted anyway. Maybe CC 5.8.0 has something to do with this? I doubt that is the problem since I'm also using v5.8.0 without problems. |
|
15)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I found an Anomaly
(Message 15958)
Posted 2 Jan 2007 by Steve Cressman
Post: Was just looking through my results for this run and found something that needs to be checked out. It was not my client with the problem, but I thought it best to point it out. THis work unit is the one I'm refering to. The 4th one in, computer # 159657, has recieved only half the points of the 3 of us who made up the quorum. Never saw this happen before. If you look at the result Details it was marked invalid. Should it not then receive zero for this result? Steve |
|
16)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Interesting news article about CERN
(Message 15944)
Posted 31 Dec 2006 by Steve Cressman
Post: I was doing some snooping around the net tonight and found this interesting artical about upcoming events connected with CERN. I never realized how global this project would become when I joined this project over 2 years ago. The story is a bit long but contains lots of insite as to where the project is headed. Steve |
|
17)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Bye all!
(Message 14421)
Posted 24 Jul 2006 by Steve Cressman
Post: I joined shortly after you did to help with the end of the beta testing. And after a couple months moved on to beta other projects because this project did not seem to advance after going live. About 3 months ago i reactivated my account to once again help out but the project seems to be going backwards and am feeling much the same as you. Who would have thought that after almost two years it would be in worse shape than it was back in beta. You would think that if the project appreciated our efforts to help the project they would maintain the Boinc portion of the cern project. P.S. : Mike, I hope you don't stop all boinc activity because there are some other worthwhile projects that could use the help. |
|
18)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Why can't I get any work?
(Message 14354)
Posted 18 Jul 2006 by Steve Cressman
Post: That makes four or five batches now that I did not get to share in the work. Something really needs to be done by the project to create a more fair distribution of work since the greedy ones here never learned to share. My computer is always connected and asks for work many, many, times a day but they get snapped up between deferals. The work would get done much faster if all the connected computers got some work instead of just a few computers getting large amounts that then sits in their cache for a few days. Many hands light work makes. If that does not make sense to you then maybe this will. Suppose you needed a ditch dug and you had to do it by yourself with one shovel. It would take a long time. But if you had 20 people with 20 shovels it would be done almost right away. The whole point behind distributed computing is to share the work amongst many computers. Another thing, why do you think the default setting for the cache is only 0.1 day? |
|
19)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Communication deferred
(Message 14285)
Posted 10 Jul 2006 by Steve Cressman
Post: It should not have gone to a one week backoff unless it had 4 consecutive failures getting the master file list. And that usually only happens when the servers are unavailable for an extended period of time. Normal deferrals should not go more than a few hours. I think you may have had problems on your end because as far as i can tell from my logs, the LHC servers have not been down lately. |
|
20)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
O.K., I'm New! No Work??
(Message 14261)
Posted 7 Jul 2006 by Steve Cressman
Post: And with the greedy people using large caches, you will be lucky to get any work. They like to steal all the fun from the rest of us. I did not even get one wu out of the latest batch |
Next 20
©2024 CERN