Posts by Scott Brown

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Please sign BOINC-related petition (Message 13427) Posted 21 Apr 2006 by Scott Brown Post: 1) It's about the science. Pretty web pages won't do squat. 2) It's their sand box. You can always go play someplace else. 1) Incorrect! DC has three scientific components: each project's individual work, the general computer science of DC, and the necessary social science of DC. Whether "pretty web pages" do squat is an empirical question that no person (you and Rytis included) can answer at the moment! 2) Only to a degree. Anderson has lost the right to claim exclusive domain over BOINC by obtaining public funding for the software development and by deploying it freely without restricitve license to other projects. Telling people to "go play someplace else" is also counterproductive to the goals of DC. I have signed Rytis' petition because I believe that there may be some value to the implemetation (Rytis has described more details on the PG message boards), he has done all of the work already, and Anderson needs badly to be reminded about the "people" side of DC.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : the Problem with Boinc (Message 9622) Posted 24 Aug 2005 by Scott Brown Post: <blockquote>If you want to run LHC except when it is out of work, Pick another project, and set the resource shares to 10000 and 0.000001. BOINC will crunch a cache full of work for the other project, and then mostly crunch LHC unless LHC is out of work. The above settings would crunch one hour of the other project for every 10000000000 hours of work for LHC while LHC has work to hand out.</blockquote> Normally, I would agree with JMVII, but in this case the original poster said very clearly that CPDN was not an option due to disk space limitations and Einstein would be problematic due to its shorter deadlines (though these have recently changed). With SETI down at the moment, that would leave only predictor... This actually brings up an interesting point...what if our original poster particpated in more than one project. For example, let's say that a user is signed up with 3 projects (LHC, SETI, & Protein Predictor). If all three are not up (LHC out of work, SETI and PP down, etc.--a situation that has happened more than once since the start of BOINC) then the 24/7 status of the client machines is penalized (again, working under the assumption that other projects are not options--e.g., less than 800mhz machine can't do CPDN, etc.) I am not sure there is a 'fix' for this given the system design, but it is an interesting quirk in BOINC...
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Some discoveries.(to predicte how long a WU will take) (Message 6874) Posted 8 Apr 2005 by Scott Brown Post: Interesting stats! I would, however, be much more interested in the ranges of times for each of the workunit types (i.e., slowest and fastest times for each) rather than just the average so that we get a clearer picture of their distributions. I suspect that s4 and s6 and the group of s14-s18 include considerably overlapping times (e.g., many of the s6 workunits take longer than the average s4 time, etc.).
4) Message boards : Number crunching : The 'Zero CPU' problem ... !!! (Message 6482) Posted 7 Mar 2005 by Scott Brown Post: > > Thats a good idea John but it's not going to stop anybody from getting > WU's > > that have half a brain ... ;) > > > Since it is the server keeping track, it would take a hack of the project > server to get WUs if it decided you shouldn't. > Couldn't one just detach & reattach the offending computer to get a full load of workunits each day???
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Odd problems with spawing new hosts/downloading tons of work (Message 6209) Posted 28 Feb 2005 by Scott Brown Post: Paul, Do you have BOINC installed as a service? I seem to remember a while back that a similar problem was cropping up on other projects where the service was having problems with machines that had frequently used logins without administrator rights. Those machines would download thousands of workunits, also. Just a thought... Scott
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Official Word on no more Work Units...!!!! (Message 5173) Posted 16 Nov 2004 by Scott Brown Post: Nicely said Trane. I agree. Though I think Mike (also in a very nicely said post) was making two points. One about the likely success of the project (which you have addressed quite nicely). The other hints at the scientific quality of the two projects (i.e., Mike's comment about the narrow band of observation might suggest that SETI is not being done as well as it should/could be). I think that 'more scientific' might be appropriately applied regarding higher and lower quality of a project's approach. However, since Astropulse uses the same data as SETI, I am not sure that such an argument would apply. Also, sorry to everyone for pulling us out on this tangent...wasn't my intention.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Official Word on no more Work Units...!!!! (Message 5164) Posted 15 Nov 2004 by Scott Brown Post: > > > Astropulse (from the SETI team) is under way again > > > (more scientific than SETI, IMO) and may become available soon. > > > > Perhaps it is more likely to produce successful or practical results. > > However, I do not see how either project is "more scientific" than the > other? > > > > > > > > > > Just for clarity: > > IMO = In My Opinion. > > You're welcome to yours - it's a free world. Well, some of it is. :-)) I know what 'IMO' means. So, let me clarify my point and question. Both SETI and Astropulse are scientific projects related to particular subjects of astronomy (though one could also argue that SETI is in some way a biology project, too.). Pirates@home, on the other hand, is a BOINC project that has absolutely no scientific merit--it is just a test of the BOINC system. So my question remains, how is "Astropulse" more scientific than "SETI"? I am not trying to anger anyone, I am just curious how (and why you believe) that one is more sicentific than the other.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Official Word on no more Work Units...!!!! (Message 5161) Posted 15 Nov 2004 by Scott Brown Post: > >I do not see how either project is "more scientific" than the other? > > this descision is done by the individual user hime/herself. > The user is mature enough to select the favorites projects. > Boinc or not boinc related. > > no need for a guardian ;-) > Wasn't trying to influence anyone on which project they chose, or to say that any project is better than another. I was just saying that there is nothing inherently "more scientific" about either SETI or Astropulse (or LHC or CPDN or Predictor, etc.). And, I completely agree that any user should select the projects in which they participate.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Official Word on no more Work Units...!!!! (Message 5155) Posted 15 Nov 2004 by Scott Brown Post: > Astropulse (from the SETI team) is under way again > (more scientific than SETI, IMO) and may become available soon. Perhaps it is more likely to produce successful or practical results. However, I do not see how either project is "more scientific" than the other?
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Official Word on no more Work Units...!!!! (Message 5097) Posted 11 Nov 2004 by Scott Brown Post: Actually Michael, Trane is correct. PoorBoy indicated that he believed that some merging he did on the SETI side might have also caused the merge here at LHC. Thus, while the SETI merger would be intentional, the LHC merger would be by accident. Calling someone a cheater is a serious accusation, and you should be more careful when doing so. @PoorBoy I am curious about what happened with this merger issue since I participate in several projects. If you find out more detail on it, please post a reply. Thanks.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Official Word on no more Work Units...!!!! (Message 5078) Posted 10 Nov 2004 by Scott Brown Post: > I would agree with that with regard to it running under the BOINC platform > itself. There is a heap of science being done without any credit whatsoever, > however, so the question becomes one of "how to stimulate Joe Average into > participating". Is the glory of an abstract number so valuable, really? I have > a hard time grasping that. Just because you have a hard time 'grasping' social and psychological forces does not mean that they are not real! > > > @Trane (and many others) > > > > Please stop using the "for the science" phrase. This rather overused > wording has about as much meaning as "let's do it for the children". > > I'm afraid I have yet to see why "for the science" is an invalid/unwanted > expression for participating in science projects. Try again, Scott. Okay, I never said that scientific reasons for participating were invalid (Indeed, as a PhD scientist, a set of scientifc reasons is behind my own motivation to participate). What I said was that the generic "I'm in it for the science" has 1)no real meaning and 2)has an implied sacred (or self-righteous) tone. Instead of using the generic phrase, why not be more specific about your motivations (e.g., I am in SETI for the discovery of alien life, for the advancement of radio astronomy, for furthering the tool of distributing computing, etc.)? > > Please note that I am not trying to insult anyone by saying this, > > Bollocks, that's precisely what you're doing. You (and many, many others) > can't stand the thought of actually acknowledging the egotistical aspect of > competing for something that has no real value, and the difficulty here is > that the perceived value, IMO, changes significantly depending on one's > viewpoint. > First, if I wanted to insult you, I could do so much more thoroughly and articulately. Second, nowhere in my post does anything appear regarding the 'credit' motivation for participation, so I am unsure why you chose to lump me into a group that cannot acknowledge the egotistical aspect of competing for things of no real value. > Now, why would I invest in the effort to administer these systems and enable > them to participate in BOINC projects? My slowest system is a dual P-II 300. > My fastest is a P-III 1 GHz box. Not one is leading edge, so if it were about > credits, why would I even bother? I wouldn't. My BOINC position falls in > triple digits daily. Just wait till the masses from S@H join! So, why > participate? SCIENCE! There is no other reason. Great, your motivation is science. Can you be more specific, or are you really motivated to do distributed computing projects simply because they are defined as science? There are many reasons to particpate in these projects. Many are neither 'scientifc' reasons nor reasons based on credit/competition, and ric has listed several of these. Perhaps I should put it this way: Think about how the discussion of credits as a motivation grates on your nerves. As a scientist, that is exactly how I feel when someone uses the meaningless "for the science" phrasing.
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Official Word on no more Work Units...!!!! (Message 5066) Posted 10 Nov 2004 by Scott Brown Post: @FalconFly The 'worst case' length for a SETI unit is far longer than 2-3weeks. The real maximum length would occur when a workunit requires computation by the maximum #of allowable host. On the SETI project, this would entail the initial distribution to 3 hosts, followed by redistribution to other hosts after the 2 week period of the original 3 hosts is exceeded. Since SETI uses a maximum of 8 hosts (I think??) per work unit, this could entail a 12 week (or 3-month) period of waiting (2 weeks for the initial 3 hosts plus 2 weeks each for each of the additional 5 hosts). However, this is a very unlikely scenario given that the workunits requiring the maximum # of hosts usually cannot be validated so that no credit is ever given. Nevertheless, waits for credit of 2 months are very possible (and those exceeding the 2-3 week range should be common). I am not sure about the calculation here at LHC given the fundamental differences in the number of initial hosts, the number of maximum hosts, and the use of at least two very distinct types of workunits with very different processing times. @PoorBoy I believe you are correct regarding the impact of the credit system on participation. However, no defintive answer on this will ever be found until an actual user survey is conducted. @Trane (and many others) Please stop using the "for the science" phrase. This rather overused wording has about as much meaning as "let's do it for the children". There are many (and very different) scientific aspects to each of the BOINC-based projects. Are you in it for the astronomy of SETI, the biology of Predictor, etc? Are you interested in the computer science aspect of distributed computing? What about the (non-existant to date) social science aspects of distributed computing or the social science interest in one of the largest cooperative projects in human history? In watching posts to all the BOINC message boards, it appears that most who invoke this "for the science" phrase do so as some sort of appeal to a sacred concept. I can only ask how many persons that use such a phrase have actually looked at the 'science' of the projects to see if they believe that they are reasonable projects to begin with (e.g., how many academic papers been published from the projects?, has a given project received peer review by a funding agency, etc?). Please note that I am not trying to insult anyone by saying this, I just think that such generalized statements have very little utility, especially when more detailed comments are easily made.
13) Message boards : Number crunching : POLL: Q what are YOU doing with the ready2Report ?? (Message 4737) Posted 1 Nov 2004 by Scott Brown Post: I do a mix. Generally, I let BOINC update on its own schedule. However, since my machines are not (and cannot) be on 24/7, I also update manually sometimes (especially near the end of the work day). I'd also point out that updating is not just for reporting uploaded work units. I will occaisionally do an update so that the project totals are current (rather than having to visit the websites of all 5 projects to which I am attached).
14) Message boards : Number crunching : Decision on points accumulated up to now (Message 2605) Posted 28 Sep 2004 by Scott Brown Post: > Currently we are planning to clear the credits, but all beta tester credits > will be shown on Beta Testers Hall of Fame page. > > > Markku Degerholm > LHC@home Admin > A 'Hall of Fame' is a nice idea, but anyone not in the top 200 or so is going to find it rather cumbersome to scroll through pages and pages of rankings to see their Beta credits (especially given that the project may end up with 5000 or more Beta testers). Perhaps a better idea would be to add the Beta credits (and RAC) to the user account (as is done at SETI@Home with credits from the classic version).
15) Message boards : Number crunching : New rules for forums (Message 2474) Posted 27 Sep 2004 by Scott Brown Post: "All rasistic, pornographic or illegal material..." Do you mean "racist" ?
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Faster is not always better. More credit for being last. (Message 1902) Posted 22 Sep 2004 by Scott Brown Post: I think that this depends on the particular systems involved. I have noticed that my HT P4 2.8 tends to claim less credit than others (especially when paired with Athlons), so it's being third will most often result in more credit (i.e., it is usually the lowest claimed of the three). Conversely, those with the Athlons would want to get their results in ASAP since they seem to clam higher credit. I think this also applies with slower systems (for example, my P3 1Ghz tends to claim more credit than faster pentium systems). Of course, mine is a very small sample of results.

LHC@home