41) Message boards : Number crunching : More work please... (Message 7713)
Posted 15 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
> My CPU cools down... give us more work please ;-))
>

NegraBytes:
Please take a look at This Thread and note the comments (reprinted below for you) from Project Admin Markku Degerholm:

<I>"We are currently finishing "tail" of current study, that is, resubmitting work until every workunit has been processed.

After that there will be a short break (week or so) and then about one million new workunits (which makes about five million results) will be submitted.

Markku Degerholm
LHC@home admin</I>



42) Message boards : Number crunching : Will this test stop next?-No, ... ? (Message 7667)
Posted 13 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
> Looking at the exported user stats, in the last 30 days only 2600 users
> returned results.
>
> In the last 7 days 2400 and yesterday only 2000.
>

And we went through the last 220,000 WU's <B><I>How Fast</B></I>?? ;)

If only 2600, then 2400 then 2000 Users returned results with 5k + Host Computers in the last 14-21 days, doesn't that make the speed at which we ran dry this time, even more 'interesting'....?

Imagine if we had 10x the current number of users drawing on the current work product coming out of CERN.

This is why I think that we will not be adding more people soon, <B>unless</B> CERN has stockpiled a fairly large cache of work before throwing open the gates.
43) Message boards : Number crunching : Will this test stop next?-No, ... ? (Message 7665)
Posted 13 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
FZB:

You misunderstood my statement. I was saying that if we barely have enough work to keep the <B><I>current</B></I> users machines crunching and we're exceeding the science goals with only 5104 active users, then what will the influx of 5k 10k or 20k new people do to the existing flow of work from CERN?

Unless CERN has enough consistent work for everybody they allow to crunch, then the science suffers, the users suffer and the project suffers.

So yes, the amount of new users would depend on CERN's ability to get good use out of their ability to crunch, why else allow them in if there's not enough work to go around for them to contribute to the science?

44) Message boards : Number crunching : Will this test stop next?-No, ... ? (Message 7663)
Posted 12 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
> Will new account creation be enabled?
>
> Live long and crunch!


Gas Giant:

Do you think that the project is really ready for this at this moment in time....? If the Beta is almost over, can you imagine what this place will be like with just 5k new members, or 10k or 20k new members???

We barely have enough steady work for the 5104 of us as it is, and the million WU being talked about have been worked out to last about a month or so for just us.

That amount could easily be depleted/sent out in 2 weeks or less if they just added 5,000 more members with fairly fast PC's. Make it 10k new users instead of 5k and a million WU's would only last barely a week (using the example in a prior post as the basis).

Unless CERN has changed their policy for the frequency of new work, I don't see us adding new members soon unless they've got a stash of a Few Million laying about someplace waiting to be crunched.

The only caveat that would make a million WU last longer would be if they were all 1,000,000 turn instead of 100k turn, but I see above that Markku has said that this batch is all 100k as far as he knows.
45) Message boards : Number crunching : what is this on boinc 4.38?????????????? please (Message 7661)
Posted 12 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
> Logan5,
>
> This is like wishing that you could win the lottery. Reality is that the
> people that post in the "wrong" place are not going to post in the "right"
> place, regardless of the rules. Or, for that matter, what you and I might
> wish.
>

Then I guess there's going to be a LOT more Go here references then ever before once the project goes live.....

With just a little more effort on the part of "the powers that be" this could almost be completely avoided by simply making the HelpDesk THE single place and point of contact for all things LHC error related.

But you <B><I>are right</B></I> in that the reality, no matter what is done, will likely be far different then the effort made, if any to try and "re-train" the majority of users to be more structured in their posting habits.

I think that the Human affinity for instant gratification is being greatly underestimated in this instance.... :o
46) Message boards : Number crunching : what is this on boinc 4.38?????????????? please (Message 7655)
Posted 12 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
> It is equally frustrating to know that the answer is written down but you
> can't seem to be able to get people to read it ...

Which is why in This Thread I took a lot of heat for daring to suggest that the pitifully under used HelpDesk is a far more appropiate place to post actual, real 'problem' threads instead of in these forums which are supposed to be for non-problem discussions.

Placing all the similar problem threads together in one place would:

a) Unclutter the non problem forums
b) Keep all the problems located in one central place so that anyone wanting to answer the same questions multiple times will find it easier to do so
c) Make it easier for the Admins to respond if they only had 1 place to look for all the problems


>
> Though, I guess it is slowly getting better ...
>

I don't understand why the Forum rules on posting "whatever" "wherever" are so lax, as once this project comes out of beta, the forums will be flooded with wide eyed eager n00bs who will all be asking the same basic questions (wich will have nothing to do with the forums they will be posting them in) over and over again because it's easier to ask for the fast 'n quick answer then to take initiative and RTFM to learn something.














47) Message boards : Number crunching : Will this test stop next?-No, ... ? (Message 7614)
Posted 11 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
A question if I may:

Since we're all supposedly 'used to' the Scientists @ CERN taking LONG BREAKS between times they give the LHC Admins more work for us, should another outage be considered atypical at this time?

Sure we've had close to 200k work units over the last 7-10 days but has that spoiled all of us in to thinking that the good times will last forever??

Get those Account ID's for other BOINC projects ready, because unless CERN drops another 100k of work on us real soon, they will be needed.

In this one instance I really hope I am wrong....



48) Message boards : Number crunching : what is this on boinc 4.38?????????????? please (Message 7584)
Posted 10 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
> The only recommanded Boinc Client Version out right now is still the version
> 4.19.

Ric:

According to UC Berkeley 4.25 is the 'current' recommended version, as 4.19 has slipped to 'older version' status.

49) Message boards : Number crunching : Downloading too many WUs (Message 7575)
Posted 10 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
> So is this recent influx of WUs a rush to send out as many WUs as possible to
> test something so that resource shares and client uptimes aren't taken into
> account? Ot is this a bug in the scheduler?
>


Well, According to Project Admin Markku Degerholm in this thread: http://lhcathome.cern.ch/forum_thread.php?id=1338

The LHC Client is using an older Scheduler and they are in the process of Alpha Testing a newer replacement. Maybe this has to do with your problem???
50) Message boards : Number crunching : We got the million (Message 7552)
Posted 9 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
> Great.
> VeryVeryVery nice.
>
> I would like thank to
> - all members (we do this with the help of YOU all)
> - the LHC-Admin Team .. They make the WU for us :->
> - my boss, that he say: "That's funny what you do"
> - oh, and at last my Commodore C64 that process all the Units :-)
> - Oh, and all other happy cruncher .. ääh ..
> Processing&Idle-Power-spending-peoples ... Freaks .. :-)


Commodore 64?? that's some VERY advanced technology you crunch with.... ;)

And yes, congrats on the million mark for your team & the LHC project, it is a well deserved milestone for all of us.
51) Message boards : Number crunching : ADMIN! - Project Down Errors & Message Board Errors (Message 7548)
Posted 9 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
I can see that some people in this thread prefer to start trouble and deliberately like to twist a person's meaning around to suit themselves.

<B>Ian Thompson:</B> I apologize if I have confused you, <B><I>creating this thread was not wrong</B></I>, that was never my intent to do so and I think that your ideas for some new forums are an EXCELLENT idea in spite of what some others here might think to the contrary...

<B>Mike W:</B> There's no need to be a little troll wanker to get your point across. You don't like what I have to say, then unless there's a gun pointed at your head forcing you to look at my posts, move on and don't bother to read or reply to them in the future.

<B>Schatzalp Davos Switzerland:</B> You don't understand my meaning so you chose to attack instead if you had a better understanding of what I have written, you might not be so quick to judge.

<B>PoorBoy:</B> You of all people should have been able to understand what it is I am trying to say, but I guess you like things the way they are and are afraid of anyone who advocates change.

I've <B>NEVER</B> said that anyone should be censored from posting anything here. All I have tried to say is that we should not make more work for the admins then they already have by making duplicate posts on the same system wide issues that have likely been already brought to their attention.

I propose that the very under used HelpDesk would be a more appropiate place to post problems while leaving these forums for their originally intended purposes.

If people want to be helpful and answer these types of threads why not have them all centralized to make it <I>easier</I> for those who want to reply to them?

All the personal negativity directed toward me aside, none of you has yet to come up with a good reason <I>why</I> there should not be more structure to the forums and an established procedure for reporting problems....Don't like my idea, then by all means come up with a better one instead of complaining about everything else other then what the true meaning is in my previous posts.
52) Message boards : Number crunching : ADMIN! - Project Down Errors & Message Board Errors (Message 7539)
Posted 8 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
> I like your post, Logan 5, but you spent too much time on that reply....
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sysfried
>

I guess it takes some longer then others to understand things sometimes.... :/
Thank you for the support.
:)
53) Message boards : Number crunching : ADMIN! - Project Down Errors & Message Board Errors (Message 7535)
Posted 8 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
> >>ok....let's try this again
>
> Why?
>

Yes, lets try this again for the 3rd time... :/

Let's say for example, Mike W is one of 4 or 5 admins for a project similar to this one and the project has let's say....about 5000 current active testers.

Let's say that it's Mike W's job to answer all website forum postings and inquiries in a timely and polite manner in addition to his regular duties which include website database maintenance and other website 'back end' duties as assigned by the Devs.

Let's say that one day your website results database get's badly corrupted, crashes, goes down for whatever reason and the project forums and connection to the project server is lost.

As you are quickly working to restore the database & fix the problem, you also have to answer multiple panicked posts about the crash & resulting downtime/non-normal operation and explain why it happened when you might not even know the answer yet.

All the time you are spending answering and explaining things over and over and over again takes away from the time you need to quickly get the database up and running, which in turn makes the outage longer and increases the numbers of repetitive "why?" postings which you have to address 1-1 lest you appear to be rude and not communicating.....

What to do??? Do you either:
1) Personally answer everyone no matter if your answer to their problem has already been posted multiple times and fix the server-side problem when you have time?
2) Answer only a few and then ignore everyone else so you can get back to fixing the problem, hoping that people will at least look to see if what they will be posting already has been?
3) Ignore everyone, fix the problem as quickly as possible and then have to deal with the endless threads about "lack of consistent communication"?

Do you see the problem yet? I hope so and that you are not being purposefully difficult about this only because you dsagree with me.

THE SOLUTION: Like Alex has mentioned already in this thread, the LHC Help Desk would be an <B><I>excellent place</B></I> to corral all those multiple posts while keeping the forums "free" of all that clutter so they can be utilized for their original purposes. This forum, according to it's description is for: "Credit, leaderboards, CPU performance" and doesn't say anything about user reporting of system wide problems, or getting technicial assistance for any of the topics that are expressed here on a regular basis.

Perhaps the fault is that the HelpDesk is buried and not really accessable from here: http://lhcathome.cern.ch/forum_index.php other then a small link up at the top of the page that people when concerned or in a hurry to report something, may miss entirely.

Another factor is that (for right or wrong) the admins here have encouraged the "post anything anywhere" environment by not really encouraging/enforcing the use of the Help Desk as the appropiate place to make certain types of posts. Maybe this will change once the project goes live, but as an example, you don't see the same level of posting "freedom" in other DC projects....(cough..einstein...cough..seti) as you do here.

I also have been a beta tester of Software (besides BOINC) for many years so I do feel that I am qualified to say these things based on my experience.

While I appreciate your sentiments, I really don't think that you are seeing the "bigger picture" with respect to lax forum rules....Just wait until this project goes live and get's 10's or 100's of thousands of new recruits who are all wide eyed and eager to report the same things all the time....the headaches for the admins will increase at least 10x what they are now with only a little over 5k Beta Testers...and unless CERN hires many more forum admins, the ones here WILL be hopelessly overwhelmed by the ratio of users to admins.

I apologize if whatt I am saying has "ruffled the feathers" of people who are used to the status quo, but unless changes are implemented now, during the beta period to address issues like this, this place will be chaos incarnate when the eventual tsunami of new project members appears.


54) Message boards : Number crunching : ADMIN! - Project Down Errors & Message Board Errors (Message 7533)
Posted 8 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
ok....let's try this again for the people who don't seem to understand what it is I am trying to say.

If 1000 people report the exact same problem that obviously affects <I><B>the entire project</B></I> then that is:

a) Duplicating and wasting effort by the 6th poster to the 1000th poster, as the problem has already been reported/posted by the first 5 people to do so.

b) Taking an admins time away from resolving the problem (or other more serious problems) when they have to try and reply to each duplicate post on the same subject.

Take a look through these forums, and you'll find many examples of multiple people panicking & reporting at different times that the database is down or the scheduler is down or the message boards are not working...etc...etc....etc.....
Well, obviously, if the database/scheduler/whatever is down for you, then there's a very good chance it's down for everyone....that's called common sense.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that many of the over 5000 active beta participants do not have any formal training or experience in beta testing. They are just "average users" who have been given an opportunity to test, and that can be both a benefit and sometimes can lead to 'complications' for the admins & devs.

Like I said in my original post:

<B><I>"The Powers that Be" might already be fully aware of a project wide situation by the time a person posts a thread about it because with over 5,000 of us participating in the beta and only 3 or 4 Admins, plus some Devs working on the back end, we outnumber them greatly so there's a very good chance someone else (closer to the admins or devs then you and me) has already beat you to it or they've seen it themselves and are working on a fix as quick as they can.

OR

The project wide errors you're experiencing just *might* be the result of them trying to fix something that someone else has complained about being broken and will resolve themselves in due course.</B></I>

If some people get offended by my speaking the truth then so be it....but no one can argue that this project has a small staff, and a smaller budget and resources then many other Distributed Computing projects, and I personally would like to see the Admins and Devs focused on getting this project out of beta and live as quickly as possible instead of having to say "Yes, we noticed that too." to every person who happens to start a new thread about a project wide problem, WITHOUT first checking to see if someone else has ALREADY posted about the same problem before them.

<B>I really like the idea of a centralized Help Desk where people could report project wide problems instead of mixing them up all up under the "Number Crunching" forum....
55) Message boards : Number crunching : ADMIN! - Project Down Errors & Message Board Errors (Message 7500)
Posted 7 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
People:

There's really no need to bring <B><I>every</B></I> small project related outage or error to the Admins attention each time it happens.....

Specific personal client errors & issues or specific credit problems/weirdness should ALWAYS be reported as they happen regardless of the state of the overall project.

Why?

Well, "The Powers that Be" might already be fully aware of a project wide situation by the time a person posts a thread about it because with over 5,000 of us participating in the beta and only 3 or 4 Admins, plus some Devs working on the back end, we outnumber them greatly so there's a very good chance someone else (closer to the admins or devs then you and me) has already beat you to it or they've seen it themselves and are working on a fix as quick as they can.

OR

The project wide errors you're experiencing just *might* be the result of them trying to fix something that someone else has complained about being broken and will resolve themselves in due course.


After all I don't think I need to remind anyone that this project is still in BETA, and as such has zero guarantee of stability while problems are being addressed.

Patience grasshopers.......patience.
:)
56) Message boards : Number crunching : Weird BOINC Manager Anomaly ... !!! (Message 7448)
Posted 5 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
> I just noticed today that the BOINC Manager v4.25 is reporting that my slowest
> Computer (a P4 3.06 HT CPU) will finish the WU's in 17:58 min's ... D'oh ...
> It actually takes this computer about 1 hr to finish 2 s6 Monkey WU's in HT
> Mode ...
>
> All the rest of my Computers report that they will finish a WU in the 1 hr 10
> min range, which isn't exactly accurate either because they all run 2 WU's in
> 45 min's to 1 hr 2 min's, so in other words more than twice as fast as the
> manager reports that they will ...
>
> Apparently the BOINC Manager doesn't have a clue to as how fast your computer
> will run these WU's ... ???
>

Did you try running CPU Benchmarks under File -> Run benchmarks? That should get a fairly accurate measure of your computers speed & power and tell the client an approximate time to completion based on how fast you process the benchmark test data.

57) Message boards : Number crunching : Holy WU's ... BatMan ... !!! (Message 7381)
Posted 1 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
> but everyone else having very short CPU time on
> these? Or is it just my box?
>

Well, on a P4 3.4GHz with 1GB of Memory & HT enabled, I can do 2 100000 turn WU's in :30 to :45 minutes.

My AMD Athlon XP 2400+ (2GHz) with 768mb of Memory does 1 WU every 1:00 to 1:15

My Dual Pentium III (1GHz) with 256mb of Memory does 2 WU every 1:30 to 1:50

So, yes I too am noticing shorter processing times, but it really depends on the type of processor and memory you are using.

58) Message boards : Number crunching : 180k WUs but none for me ??? (Message 7371)
Posted 1 May 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
> > Could it be that the LHC team is creating a large buffer of WUs, and
> then
> > allowing a few more users to sign up?
> >
> It's not a very large buffer. 200,000 Wus between 5000 users is 40 WUs each.
> That's probably more like 15 WUs per host, or a couple of days work.
>
>
>
>

Your math can't be right because I am consistently downloading far more work then that since the glut started and before that when Markku raised the daily limit per host to about 200 I beleive it was.... I have 50 on one box, 35 on one box, 60 on another box and 40 on the last one.

Preferences are set for 7 days worth of work and with the 4.35 dev client, it throttles the work based on what it thinks the CPU can handle.

59) Message boards : Cafe LHC : 100 K Milestone (Message 7367)
Posted 30 Apr 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
NICE job there, LB....

Now catch up to me already.... LOL

:)


60) Message boards : Number crunching : 180k WUs but none for me ??? (Message 7366)
Posted 30 Apr 2005 by Profile Logan5@SETI.USA
Post:
> guess it was just a burp in the scheduler of boinc 4.35, the moment the very
> last WU was done, it also requested new work
>

FYI:

I Beleive that Markku said in another thread that the limit was raised to 200 per host, but that's probably been removed now that there's almost 200,000 availabe Work units for little over 5,000 participants.

Enjoy the freedom of letting your clients run wild.... :)




Previous 20 · Next 20


©2022 CERN