Posts by Logan5@SETI.USA

81) Message boards : Number crunching : New WUs (Message 6888) Posted 8 Apr 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: Strange indeed....3 of my machines received new work under Sixtrack 4.64, the other one received work for Sixtrack 4.66. I doesn't really matter to me as they are all working again which pleases me greatly that I was fortunate enough to get some work this time before CERN run's dry again.... Also, the work on all the boxes are the 1,000,000 turn WU's thankfully not the 100,000 turn or else I'd be out of work again real soon. :)
82) Message boards : Number crunching : Status of the new clients (Message 6860) Posted 6 Apr 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: > the number in s(number) like for example s16 is the amplitude of the starting > conditions, the higher the amplitude the more likely it is that particles will > be lost. > > > Thanks for the information. I'm sure it will be useful whenever more work is made available.
83) Message boards : Number crunching : WU for only on of my machines ??? (Message 6859) Posted 6 Apr 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: And then there's some of us who get none.... Can we trade? I'll take all the WU's that the 2 of you are getting, and trade you for the nothing I've gotten for the last 3 weeks or so.... Yes the work is spotty and comes and goes, but it could be ALOT WORSE for those who still get work, as limited as it is.
84) Message boards : Number crunching : LHC news---- Is there any? (Message 6748) Posted 29 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: I can only base my opinion of this topic on the evidence of my eyes, and ears after reading many posts here by the admins and users alike. I think that the LHC Project Admins (NOT the forum admins unless they're one in the same) could be a bit more curteous and give regular updates, even if nothing significant has happened sice the last update. A simple "Nothing new to report" or "We are still working on xy&z" will go a long way toward maintaining a TRUE sense of community within the LHC project, because by including the users and keeping them "in the loop" with <B>regular</B> updates, news of interest and whatnot, they will feel like they actually have some worth or tangible value to the science. I think that currently, the project is lacking "community" in the sense of felowship and mutual respect between the users and the Project Admins that it is implemented in the S@H project (to use a good example). I get the distinct feeling that many users here feel 'slighted' or 'disrespected' in some way by the lack of regular updates and feel like maybe their contributions ultimately mean nothing to the LHC Admins or something I really don't know. This is only my opinion but when you tell someone that "more work is coming soon" or "open sign ups will be happening soon"..etc..etc.. you really should keep the users <B>regularly updated</B> instead of "soon" really meaning "when we feel like getting around to telling you". How long were the T-Shirt Contest Winners supposed to wait to hear something about who won the contest until they forced the issue to get it resolved? That's a perfect example of the point I am trying to make. Before the LHC defenders come out to attack me, I DO KNOW that this project is in it's infancy and experiencing great growing pains as they learn to cope and adapt to a new way of running their scientific models, but that's still no excuse (IMHO) for the rampant <B><I>lack of consistant communication from the scientists to the users</B></I>. S@H, E@H, CPDN, on and on and on are ALL worthy projects to participate in when LHC is dry. Astropulse when it goes beta soon will also be a strong contender for spare cycles, so yes, there's plenty of work available if one simply looks for it. P.S. I am still somewhat of an "LHC or nothing" cruncher, but I've grown to accept that with LHC "It is what it is" which is small amounts of work released to the users for a few days (rarely more then a week) followed by a LARGE amount of mostly unexplained downtime over several weeks/months. This doesn't mean that I like the way things are, but I HAVE accepted it as part of the way that the LHC project currently does business. If I want to continue to participate, I will do so by their rules, no matter how much I may disagree with some of them. LHC is LHC and all the posting on the lack of work/lack of communication will make people feel better in the short term, but ultimately get everyone what it already has which is............nothing.
85) Message boards : Number crunching : running out of work (Message 6551) Posted 14 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: Ahhh.....wheels within wheels within wheels within wheels. True enough that no one here knows the real reasons why the seti project admins chose to do things the way that they did back in the past to reach the point we are at now with their research and BOINC. I guess for any people who feel 'let down' by Berkeley because of this, it's like one prior poster said before: <B><I>{paraphrase} "I voted with my feet and reduced seti to 10% CPU allocation and that will likely go down as there are more projects added to BOINC. Later it is probably going to be restricted as to which computers are running it also.</B></I> I suppose that if enough people did this, it might make the sleeping giant open it's eyes for a bit, but would it ultimately make enough of a difference to get the giant to sit up and take notice and actually do something about the concerns being voiced? Probably not as Berkeley knows full well that a smaller pool of dedicated/fanatical participants can generate a similar amount of completed work product compared to a larger pool of people crunching only for the sake of crunching something when their project of choice is out of work or down. If small amounts of participants leave the S@H project those numbers probably ultimately matter not to Berkeley in the grand scheme of Distributed Computing under the BOINC platform. OR to sum it all up using a tried and true Star Trek Saying: {To Berkeley} "A Difference which makes no difference IS no difference"
86) Message boards : Number crunching : running out of work (Message 6547) Posted 13 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: And many of you seem also to be forgetting that long before BOINC was a reality, there was Astropulse...At one time it was probably invisioned that there would be seperate projects, but with hardware, bandwidth and server room limitations to consider, it was likely more prudent and economically feasable to give BOTH projects a common platform to run from which became what we all know now as BOINC.
87) Message boards : Number crunching : The 'Zero CPU' problem ... !!! (Message 6437) Posted 6 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: > I've been involved with Boinc since berkeley's initial beta test, and I'm on > the alpha team. I'm well aware of duplicates and many other issues. Sounds like you're all on top of things then. I wasn't presuming you didn't know, just pointing this out IN CASE you didn't. Every BOINC project's just a 'lil bit different then the next one and you'd be surprised what people think they know (or don't) about a given project.
88) Message boards : Number crunching : Note to my team (Message 6424) Posted 5 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: adrianxw & Toby: It seems like we will only partially agree with each other on this issue. Both of you have your opinions and I have mine. All three opinions raise valid points, so unless there can be two "correct" ways of thinking on this topic, we seem to have reached an impasse. Only time will tell which (if any) of our opinions/thoughts will ultimately guide the project admins for the future direction of the LHC Project, so I think that we can probably end our 3-way discussion on the note that we will be "agreeing to disagree"... :) It was a pleasure debating with both of you and a personal thanks from me to the both of you for keeping our conversations civil, unlike some other's around here that have gotten pretty heated in the past.
89) Message boards : Number crunching : LHC@home support added to KBoincSpy CVS (purty pics included) (Message 6406) Posted 5 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: > Excuse the n00bish question, but this program will only run on the *.nix > platform correct? > EDIT: Nevermind.... I got my answer All POSIX (Linux/BSD/UNIX) Operating Systems... :/
90) Message boards : Number crunching : Boinc Client 4.25 (Message 6405) Posted 5 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: > Seems like a lot of work will be deleted needlessly if this is the only > 'correct' way to do this. > ========== > > Actually if you un-install BOINC first no work is lost, the core files are > saved from being un-installed. Then when you re-install the new version the > work just picks up where you left off from ... > > Ahhh I should have added that you must uninstall when going from 4.19 to 4.2x as the code base is substantially different.. My bad. :)
91) Message boards : Number crunching : Boinc Client 4.25 (Message 6393) Posted 5 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: Thank you PoorBoy for the fast reply.
92) Message boards : Number crunching : The 'Zero CPU' problem ... !!! (Message 6392) Posted 5 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: Actually Ageless, you may be incorrect in that statement.. Client machines can be duplicated in the S@H BOINC project and regularly need to be 'merged' to consolidate all the scattered results. At one time last week, S@H BOINC reported that I had 11 computers under my account which is incorrect because I only have 3. I merged the other results and now things are reporting correctly. I suspect that the same thing can/may happen to LHC.. EDIT: There IS a facility to merge hosts in LHC
93) Message boards : Number crunching : LHC@home support added to KBoincSpy CVS (purty pics included) (Message 6389) Posted 5 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: Excuse the n00bish question, but this program will only run on the *.nix platform correct?
94) Message boards : Number crunching : Boinc Client 4.25 (Message 6387) Posted 5 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: Am running the 4.24 CC...Is it safe to install the 4.25 right on top of the 4.24 or will uninstalling and reinstalling now be the standard practice?? Seems like a lot of work will be deleted needlessly if this is the only 'correct' way to do this.
95) Message boards : Number crunching : Note to my team (Message 6386) Posted 5 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: adrianxw: OF COURSE I agree with you when you say that running a project such as this from the ground up will be (and is) a daunting task, but the history lesson you provided really isin't applicable for this discussion. I disagree that the LHC project is only as you say <B><I>"For the free donation of CPU time to continue, those that have a competitive streak in them have to be kept on board. The LHC@H people realise this, that is why they are trying to fix it".</B></I> If everyone who wasn't in this for the science left, then the project would still benefit (even more so {imo}) by becoming more focused on the science then it can be when they have to pull the project in 2 opposing directions to try and please everyone. Life shows that "you can't please everyone all of the time" so there will always be a small minority of people who are never pleased with the way things are at any given moment in time...such is life and how this is dealt with by the LHC project admins will determine a lot toward the future direction this project takes, as it appears to be working toward a long-term presence. And as far as people ridiculing me personally for what I beleive in as far as DC, Personally?? never has happened, but if anyone mentions the seti@home project to someone not familliar with the DC concept or folding@home, or einstein@home or pirates@home, you WILL get some odd looks and comments directed toward you. Don't beleive me? next time you're out with your "non distributed computing" friends, mention this or any other DC project and I guarantee you that at least one of them wil laugh at what you say. Human nature tends to 'classify' everyone and everything, so yea, people hearing geeky sounding things coming from someone will automatically assume (for right or wrong) that they ARE a geek or whatever, and some people have louder mouths then others so words have been in the past and will continue to be in the future used to portray what we all do in a 'less then positive' light.... Oh, I pointed out my Distributed Computing credentials only to show that I'm not some n00b at this and know very well what is at stake for these projects should the glory become more important then the science. BTW: Feel free to be rude if you think that you need to be to make your point, but it's I that think YOU are not understanding or appreciating my perspective on this. Thanks -L5
96) Message boards : Number crunching : Note to my team (Message 6376) Posted 4 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: > No, if they did, why bother acknowledging the problem, apologising for it, and > endeavouring to fix it. I would say that they are agreeing with me, they > recognise the competitive element for what it is, (a substantial part of their > resource), and are actively courting it. > > Depends on the way you add the spin. adrianxw & Toby: I guess this sums up the differences between our perceptions of this. Where you see "spin" and competitive elements being emphasized, I see things far differently. When the Admins have said <B><I>"We considered halting the project but as the results are in fact very valuable (to us) we would like to continue, with the support of those users who can accept possible credit errors."</B></I>, this tells me that they want people dedicated to the Science to continue, and help them by returning results which are only flawed by the credit reporting problems, not the value of the research performed... What does this mean to the both of you?? I hope that this has clarified my position and helps the both of you to understand what it is better then 'yall already do.
97) Message boards : Number crunching : Note to my team (Message 6374) Posted 4 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: Ya, know, it really doesnt matter why ANYONE is involved with Distributed Computing, and when it comes down to it, there are 2 schools of thought on the subject. There are the people who don't do it for the Science or anything remotely like that. They do it for the stats, the numbers, the glory, seeing themselves ranked "X" in the world....blah...blah...blah. Anything to do with something like scientific research is secondary to their primary goals. Then there are ALSO people like me who have been doing DC since 1999 <B><I>for the science</B></I> because they truely beleive that their contribution has some merit and meaning toward someones scientific research. People can beleive me when I say I do this for the science or they can ridicule me for my convictions and call me a geek, propellerhead, nerd...etc..etc I could honestly care less, because the bottom line for me is that I think the Science should be the most important aspect of why we do what we do. IMHO: The science benefits from every completed WU returned, but the peple who actually like to crunch or who actually beleive in the project's goals that they are running seem to make more of a contribution the science then those who do it for other reasons.... And for the record, the project admins DO think that the scientific value of ALL results returned, even the "Zero Credit" results are valuable which is why they decided to keep the project running instead of shutting it down for who knows how long to try and fix it.... So, yea, I think that they DO agree with me by continuing the project for the science, not the glory.
98) Message boards : Number crunching : Note to my team (Message 6349) Posted 4 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: Said on the front page of the LHC@Home Website: 4.3.2005 09:20 UTC We are very concerned and apologize to users for the 'Zero CPU' problem. We suspect a problem with our use of the Boinc API (which has changed recently) but we are short of effort to fix it quickly. <B><I>We considered halting the project but as the results are in fact very valuable we would like to continue, with the support of those users who can accept possible credit errors.</B></I> Thank you all again for your crunching for LHC! Looks like the project admins agree with me....no?
99) Message boards : Number crunching : Note to my team (Message 6324) Posted 3 Mar 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: 'Ya know, all this talk of dropping LHC@home seems to be a premature no? Sure there's problems, but if you look at the alternatives, most of them are far worse: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S@H "Classic" - Restricted to running 8 hours per day because of Building wide power problems....NO ETA S@H BOINC - Down indefinately because of Building wide power problems...NO ETA Pirates@home - Project cancelled within the next few months CPDN - Core Client compatibility issues LHC@Home - Stable and running well.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Out of the alternatives, LHC is the "project to beat" even with the zero credit issue.... <B>Besides, it should NEVER be about credit or scores, but instead it should ALWAYS be about the science first, last and always. I crunch them as I get them, no matter what I get on the other end as a 'reward'. Maybe more people should look at what their priorities are if they're getting upset over something that's not a big deal in the larger picture of the project and the science....dontcha think???
100) Message boards : Number crunching : Results page (Message 6158) Posted 27 Feb 2005 by Logan5@SETI.USA Post: And yet another vote for ditching the light green on blue background.... :) 'DOH....lol

Previous 20 · Next 20

LHC@home