21) Message boards : Number crunching : When you see work is around ... (Message 15193)
Posted 27 Oct 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:
....
6 (coutervailing argument): the same db is used for forum messages so that it can be argued that it is the combined even load of cleint access plus the uneven load of forum access.



How did you learn that the same DB is used for the forum messages and the workunits?

I've been looking for a server status page, but haven't seen any...
22) Message boards : Number crunching : When you see work is around ... (Message 15192)
Posted 27 Oct 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:
....
4 (unsupported assumption): these correlate with people in Europe and the Americas respectively coming in from work/study and checking their boxes and intervening if they feel they know better than the BOINC client
....


How does one go about "...intervening..." to cause the BOINC client to get more work?
23) Message boards : Number crunching : When you see work is around ... (Message 15188)
Posted 26 Oct 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:
....
In my opinion the difference is the way some LHC users (and probably only a small minority) have become fanatical about getting work when there is some.
....
R~~


Do you have any data to support this conjecture?
I know you say it is only an opinion - but perhaps it is an informed opinion?
Or, perhaps is it not?



This issue has come up before.

Some have suggested that the admins limit the number of concurrent server connections to a number where if x connections cause the server to crash then n would be less than x.
Or if that still fails, then re-evaluate the value of x and revise it downward...

Most servers have such control features.
Many Admins use them to prevent outages.

Aren't the admins at a new location?
Perhaps they are new to admining a BOINC server.
Perhaps they will work it out soon.

Given that there is a limited amount of work to be done, throttling the server should limit effective crunching only slightly.

And, throttle limits will be much more benign than "crashes"...




24) Message boards : Number crunching : Fairer distribuiton of work(Flame Fest 2007) (Message 15114)
Posted 17 Oct 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:
[quote]
..., and since I am here for the science (when I AM here) it is surely the project that should decide what constitutes an 'improvement'.



I always took that view as well -

However, I'm coming around to the "if folk get discouraged and leave, that isn't good for the project (or the science) either," point of view.

I think that as long as there is a surfeit of folk willing to contribute, and a shortage of work, this is all moot from a science viewpoint.

However, At some point, it may happen that there is work to do, but all the volunteers have left....

25) Message boards : Number crunching : Fairer distribuiton of work(Flame Fest 2007) (Message 15108)
Posted 15 Oct 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:
[quote]


But a machine with 5 units of work can finish them faster than a machine one-tenth of its speed can finish even a single work unit.



This maybe right, but even the slowest machine would have done some wu's since the last were given out. There are some people grabbing all the work and others don't get any.
Sincerly
Maverick


I think that this points to the concept of "fairness" being:
"give at least some work to as many machines as possible."

The good side of this is that it will spread interest in the project as widely as possible.
26) Message boards : Number crunching : Fairer distribuiton of work(Flame Fest 2007) (Message 15107)
Posted 15 Oct 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:

There are many folks who actively measure things like customer satisfaction - in this case "donor" satisfaction.
Surveys could measure peceived fairness as a sub-component of "satisfaction".


That is different from how I understood you at first, and I would still say that satisfaction does not define fairness. You original phrasing suggested to me that fairness was the only component of donor satisfaction, or maybe the only significant one. I don't accept that, but maybe it was not what you meant anyway.

Your new choice of words I agree with. Perceived fairness is a sub-component of satisfaction. More to the point, perceived unfairness leads directly to dissatisfaction -- not just in DC projects but amongst humans generally. If it feels fair, it is hardly noticed; if it feels unfair then does everyone get to know!






I believe your vision of a "good enough" test is in fact a form of survey (of you or whomever you ask) as to whether or not you are satisfied.


It is certainly something that can be measured formally by a survey. I'd say that you can get a feel for it without anything as formal as a survey -- from comments on a messaging board for example. I would not call a brief scan of these boards a survey, but perhaps we are just using the word differently.


Thanks to all contribuotrs who have pulled me up on details - especially those who have disagreed with me! I understand my own opinon more clearly as a result.

River~~



Thanks -
Nice reviewing the issue with you - and helping me understand better.

Over time, I would expect that folk would join or leave a project based on "satisfaction".

One danger of "scanning the message boards" is that the posters "self select" and may not represent a useful cross section.

I didn't choose to leave LHC because of lack of work.
Rather, I boost it to 99.9% resource share and run other stuff (Rosetta).
I figure as long as the work gets done as needed by the project it doesn't matter who does it. -Later when there in more work, I'll get some.

I have turned off another project due to "dissatisfaction" because the WorkUnits were very, very long and non-deterministic in lenght.


27) Message boards : Number crunching : Fairer distribuiton of work(Flame Fest 2007) (Message 15102)
Posted 14 Oct 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:

....
A task that is on a host being processed is more likely to returned sooner than one waiting in a queue no matter what the difference in speed between the hosts.


Well, all computers wait at the same speed - even the fastest.
That's for sure.

But a machine with 5 units of work can finish them faster than a machine one-tenth of its speed can finish even a single work unit.


28) Message boards : Number crunching : Fairer distribuiton of work(Flame Fest 2007) (Message 15101)
Posted 14 Oct 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:

Which of these two goals -
1) Work back as fast as possible.
or
2) Donor Community satisfied.

Do you feel more nearly defines fairness for you.


Neither.
...
Donor community satisfied is an outcome of the majority of the donor community feeling that the way things are done is "fair enough". It is not a definition of fairness, as it could be achieved to a great extent using a number of different metrics.
...


I disagree.
There are many folks who actively measure things like customer satisfaction - in this case "donor" satisfaction.
Surveys could measure peceived fairness as a sub-component of "satisfaction".

.... The aim would be to aim for an even handed distribution of work when work is scarce.
.... It is a case for applying the "good enough" test to both sets of needs at once.
....

I believe your vision of a "good enough" test is in fact a form of survey (of you or whomever you ask) as to whether or not you are satisfied.


29) Message boards : Number crunching : Fairer distribuiton of work(Flame Fest 2007) (Message 15093)
Posted 14 Oct 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:
....fails to get the work back to the project as fast as possible and also fals to keep the donor community satisfied about its fairness....
River~~


Which of these two goals -
1) Work back as fast as possible.
or
2) Donor Community satisfied.

Do you feel more nearly defines fairness for you.
If it is the later, then I beleive my questions are not "merely" philosophical, but are the essence of the needed discussion. Any peceived satisfaction (or lack of it) should be based (in my opinion) on a clear understanding and concensus of what is meant by fairness.

If it is the former, (returning work as fast as possible), then I just plain disagree that speed of return is a measure of fairness.
It may well be that folks with slow machines should be "shut out" entirely - particularly since they have failed "to invest" in faster technology and should not be rewarded for having slower machine.

The deadline driven method, returns work "at the speed needed by the project" - which may be totally unfair, but which balances "fairness" with the scientific needs of the project...
30) Message boards : Number crunching : Fairer distribuiton of work(Flame Fest 2007) (Message 15087)
Posted 13 Oct 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:
Given two distribution methods, what is the metric that shows one is "fairer" than the other?

Should the distribution consider the speed of the machines receiving the work?

Put another way, is it fair to give a 3ghz machine the same number of workunits as a 1ghz machine?
Or, should the 3ghz machine receive 3times the work units of the 1ghz machine?

Should someone who invests in broadband be given the same number of work units as someone who only pays for dialup?

Should a machine that completes a group of tasks in 3 days receive the same number of work units as a machine that completes the same number in one day?



31) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14377)
Posted 20 Jul 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:
.... What happens when two particles traveling in opposite directions at nearly the speed of light hit each other? A collision at nearly twice the speed of light!
....
.

hmmm....

Sort of like setting your
" Connect to network about every..."
to 20 (twice the max allowed...)


....
....
I don't know what this "Cache" thing is....
....
.


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...



32) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14291)
Posted 12 Jul 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:
Has anyone asked the CERN folk to increase the replication factor to say, 15?

This would triple the amount of available work.

It would also ensure (virtually) that all quorums would be met expeditiously.

And since the current sentiment of the posters on all sides of this "discussion" seems to be "we want more work - and we are willing to work for free,"
what would be the downside?

Of course the current quorum of 3 and replication of 5 likely meets the project needs, or they would already have increased it...


Again, for the newcomers to the thread, I ask:
"Who is more greedy and why?"
a) A person who has spent money on a fast computer and fast link and has a large cache and is donating the computer time to science.
or
b) A person who is running a slow computer on a slow dial-up link, who has not spent money on upgrades or faster links or faster machines.







33) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14242)
Posted 6 Jul 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:
....
Big caches are for slow computers on dial-up. Nobody else needs them....


I understand that you may be bored ....

34) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14231)
Posted 4 Jul 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:
I find it quite amusing that this arguement would be non-existent if the project consistently had work. I am glad to see that there are people around that are just as stubborn as I am.


At birthday parties as a kid, we used to argue over who got the bigger slice of cake. Kids are kids..... This arguement about caching workunits sounds errily similar. So what if someone gets a few more workunits. What is the consequence? I think HomeGnome stated this point in a different way.

I disagree with HomeGnome that we should "let this thread rest in peace" if there are still a number of regular individuals discussing it. A leader once said "True peace is not merely the absence of tension, IT IS THE PRESENCE OF JUSTICE.

To adress the issue of "caching," I do not feel it violates any moral or ethical grounds. All that users are doing, including myself, is getting the maximum amount of workunits that boinc will allow at any one time. I do not use any optimized clients, or cheat with my benchmarks. Once BOINC says "I won't finish in time" I start crunching all of the workunits I have gotten until that time. While I have workunits cached, I leave my computer on 24/7 so that they usually finish in 2 days, long before the BOINC client "thinks" I will finish them. I have NEVER missed a deadline on ANY of my projects I crunch for. Besides, this project is unique in the fact that they may terminate early if the particles are "out of bounds." BOINC does not recognize this and thinks that the workunit will take 3 hours when in reality it may only take 3 minutes. If there are more workunits, I will continue to do the same thing.

I am not going to be critical of any one person or arguement here. I will continue this practice until the BOINC client is changed, or the project shortens its deadlines to the point that one cannot cache x amount of workunits at a time.



someone using logic!
Isn't it more fun just to argue our emotional opinions?
;-)

35) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14207)
Posted 28 Jun 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:
Here's where I came in on this thread on the 29th May.....

Hey, who's bothered?
There are plenty of projects on BOINC to keep your PC busy...........



We are all arguing round in circles now, so for the sake of sanity, could everyone PLEASE read THIS and then just drop the subject please!






Must we?

I like to keep bumping it up to encourage everyone willing to listen to lower their cache time...
36) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14203)
Posted 28 Jun 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:



.... the fact that you're deliberately doing something which *slows* down the project,
....


The above statement is an unproven assertion.

No, it isn't.

{quote]
No one has presented any evidence that the PROJECT would advance any faster.
{/quote]
Yes, they have.


Some work units **may** finish sooner.

Yes, they will.


But, that doesn't imply that the project can or would use them faster.
Nor does it prove that more work would become available sooner.

The above statement is an unproven assertion.


As has been pointed out, the project owners understand deadlines and daily work limits.

And, the fact that they have chosen NOT to restrict either, implies that the work is chugging along just fine.


please, say it again, I didn't hear it the first 300 times.



Perhaps you didn't - but where is the proof that you assert exists, that shows that the PROJECT (as contrasted to indivual work units) would advance faster?
37) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14192)
Posted 27 Jun 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:



.... the fact that you're deliberately doing something which *slows* down the project,
....


The above statement is an unproven assertion.

No one has presented any evidence that the PROJECT would advance any faster.

Some work units **may** finish sooner.

But, that doesn't imply that the project can or would use them faster.
Nor does it prove that more work would become available sooner.

As has been pointed out, the project owners understand deadlines and daily work limits.

And, the fact that they have chosen NOT to restrict either, implies that the work is chugging along just fine.
38) Message boards : Number crunching : LHC@home/CERN. Where Is Our Support! (Message 14158)
Posted 24 Jun 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:

But yet, there are many, many crunchers complaining about the lack of work.
The implication is that the number of crunchers greatly exceeds the need.

so, you might do well, given your feelings to just move on to other projects.


Um??? Ok u lost me is it if you dont like it leave? Rather nice way to put it


Actually, no.

It's more along the lines of there many waiting to take your place - Based on the other threads complaining of lack of work.

So from an economic viewpoint, it doesn't pay LHC to spend more on support than is necessary.

And, rather than complain, by monving elsewhere, the imposition of a shortage of volunteers may have an effect to convince LHC, where other methods seem to have proven ineffective.
39) Message boards : Number crunching : LHC@home/CERN. Where Is Our Support! (Message 14139)
Posted 23 Jun 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:
I might be a little tired and emotional right now (it's 5:15am), but I am extremely concerned regarding the lack of support for this project from within the CERN organisation. Of the past four runs, three of them have had problems where we volunteers have lost credit for their contributions. Twice due to the lack of a UPS on the database and it appears now with the change in DNS it has messed something up that is not allowing the validator to validate returned results. Not to menton the fact that we had to stop and restart BOINC just to get it to upload completed work for LHC. I have not seen these sort of issues with any other project. I like this project and will persevere, however I will be getting more vocal about it. This really isn't the way to treat a significant and benficial resource. We are spending real time and money supporting this project, CERN need to start showing a committment to this project. Does CERN know that it is cheaper to support the BOINC concept than it is to find the resources elsewhere?

Live long and crunch.


But yet, there are many, many crunchers complaining about the lack of work.
The implication is that the number of crunchers greatly exceeds the need.

so, you might do well, given your feelings to just move on to other projects.

40) Message boards : Number crunching : Mac Intel anyone? (Message 14029)
Posted 18 Jun 2006 by Philip Martin Kryder
Post:
I've searched the boards, and while I found a suiting thread it didn't have a conclusive reply.

I recently got a Macbook and I thought its two cores would come handy for crunching while I wrote my papers and whatnot. However, communication is constantly deferred (24 hours) with the message "Message from server: platform '1686-apple-darwin' not found".

I assume this is because the sixtrack thingy is not ready for the Mactels yet. Two questions though:

a) Is there any official word from LHC@Home on the matter? Einstein@Home works correctly.

b) If I reverted to an old PowerPC version of BOINC, would it work?

c) Would the fact that the PPC version is not native hurt my number-crunching capacity?

Thanks a bunch in advance. I can't wait for my Mac to contribute to LHC.



Have you considered running "PARALLELS?"

You may wish to ask your question here:
http://forum.parallels.com/forum53.html






Previous 20 · Next 20


©2024 CERN