1) Message boards : Number crunching : What's with the tiny work units? (Message 19000)
Posted 9 Feb 2008 by Jayargh
Post:
We have had million turn studies over the years that run the ranges of sizes from 30 credits =3hrs to these type and an even longer version 150 credits=20 hrs on the same type technology.

The million turn studies rarely crash into the collider hence no 0 claims here.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Stil a pending credit (Message 18970)
Posted 8 Feb 2008 by Jayargh
Post:
I find it very interesting that there has been NO response to this thread from any administrators.....why? This thread is 7 months old!!!! It is an issue...I have pending going back almost 2 years that haven't been cleaned up preventing me from cleaning up my host list.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : work units?? (Message 18062)
Posted 12 Oct 2007 by Jayargh
Post:
2 per day would'nt be quite so bad if they were a few hours long but 15-20 min is starting to whack out my long term debt again(had to suspend LHC on most machines with debt being so high and no work for months it was keeping my cache of work for other projects artificially low)
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Sweet heavenly goodness.... (Message 15239)
Posted 30 Oct 2006 by Jayargh
Post:
And these ain't the puny ones...like the old days ....long uns
5) Message boards : Number crunching : /stats/ empty (Message 15119)
Posted 18 Oct 2006 by Jayargh
Post:
>> Hello Project Operators, just wondering when the XML Stats will be exported again, they have not worked for a while.


2006-09-05 01:35:09 GMT
42 days 21:31:15 old now :( I don't think anyone is there to hear our pleas :(

6) Message boards : Number crunching : Server problems (Message 13673)
Posted 20 May 2006 by Jayargh
Post:
I assume after 24 hours of no response that there is no answers to my questions....or the answers are apparent by no response. I assume we are on the back-burner because the scientists have already gotten the answers they required for the installation of the magnets. I suspect as we get closer to the initialization of LHC there will be a flurry of new studies. Howevever in the meantime I am SADLY suspending LHC on most of my computers and await some response(hopefully favorable) to concerns here raised.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Server problems (Message 13665)
Posted 19 May 2006 by Jayargh
Post:
And he still is. At least until i get a job. ;-)

I have made a quick fix. Please check whether the system works again. Some credit and jobs have probably been lost, since i do not have the time to trawl through the backups.


Love the disclaimer Chrulle Ex-admin....and TY for all your attention and caring here....But this still raises the red flag for us crunchers that still needs to be addressed...ie:no active admin.....I will have more faith and continue to crunch as best as I have done over the last year and a half if I (We) get communication,feedback and responses as we have in the past...Is Ben Segal still around? Maybe an e-mail to him on the current unpleasant conditions? Perhaps a short update from a Current not ex (hehe) admin would be appropriate about now on how to keep any enthusiasm for LHC :)

[EDIT] Oh and of course there are still massive (relatively) pending credit issues,.... quorum but not validated still left, but again TY again Chrulle for un log-jamming for us [EDIT]
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Dev's Superstitious? (Message 11995)
Posted 15 Jan 2006 by Jayargh
Post:
Ya Deamiter be a naysayer...np... coincidence,numerology,and how history has unfolded has been epic....why do you have to poop on my lil ol corner here?[EDIT] Oh ya and FRIDAY the 13th[EDIT]
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Dev's Superstitious? (Message 11992)
Posted 14 Jan 2006 by Jayargh
Post:
Perhaps the load-up on the 13th was this and they waited til the 14th in every part of the world to release seems huge coincidence seeing how numerolgy is sooo interwined with scientists....
10) Message boards : Number crunching : New work when? (Message 11833)
Posted 5 Jan 2006 by Jayargh
Post:
I was reflecting on my 14 months experience with LHC and thinking what if the recent announcement had said something like " The Physicists decided they did not like the results and are no longer going to use the Boinc platform."
How would we feel? There wouldn't be the anticipation that is growing here. :) I think back to all the "breaks" and the smile on my face when I was pleasantly suprised at crunching LHC wu's when I was checking Boinc on a host on my ever requesting machines.( Then running to see if all the other hosts had or needed work.) This is what we have to look forward to hopefully VERY soon hehe (they have been known to have longer than expected delays.....(:
[EDIT]I have a personal milestone I have been waiting now for a month to acheive after my goal 14 months or so ago of LHC being the top project in my Boinc credits ....soooo close now [EDIT]
11) Message boards : Number crunching : BOINC 5.1.1 != LHC@Home (Message 10146)
Posted 14 Sep 2005 by Jayargh
Post:
<blockquote><blockquote>I'm just a) curious if anyone knows when LHC will support 5.x clients,</blockquote>
See Markku's response here.
We gotta be patient for a while yet.

<blockquote>and b) letting the LHC group know that there are those of us out here who would like to see LHC support 5.x.</blockquote>
Thanks! Me too :-)</blockquote>

I think the piece of the puzzle of when lies with this post http://lhcathome.cern.ch/forum_thread.php?id=1672...may be a long while due to the 0 problem on windows os's :( They must solve this 1st
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Was The Problem of how "0" reported On Different OS's Ever Solved? We never Did Hear.. (Message 10049)
Posted 10 Sep 2005 by Jayargh
Post:
Chrulle,Ben or Markku please respond? As this is of great interest to those of us that experienced the problem. Heck it is what caused a 3 quorum wasn't it?
13) Message boards : Number crunching : What next??????? (Message 10048)
Posted 10 Sep 2005 by Jayargh
Post:
I will guess new work by mid-day monday UTC due to weekend and outstanding wu's.... remember they said approx 8 sub studies..... 3D was #3 .... :)
14) Message boards : Number crunching : out of work ... for a long time ? (Message 9636)
Posted 25 Aug 2005 by Jayargh
Post:
Don't think it was a re-issue of results not received as every one of the 21 I got was not an add-on but was sent to 5 hosts and the numbering of the wu's suggest they they had interesting results they wanted to re-run b4 closing out the studies :)
15) Message boards : Number crunching : only 10 k WU's left (Message 9497)
Posted 20 Aug 2005 by Jayargh
Post:
Back on topic.......As I have said on our team message boards...Ya know I was thinking (could be dangerous)....... not only is LHC attractive to do because you are helping design the largest supercollider ever made and it is particle physics.... almost as intreging is how they give you work...and then take it away..... kinda makes you want more...all the time,addictive(Like a woman ) hehe not to offend any female participants or readers(disclaimer)Again as I have also said I like to keep a larger work cue than what appears "acceptable" to many(hoarding is the term most used)..... but I say even when a user max's work goes to deadline and/or what BOINC will allow ,(I don't 4 day 4.72 gives me 2-3 days) so what? Isn't that what the deadline is for? Isn't that why they lowered the deadline from 14 days to 8 days? People who complain about this (new and old ) it is a dead-non-issue get over it and trust the developers to know what they need.... some of you almost sound jealous when you get no workunits and others are crunching....
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Bug in the Credit addition (Message 9425)
Posted 16 Aug 2005 by Jayargh
Post:
<blockquote>I even crunch for betas without any credit. But this here is just disgusting.
=========
If it's so Disgusting to you why don't you just go processes some WU's from another Project thats less Disgusting to you...</blockquote>
Hey PoorBoy are you still LURKING around these parts? I thought the last test of beta workunits you did sent you wayyyyyy down the collider tubes.....hehehe...
17) Message boards : Number crunching : No work sent (Message 9419)
Posted 16 Aug 2005 by Jayargh
Post:
<blockquote>
Jim key word in my statement is without requesting new work.... if you are on automatic you may never had realized 4.45 will send in less than 1 minute to report 95% of time w/o new work request which on 4.72 may take hours on a higher work cue (more than 1 day) [EDIT] Trying to be clearer in my answer to you Jim and all...I had been running only LHC with a 10 day connect to network giving me 3 days of work with Boinc 4.19,4.25,4,45 and now 4.72 until LHC changed deadline at same time 4.72 was working better with time to completions.... I brought time to connect down to now 4 days and may take up to 8-12 hours to report (reporting only when asking for new work) due to the ever changing time to connect every time I finish a workunit. Boinc 4.45 would again report and NOT ask for new work in less than a minute[EDIT]
18) Message boards : Number crunching : No work sent (Message 9416)
Posted 15 Aug 2005 by Jayargh
Post:
<blockquote>Actually, what you are experiencing is not an error, instead it is the proper function of BOINC.

Yes this is somewhat true Jim because in practice Boinc 4.45 will auto report without requesting new work (nice little feature that no other versions have to my knowledge) but 4.72 will not auto report :( as I am now using 4.72 so I don't have to have a 10 day work cue to get 3 days work and can now again rejoin other projects
19) Message boards : Number crunching : No work sent (Message 9310)
Posted 10 Aug 2005 by Jayargh
Post:
Geez ya'll ...these convoluted solutions... just suspend any other projects... it downloads....unsuspend other projects... and ltd gets corrected 4.25...4.45...or...4.72.... why make it harder than it needs to be?
20) Message boards : Number crunching : only 10 k WU's left (Message 9215)
Posted 8 Aug 2005 by Jayargh
Post:
> BOINC V4.72 is starting to address the issues with wu completion times but due
> to extreme variability of LHC completion times the calculation is FUBAR'd for
> most of the time, but it is good start to resolving the wu completion time
> over-estimation problem.
>
> Live long and crunch.
>
> Paul.
>
> src="http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/P-DarGold.gif">
>
> ps. I hope this makes sense....I was working and trying to write this at the
> same time.
No Paul,1st it makes sense and no if you crunch enough units it works better and better(# of units not time spent crunching) (and thank-you for your thoughtful resonse) 4.72 works perfect:) Since LHC my only production project and doing about 750 credits a day(total 750, this host about 270) 4.72 on an ht, machine (tough to adjust work que now with 2 out of 4 on 4.72)It is downloading more work than I want. (3 day) Give it time ...seems to be working here....have already adjusted down to a whole 9 days of work (for Colt) hope to refine it to 1 or 2 days in future(at least now I have hope)


Next 20


©2020 CERN