1) Message boards : LHC@home Science : They turned it on, tried it out, and it works. (Message 19933)
Posted 14 Aug 2008 by larry1186
Even the IEEE has taken notice.


These are sure some exciting times!
2) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Amendment of 'Resource share' (Message 19299)
Posted 25 Mar 2008 by larry1186
I've found it a bit hit or miss whether different projects accept resource share instructions from BAM/Boincstats some do and some don't (and I suspect other account managers are the same) and it takes a day or so to find out either way. going direct to the projects' your account/project preferences page gives certainty that it'll take.
it's a slight pity as it would be nice to do it seemlessly from a single screen over a number of projects.

The only project that doesn't work well for me through BAM is WCG. Everything else appears to work quite well and instantly.

In my experience, WCG doesn't play nice with BAM!, and CPDN isn't showing the correct resource share either. Another issue I have using BAM! is that with Rosetta you can set the length of WU, but if you change the resource share via BAM! it will reset the WU length preference to default. Also, BAM! will override your resource share that you set at the individual project's website, if this is a problem then that will basically defeat the purpose of using BAM!.

[edited for clarity]
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Any Mac work coming? (Message 18444)
Posted 29 Oct 2007 by larry1186
You might be right about that, but I know a number of people who are getting interested in Mac's. I just got one so go figure...and a free OS X tee shirt too!

WHAT!?! They're giving out t-shirts!?! I might have to convince the wife I need a new computer with Leopard so I can get the t-shirt!!
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Initial Replication (Message 18281)
Posted 18 Oct 2007 by larry1186
You have put some very good arguements in this thread, sadly Neasan can only respond with < if you don't like it, leave >

Obviously, you missed a very important statement from Neasan:
When we upgrade the service we will re-discuss the IR with the scientists and it may change but it may not.

Meaning they aren't worrying about right now, but they are aware that *some* users are concerned with the efficiency. Open your eyes and read the *entire* post, not just what you want to hear to continue to feel that the world is against you.

(p.s. Nice try to bait with the Predictor thing, but nobody's biting.)
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Any Mac work coming? (Message 18280)
Posted 18 Oct 2007 by larry1186
I'm a Mac user so would like to crunch more than I do with just my work desktop.

I second that!
6) Message boards : Number crunching : my client will never connect (Message 18254)
Posted 17 Oct 2007 by larry1186
I think five people against the change is enough to get it reverted :)


Or not. 5.10.23 released, deferral messages are gone.


(man what a roller coaster of emotions....) :)
7) Message boards : Number crunching : my client will never connect (Message 18221)
Posted 16 Oct 2007 by larry1186
I think five people against the change is enough to get it reverted :)

8) Message boards : Number crunching : my client will never connect (Message 18213)
Posted 16 Oct 2007 by larry1186
(In [13849]) - client: fix bug where delay request from project is ignored if no results are returned.

Expect the fix on 5.10.23. Now for the bad part: the "Deferring communication for..." is now shown only if you have debugging enabled. Who thinks the delay should be always shown?

Me too!! I realize you can see the current deferment in the projects tab, but it is nice to see the history (like 1 min deferrals growing to 2 hours or more, etc) so you have a better idea of what's going on.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : The press release (Message 18098)
Posted 12 Oct 2007 by larry1186
Heh, we're "fantastic" :)
10) Message boards : Number crunching : work units?? (Message 17850)
Posted 13 Sep 2007 by larry1186
Wahoo!! I got 11 WUs!!

Unfortunately, every last one of them suffered the same fate...

9/13/2007 9:51:30 AM|lhcathome|Deferring communication for 7 sec
9/13/2007 9:51:30 AM|lhcathome|Reason: requested by project
9/13/2007 9:53:49 AM||Project communication failed: attempting access to reference site
9/13/2007 9:53:49 AM|lhcathome|Backing off 1 min 0 sec on download of file logo_machine_light_1.01_.tga
9/13/2007 9:53:51 AM||Access to reference site succeeded - project servers may be temporarily down.
9/13/2007 9:57:20 AM|lhcathome|[error] Signature verification failed for logo_machine_light_1.01_.tga
9/13/2007 9:57:20 AM|lhcathome|[error] Checksum or signature error for logo_machine_light_1.01_.tga
9/13/2007 9:57:21 AM|lhcathome|Deferring communication for 1 min 0 sec
9/13/2007 9:57:21 AM|lhcathome|Reason: Unrecoverable error for result wi11m11101ne_i11m11101ne__44__64.28_59.31__8_10__5__10_1_sixvf_boinc293703_2
(app_version download error: couldn't get input files:<file_xfer_error> <file_name>logo_machine_light_1.01_.tga</file_name> <error_code>-120</error_code> <error_message>signature verification failed</error_message></file_xfer_error>)
9/13/2007 9:57:21 AM|lhcathome|Deferring communication for 2 min 12 sec
9/13/2007 9:57:21 AM|lhcathome|Reason: Unrecoverable error for result wi11m11101ne_i11m11101ne__44__64.28_59.31__8_10__5__50_1_sixvf_boinc293707_4 [...]
9/13/2007 9:57:21 AM|lhcathome|Deferring communication for 4 min 10 sec
9/13/2007 9:57:21 AM|lhcathome|Reason: Unrecoverable error for result wi11m11101ne_i11m11101ne__45__64.28_59.31__12_14__5__20_1_sixvf_boinc293776_4 [...]
9/13/2007 9:57:21 AM|lhcathome|Deferring communication for 23 min 51 sec
9/13/2007 9:57:21 AM|lhcathome|Reason: Unrecoverable error for result wi11m11101ne_i11m11101ne__45__64.28_59.31__12_14__5__60_1_sixvf_boinc293780_2 [...]
9/13/2007 9:57:21 AM|lhcathome|Deferring communication for 1 hr 39 min 22 sec
9/13/2007 9:57:21 AM|lhcathome|Reason: Unrecoverable error for result wi11m11101ne_i11m11101ne__45__64.28_59.31__8_10__5__60_1_sixvf_boinc293764_4 [...]
9/13/2007 9:57:21 AM|lhcathome|Deferring communication for 1 min 0 sec
9/13/2007 9:57:21 AM|lhcathome|Reason: Unrecoverable error for result wi11m11101ne_i11m11101ne__47__64.28_59.31__2_4__5__30_1_sixvf_boinc293849_0 [...]
9/13/2007 9:58:26 AM|lhcathome|Fetching scheduler list
9/13/2007 9:58:31 AM|lhcathome|Master file download succeeded
9/13/2007 9:58:42 AM|lhcathome|Deferring communication for 1 min 0 sec
9/13/2007 9:58:42 AM|lhcathome|Reason: no work from project

{the [...] is representative of the same error description/code as previous}
Oh well, at least I had a chance...
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Initial Replication (Message 17745)
Posted 6 Aug 2007 by larry1186
My thoughts: The initial replication of five is a legitimate setting provided the servers don't always try to keep five results out there. The problem with the algorithm as it stands is that the servers will replicate a WU regardless of how many results are still being worked on.

From what I have experienced, a WU's life might go something like this: a WU is replicated five times and is distributed. Two results are returned, a third errors out. The servers see the error, replicates the WU, adds it to the queue, and ultimately distributes it. Now we have six results for the one WU. A fourth result errors out, gets replicated, added to the queue but hasn't been distributed yet. Seven results now. The 5th result comes back good, the WU met quorum, and the three good results are validated and granted credit. The 7th result gets killed (marked as "not needed") before it is distributed. The WU has been completed but a sixth result is still being crunched. If it comes back good, it will be granted its due credit. If it errors, oh well, no more replications since quorum has been met.

Now, I think that in order for the IR=5 to be a time saver, the servers would have to wait until additional results are needed, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE IN PROGRESS RESULTS, to meet quorum before they replicate a WU again. If an error occurs a replication would only be created if there where less than the number of results needed for quorum (either Success or In Progress), so in the above scenario, no additional replications would have been created since 3 of the original 5 met quorum. Ideally, with an IR=5 the WU should be able to handle two errors/past deadline before any additional work is created, since the other three have a chance to meet the quorum. But, alas, I do not see this happening here.
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Initial Replication (Message 17652)
Posted 31 Jul 2007 by larry1186
...why make other work wait while you waste time crunching results that don't need to be crunched?

Even with the initial replication of 5, I don't see ANY work waiting on the servers here since it all gets distributed so fast, or are you referring to the work on your host? Sure somebody's host will be taking time away from some other project. Where are you trying to optimize useful results : work done? Considering only LHC, and all of it's odd work availability, it's OK to have a higher replication to reach quorum faster since it is unknown how fast certain hosts will be, and there is FAR more hosts available than there is work. Taking a step back and looking at all projects, LHC could be seen as (not in my opinion) a "resource hog" but that is what LHC admins/scientists have decided what they need in order to complete their task, which is to build a damn sweet machine. Taking a step in and looking at a single host, a result that is not needed for quorum would be wasted effort and redundant. Which is exactly why the new feature that Scarecrow mentioned came to fruition. Draw your line and take your stance.
13) Message boards : Number crunching : A new look (Message 17209)
Posted 3 Jul 2007 by larry1186
Wow this place looks sharp!! Great work!
14) Message boards : Number crunching : Project dead ? (Message 17162)
Posted 29 Jun 2007 by larry1186
Boy, I'm sure glad the new admins were able to make important threads sticky... :P
15) Message boards : Number crunching : Wait for it (Message 17116)
Posted 26 Jun 2007 by larry1186
Nice work admins! It feels good to see credits on stats sites. I'm glad that all the multiple threads asking where the stats are will now cease to breed, that was getting annoying!

Thanks for the export!
16) Message boards : Number crunching : XML Stats Export (Message 17076)
Posted 21 Jun 2007 by larry1186
there's more BOINC projects out there than one can count with both fingers AND toes !

Speak for yourself!!

-Your Centipede Friend :)
17) Message boards : Number crunching : unable to reattach (Message 16945)
Posted 1 Jun 2007 by larry1186
BAM! detached my host from LHC, and then couldn't re-attach, but the next try (about 5 hrs. later when contact to account manager was made) it attached and started asking for work again. I did absolutely nothing, just watched it's progress. Here's to a smooth migration!!
18) Message boards : Number crunching : Migration (Message 16665)
Posted 4 Apr 2007 by larry1186
30 days now and no update

Well, not on the front page anyway... about two weeks ago Neasan posted this:

It has been another two weeks and I'm sorry about the silence. Sadly we've had some hiccups with the systems we work on that are not BOINC (as I've explained we are not on BOINC full time, not even close) and that has meant this project was out on the backburner and I apologise for that. Also it's the start of conference season so between attending and organising things where you learn a lot but get nothing done it has slipped again.

I will get a fuller update to you when I can but at least some WUs went up recently.
19) Message boards : Number crunching : claimed credits (Message 16508)
Posted 9 Mar 2007 by larry1186
Differences between both hosts are only XPSP2/W2k and Boinc 5.8.16/5.4.11? Hmm...

Look a little closer, host #6031412 is an Intel, while host #180308 is an AMD. Different speeds and memory too. :)
20) Message boards : Cafe LHC : Can you help to stop this inhumane slaughter? (Message 16443)
Posted 1 Mar 2007 by larry1186
1) Are any of the affected dolphins on the endangered species list, or otherwise protected by an international wildlife organization?

From savejapandolphins.org:
During the hunting season that began October 1st 2003 and ended March 30th 2004 the fishermen of Taiji killed 1,165 dolphins:

444 Striped dolphins
Lower Risk - Conservation Dependent
197 bottlenose dolphins
Not Endagered, Stable
102 Pantropical spotted dolphins
Declined from 7 mil to 3 mil since 1950 (second most abundant behind Bottlenose)
293 Risso’s dolphins
117 pilot whales
Lower Risk - Conservation Dependent (both long- and short-finned)
12 false killer whales
Lower Risk - Lease Concern

In that same period they captured 78 dolphins for sale to dolphinaria:

67 bottlenose dolphins
6 Risso’s dolphins
5 pseudo orcas

[edit]So I don't think the hunting is really harming the populations, at least not drastically enough to cause major alarms. But I think the populations should be monitored for declines[/edit]

2) What are the dead dolphins used for? Are they eaten? Is heating oil or other products extracted from the flesh and bone?

Again from savejapandolphins.org (October 1 to December 13 2004 hunt):

While most of the 609 dolphins were slaughtered for human consumption, dolphin trainers selected some of the young and unblemished dolphins for use in captive dolphin swim programs and dolphin shows.

I think the controversy here is the fact that the killing actually takes place behind curtains. They strive to hide the public eye from what is going on by erecting those blue tarps so you can't see, putting barbed wire around trees so you can't climb up, denying access to the surrounding mountain/hill, and placing false danger signs around the area until the blood is washed away. Now if cattle or chickens were slaughtered in broad daylight in the town park, I don't think that would fly either. Some cultures eat dog or cat meat. Maybe the dolphin industry should have to construct slaughter houses like the cattle/chicken people do. mmmmmmm..... steak.....

Next 20

©2024 CERN