|
41)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
How do we
(Message 16940)
Posted 1 Jun 2007 by  Ocean Archer
Post: Test post looks good to the outside world ... Internet took a couple of days to recycle to the new settings but we're with you all the way. |
|
42)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Good things come to those who wait.
(Message 16937)
Posted 1 Jun 2007 by Ocean Archer
Post: To Alex and Company -- Here's to a long and successful association with the LHC project. My little "square foot garden" of machines are at your disposal ... |
|
43)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Gone in a flash!
(Message 16801)
Posted 2 May 2007 by Ocean Archer
Post: I hope your friend is including in his costs all the gas he's burning running his route. That's gotta be a significant impact againt his profits ... |
|
44)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Unable to connect to database - please try again later Error: 1040Too many connections
(Message 16763)
Posted 29 Apr 2007 by Ocean Archer
Post: Well -- I have to admit, it does come up occasionally, but I suspect it may just be due to the transfer to the new site, and the "settling in" that comes with such a move. If this is the only problem we have to worry about, I consider myself very lucky ... |
|
45)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Trojan used by dishonest BOINC cruncher
(Message 16604)
Posted 23 Mar 2007 by Ocean Archer
Post: Now - this is silly. The issue was discovered and handled over a month ago. The actions have been repeatedly discussed -- in my mind, there's no further action required. By the way, if you feel that Predictor@home is doing something wrong - shouldn't you post your concerns on the Predictor boards rather than here ??? |
|
46)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Because you asked....
(Message 16572)
Posted 17 Mar 2007 by Ocean Archer
Post: I would assume that Bird-Dog's concerns would be taken care of by examing the last time individuals with zero credit and zero RAC polled the site in an effort to obtain work. Anything older than some set point could be discarded |
|
47)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Could I ask for an update on the frontpage?
(Message 16198)
Posted 26 Jan 2007 by Ocean Archer
Post: OK Neasan -- Curiousity forces me to ask: with milk or lemon? With sugar or honey? Oh yes, and what about the crumpets ??? |
|
48)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Could I ask for an update on the frontpage?
(Message 16186)
Posted 24 Jan 2007 by Ocean Archer
Post: Neasan -- I for one appreciate your candor, and will be satisfied to wait patiently while you and your crew(s) get this beheamoth under total control. I await your needs .... |
|
49)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
can't attach my computer!!!!!!
(Message 16145)
Posted 18 Jan 2007 by Ocean Archer
Post: Baracutio -- What version of BOINC are you using? |
|
50)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Past Due Date
(Message 16089)
Posted 9 Jan 2007 by Ocean Archer
Post: Here's an interesting thought about the Work Units and the way they are granted credit -- first, let me say that I'm no behavioral science expert, but this might just be LHC's passive/aggressive answer to those who attempt to hog the WUs. A given Work Unit is processed (sent out) to five sites for processing. Those sites that have few units in queue process quickly and respond quickly. As the sites with much larger quantities of work (more WUs) get around to processing and responding, time is passing, and the possibility of returning a Work Unit that has already established a quorum becomes greater and greater. Ultimately, those who return work just before the deadline appear to face the greatest chance of getting only partial credit, or even no credit for their work. Am I missing something here ??? |
|
51)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Result from 11-feb-2006 not granted ?!?!
(Message 16072)
Posted 7 Jan 2007 by Ocean Archer
Post: Don't feel too bad, I've got one hanging around from Feb 2006 also -- and one from Nov 2005 !! Indications were that I was last in on both units a day later than when a quorum was established, so I would expect the more proper answer would be to zero out these units, and clear the pending file. It won't trouble me if it doesn't happen, but if there are a number of similar "stuck pending units" out there, it might indicate a need to review the software program more closely ..... |
|
52)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Totally Disgusting
(Message 16043)
Posted 5 Jan 2007 by Ocean Archer
Post: Hi there Steve - you too Pschoefer -- At first look, I was ready to agree with you fully, until I looked at the results file for the individual in question. There's a problem all right, but (s)he may not be aware of it. The WU result you are discussing comes from a machine that appears (to the software anyway) as having 4 CPUs. It and three other WUs have the identical start times, with a completion time of nearly 6 hours later. I do not know how the BOINC program awards time/credit, but apparently it assigned the total computing time to each of the four units - resulting in the bloated credit number you mention. Perhaps, the programmers need to examine more carefully the way multiple processor machines report their work ... |
|
53)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
SOME greedy users
(Message 16008)
Posted 3 Jan 2007 by Ocean Archer
Post: PovAddict -- OK, I'll accept, for this discussion, that some limit must be imposed, but what criteria are you suggesting to use to accomplish this? For example, I have four machines that run fairly slow (8hr/WU) and one that runs somewhat faster (2hr/WU). Assuming I dedicate all my machines to work LHC and nothing else, this would give me a total throughput of 24WU/day. As of right now, all the WUs coming from LHC have a return date of 7 days from date of release, so if everything runs perfectly, I could process a total of 168 WUs during that time. In reality, during a week's worth of runtime, my actual throughput is about 1/3 of that amount, because of other projects/tasks. I am by no means the fastest cruncher out here - nor am I the slowest, and almost any method that a programmer can come up that controls how much work is allocated and to whom can be circumvented. In short, the different projects have enough problems trying to keep their work running on the meager budgets and grants they have - there's no extra money out there for "WU Police" |
|
54)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
SOME greedy users
(Message 16005)
Posted 3 Jan 2007 by Ocean Archer
Post: Sysfried -- Maybe the individual(s) in question did like so many others during the holiday season -- expected that there would be no work forthcoming from LHC, and loaded up on other projects/tasks. Now, when work shows up, they cannot partake due to their equipment being "overcommitted". Just another reason to set your BOINC manager properly - and let it do it's job .... |
|
55)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I found an Anomaly
(Message 15972)
Posted 2 Jan 2007 by Ocean Archer
Post: NOW -- That is something I did not know. My thanks to Keck Komputers for that tidbit of information ... |
|
56)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think this cruncher has a problem
(Message 15943)
Posted 30 Dec 2006 by Ocean Archer
Post: The bad thing is, that all his efforts are going to waste - what a shame. He ought to stop all his processes, then stop BOINC, and do a complete reinstallation of the BOINC software. Then he needs to go back, and reattach to the various projects he donates his time. |
|
57)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
credits for WU's of latest batch?
(Message 15940)
Posted 30 Dec 2006 by Ocean Archer
Post: Looks like another machine that has confused SETI@home and LHC. When that happens, I guess the only thing to do is stop all processes, get a fresh BOINC load, then reattach to the various programs. Lots of work units get aborted, but at least the machine will start processing properly. Don't ya just hate it when that happens .... ?? |
|
58)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
A Miracle!
(Message 15935)
Posted 30 Dec 2006 by Ocean Archer
Post: I think KAMasud may have hit the nail on the head ... all the "suck-ups" weren't expecting another chunk of work before the New Year, so all their machines are full up with other projects, and BOINC won't let them "overcommit" This is the one reason why I refuse to "micromanage" my machine(s) - BOINC does a wonderful job of scheduling work and searching for new work without my poking and prodding; it ain't broke, so I'm not going to mess with it |
|
59)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
A Miracle!
(Message 15928)
Posted 29 Dec 2006 by Ocean Archer
Post: POV - Have you downloaded any of the new work issued on the 29th of December? If you are off for the Year End holidays, it would be worthwhile to stop by the office long enough to let your machine accept some work - there's a lot to go around - about a 100,000 packages total from what I read. Happy New Year to you and your family .... |
|
60)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
A Miracle!
(Message 15925)
Posted 29 Dec 2006 by Ocean Archer
Post: I guess in the process of getting ready for this move in January, they've found a couple of jobs "laying around" that need to be run before that happened (LOL). Not really, I'm sure, but I'm also not complaining a bit about the available work. Makes me wish I had the parts to get my other "garden" machine back into operation. Anyhow, there's still a large amount out there - enough for everyone to get a share .... --And if I forget between now and then, Copper Top and myself would like to take the opportunity to wish each and everyone out there a wonderful and prosperous New Year -- |
Previous 20 · Next 20
©2024 CERN