|
1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Any Mac work coming?
(Message 18289)
Posted 18 Oct 2007 by picantecomputing Post: No guarantees as we need to double check with the scientists but Garfield will probably run both PPC and Intel and we are talking to some people about SixTrack on Macs and would like it to be both PPC and Intel. I'm a Mac user so would like to crunch more than I do with just my work desktop. Sweet! |
|
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Any Mac work coming?
(Message 18258)
Posted 17 Oct 2007 by picantecomputing Post: Originally there was no mac client because the compiler that they used to make the client did not have a mac version. If there is one now, it would likely only be for the newer intel macs. Pretty sure PPC will never be supported on LHC - at least for the sixtrack application that we are currently running. Maybe they will make a mac version of the new Garfield client though... Ah, I could've sworn there was a PPC app, but I guess not! Thanks for the heads-up. :) |
|
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Any Mac work coming?
(Message 18224)
Posted 17 Oct 2007 by picantecomputing Post: Would be much appreciated! |
|
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
work units??
(Message 18057)
Posted 12 Oct 2007 by picantecomputing Post: For those who missed it: We will change things back to normal over the first few days next week... It's just a few days. If this were a permanent change, then yes, it would be a total disaster. But it sounds like next week we'll be able to get a lot more to crunch. So a nice weekend to all and see you at the WU feeding line in a few days! Cheers. |
|
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
work units??
(Message 17978)
Posted 24 Sep 2007 by picantecomputing Post: I will help you :D Thanks. The email came from root-ph-hep@qmul.ac.uk |
|
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
work units??
(Message 17976)
Posted 24 Sep 2007 by picantecomputing Post: This is slightly off-topic, but can anyone tell me the exact address the messages come from notifying of another post? My ISP seems to be blocking them. I just subscribed to this thread. If you can make another post, I'll let you know which address the email comes from (unless someone else beats me to it). |
|
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
dear Neasan & Alex
(Message 17975)
Posted 24 Sep 2007 by picantecomputing Post: ok, i am not a forum person. I'm not sure what your complaint is. You raised a concern, which Neasan answered here. Then the discussion evolved into a conversation on whether the admins' methods made sense. What else were you expecting to happen? Your concern was addressed, and then posters decided to explore the subject further. I don't think anyone failed to take you seriously - it's just that once your question was dealt with, the conversation moved on. BTW, this is pretty much how most threads go in this and other BOINC forums, so you shouldn't feel neglected. It's just kind of the way it goes. One idea leads to another, which leads to another, etc. That's the nature of discussion forums. If you don't feel you were taken seriously, you should probably re-read the thread, as it all pretty much relates to why there were WUs sitting there, ready to go, but not being sent. Cheers. |
|
8)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
work units??
(Message 17946)
Posted 20 Sep 2007 by picantecomputing Post: Agreed. If you don't like what he's doing, just ignore him. Add him to your forum filter list if you want to. But don't feed the troll. Ditto here. |
|
9)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
work units??
(Message 17942)
Posted 20 Sep 2007 by picantecomputing Post: The fact that you don't respect me and my methods makes little difference to me. It would make a difference if you had any respect for common sense and reason but you don't seem to. And yes you can take that as an insult if you like because you've earned it. Maybe direct your anger toward the the cause of the problem next time rather than toward the one who is trying to cure the problem. First of all, I have no anger towards you. It's more like I feel bad for you. And I have no doubt that my opinion of you makes little difference, because you clearly consider only your own opinions to have merit. And that's just sad. And BTW, that's about the tenth time I've seen you accuse someone of not having "any respect for common sense and reason." That's why your credibility is so piss-poor here - because you spend so much time trying (quite ineffectively) to discredit others, just because they don't agree with you. That's a very lazy, impotent way to argue your case. You accuse me of directing anger at you, but YOU are the one who continues to engage in argumentum ad hominem instead of maintaining focus on the issue at hand. Your posts of the last 9 months, on a number of topics, have been interesting to read, to say the least - but more from the perspective of trying to figure out why you're unable to engage in an adult conversation. The only anger appears to deeply embedded in yourself - hence your need to resort to blackmail to attempt to get your way. I really don't care enough about you or this issue to get angry about it. Just so we're clear. And second, seriously, why are you so upset about this whole thing? Will your world crumble if the admins don't do as you say? Is the difference between IR=5 and IR=3 really that earth-shattering? Really? Really? Look, you've made your point in about 20 different ways, and everyone - including the admins - has heard you. If they decide to make the change, then congratulations. But if they don't, SO WHAT? Life goes on, and so does LHC, and so does BOINC. Get some perspective. If this is the biggest problem you have to worry about today, then you're way ahead of the vast majority of the world. You seem hell-bent on hammering your point home again and again until the rest of the world conforms to your ways. The irony is that, in doing so, you've likely alienated the admins (and, I suspect, a lot of forum readers) to the point where they would almost rather do the opposite of what you suggest, just to piss you off. If you want to do your case a favor, my suggestion (and I know you don't give a rat's ass about my suggestions) is to chill for a while and see if the admins decide to make a change. Going on and on about it won't help your case, and blackmailing the admins definitely won't help your case, nor will it achieve your ultimate objective. I do agree, it'd be nice to hear from the admins as to their opinions on the IR issue, just so we can put this whole issue to rest. But throwing insults around and threatening them is no way to engage them in a constructive dialog. That's just common sense - which, BTW, I'm well in touch with. |
|
10)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
work units??
(Message 17938)
Posted 20 Sep 2007 by picantecomputing Post: Already I hear folks saying like "How dare you threaten/coerce this project?" My response to that is... "How dare these project admins waste precious donated resources when it would take only a few minutes to correct the problem." You can't get your way, so you throw a tantrum and resort to blackmail? Wow - that's incredibly lame. Congratulations on just flushing any credibility you had on these boards right down the shi**er. You've belittled yourself and any point you may have hoped to make. Good work. I actually thought your arguments had some degree of sense to them, although I find your level of emotional commitment to the subject more than a little disturbing. But now, this is just sad. Turning to tactics like this doesn't make you powerful, or any more of a man. It makes you a weasel and a crybaby. And yes, you can take those as insults if you like. You've earned them. |
|
11)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
dear Neasan & Alex
(Message 17912)
Posted 18 Sep 2007 by picantecomputing Post: i'm sorry, but yes i think your logic is flawed. Well, I'm not sure I totally agree. If there's actually a quota per CPU (and I'm not sure offhand if one is in force or not), then yes, the farms would still get the lion's share of the work. BUT, if the quota were low enough, then that would prevent the farms from running down ALL the WUs in a larger batch before x number of other users could get a share of the work. If there's no quota, then yes, the size of the batch is pretty much irrelevant, to some extent. And if there ISN'T a quota, I guess my question would be, why not? |
|
12)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
dear Neasan & Alex
(Message 17880)
Posted 14 Sep 2007 by picantecomputing Post: Don't blame yourself; what he said indeed doesn't make much sense... Actually, if I'm interpreting their intentions correctly, holding back WUs until there are lots to go around actually makes quite a bit of sense. If they only release work in small batches, the same farms that are always banging on the door and caching large numbers of WUs for themselves are going to get the lion's share very quickly at the beginning each (small) release, since they're spaced fairly far apart. Having larger batches allows more hosts (and more users) to get at least some work over a larger window of opportunity - and definitely more than most have been able to get up to now. So, yes, we have to wait - but I think it's ultimately better for everyone this way. Unless my logic is flawed. |
|
13)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
work units??
(Message 17835)
Posted 12 Sep 2007 by picantecomputing Post:
Ah, got it. |
|
14)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
work units??
(Message 17832)
Posted 12 Sep 2007 by picantecomputing Post: I wonder if Alex and Neasan are aware of the disabled scheduler and upload/download server. Didn't Alex just post here in this thread earlier today? I'm sure they're aware of it. Weird that they haven't said anything substantive about it, but I'd bet they're on it. |
|
15)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
When can we expect new work??
(Message 17290)
Posted 7 Jul 2007 by picantecomputing Post: BUT, IMHO, I think perhaps you made a mistake in posting this more than four months ago: Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to be snide here - was just saying that it was probably a mistake to make promises on the timeline without knowing that WUs were definitely 100% coming en masse within a few weeks. I think this got everyone fired up to get started, only to be disappointed again. Hence the backlash. |
|
16)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
When can we expect new work??
(Message 17284)
Posted 6 Jul 2007 by picantecomputing Post: The inference from most of these posts and the replies is that we are sitting here stringing you along and having a laugh at your expense, nothing could be further from the truth. I doubt many - if any - think you're delaying the crunching intentionally or to have a good laugh. And yes, I do think the "this project rarely has work" message has been said over and over, and does not need to be rehashed anymore. BUT, IMHO, I think perhaps you made a mistake in posting this more than four months ago: 02.03.2007 16:00 UTC Personally it doesn't matter to me when the WUs are ready to crunch. There's already plenty of work to go around with other projects, and the LHC WUs will be ready when they're ready. But it does seem from the above-quoted post - which is more than 4 months old now - that you had been basically promising folks to have work in "a few weeks." So while, yes, people would be better off just being patient, I don't think it's fair to chastise them for having expectations based on your own words. I realize it's out of your hands - I'm just saying, let's be fair to those who were hoping to be part of this (hopefully) history-making project sooner. I think that's maybe at least part of the reason why there's so much anticipation and angst around the delays. For those who are interested in the science, we are obviously very close to a huge moment in physics, and all of us want to be part of it. We're all on the edge of our seats. And I think that's what's really going on, with many of us who are thirsting for WUs. It's excitement, not angst, I would guess, that is behind all the repetitive questions. If we could all just agree that there are no ulterior motives to the delays, that the admins are doing everything in their power to keep things moving, that WUs will be available as soon as humanly possible, and that we'll all eventually be able to take part (in whatever small capacity) in this ground-breaking project, then we'll all feel a little better. Someday hopefully soon, construction on the collider will be complete and we'll be crunching like hell to do what we can to help. Until then, kick back and dedicate your energies to the other wonderful projects that are going full-steam. Just MHO. |
|
17)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Trojan used by dishonest BOINC cruncher
(Message 17063)
Posted 20 Jun 2007 by picantecomputing Post: Folks might be interested in this thread, in spite of all the bickering going on there. They're putting together some sort of organized protest against Predictor. |
|
18)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
LHC credits not showing up in cross-project stats
(Message 16164)
Posted 20 Jan 2007 by picantecomputing Post: thanks for the info. |
|
19)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
LHC credits not showing up in cross-project stats
(Message 16160)
Posted 20 Jan 2007 by picantecomputing Post: I'm relatively new to BOINC (3 wks). Got a tiny bit of LHC WUs a couple of weeks ago, and they show up in my BOINC account manager stats and in my LHC account stats, but for some reason they're not reflected in my cross-project stats. Not sure why. Not a big deal - just curious. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thx! 
|
©2024 CERN