1) Message boards : Sixtrack Application : MacOS executable (Message 28637)
Posted 24 Jan 2017 by MB Atlanos
Post:
Hmm, interesting: all 8 tasks (from 20 Jan 2017, 0:27:54 UTC) have the same computer as wingmen, host 10372338. A windows machine with SixTrack v451.07 (pni)windows_intelx86 and client 7.6.22

And the 3 computed task are all inconclusives.

https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/results.php?hostid=10262927
2) Message boards : Sixtrack Application : MacOS executable (Message 28583)
Posted 20 Jan 2017 by MB Atlanos
Post:
The executable works with OS X 10.9.5 Mavericks and a Core 2 Duo CPU:
https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/result.php?resultid=113186656

Thanks for your effort.
3) Message boards : News : MacOS Executable (Message 24645)
Posted 19 Aug 2012 by MB Atlanos
Post:
And my first Mac WU validated ok - http://lhcathomeclassic.cern.ch/sixtrack/result.php?resultid=6005248
Between, nice performance of the Mac executable Sixtrack v444.02:
6005247 	9975159 	18 Aug 2012 | 8:27:57 UTC 	18 Aug 2012 | 22:26:01 UTC 	Fertig und Bestätigt 	16,865.48 	16,591.66 	182.19 	SixTrack v444.01 (pni)
6005248 	9971611 	18 Aug 2012 | 8:26:15 UTC 	18 Aug 2012 | 14:12:21 UTC 	Fertig und Bestätigt 	17,194.49 	16,889.65 	182.19 	SixTrack v444.02

My slightly dated Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8800 @ 2.66GHz took only a little longer than the recent and more potent Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3520M CPU @ 2.90GHz of my wingman.
Good Job Eric :)
4) Message boards : News : MacOS Executable (Message 24640)
Posted 18 Aug 2012 by MB Atlanos
Post:
>Which BOINC version - same on both?

Yes, both are running 6.12.35

Detach/reattach on the Early 2011 and it seems to be crunching away now.

I upgraded from Lion to Mountain Lion on both machines so it may have been a permissions issue.

-Steve

I can copy that - De/reattaching the projekt did the trick - a new WU ist running now on my Mac mini with Boinc 6.12.43.

@eric: Boinc displays only the Darwin(kernel) version, not the Mac OS version - so Darwin 10.8.0 translates to OSX 10.6.8 - please see here

Edit: forgot the requested Mac hardware model: Macmini4,1 - its the Mid 2010 model
5) Message boards : News : MacOS Executable (Message 24620)
Posted 16 Aug 2012 by MB Atlanos
Post:
Same here on my Mac mini Mid 2010 and also OSX 10.6.8.
Edit: http://lhcathomeclassic.cern.ch/sixtrack/show_host_detail.php?hostid=9971611
6) Message boards : Number crunching : How is the SSE3 thing coming along? (Message 24245)
Posted 11 Jul 2012 by MB Atlanos
Post:
And a old lowend netbook for comparsion:

10/07/2012 09:00:43 | | Starting BOINC client version 7.0.28 for windows_intelx86
10/07/2012 09:00:43 | | Processor: 2 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N270 @ 1.60GHz [Family 6 Model 28 Stepping 2]
10/07/2012 09:00:43 | | Processor: 512.00 KB cache
10/07/2012 09:00:43 | | Processor features: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss htt tm pni ssse3 nx tm2 movebe pbe
10/07/2012 09:00:43 | | OS: Microsoft Windows XP: Home x86 Edition, Service Pack 3, (05.01.2600.00)

the gain from the faster sse3 app would be significant for this pc.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : How is the SSE3 thing coming along? (Message 24240)
Posted 10 Jul 2012 by MB Atlanos
Post:
Just to drow in some info from a Mac mini Mid 2010:

Tue 10 Jul 23:00:11 2012 | | Starting BOINC client version 6.12.43 for x86_64-apple-darwin
Tue 10 Jul 23:00:11 2012 | | Processor: 2 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8800 @ 2.66GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10]
Tue 10 Jul 23:00:11 2012 | | Processor features: FPU VME DE PSE TSC MSR PAE MCE CX8 APIC SEP MTRR PGE MCA CMOV PAT PSE36 CLFSH DS ACPI MMX FXSR SSE SSE2 SS HTT TM PBE SSE3 DTES64 MON DSCPL VMX SMX EST TM2 SSSE3 CX16 TPR PDCM SSE4.1 XSAVE
Tue 10 Jul 23:00:11 2012 | | OS: Mac OS X 10.6.8 (Darwin 10.8.0)
8) Questions and Answers : Getting started : where are the work units? (Message 23942)
Posted 27 May 2012 by MB Atlanos
Post:

please delete my account from this project.

Do this in the BoincStats preferences.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 14445)
Posted 26 Jul 2006 by MB Atlanos
Post:
If I remember correctly: LHC Alpha uses the same old WUs again and again to test apps in state of development. I guess this projekt is on autopilot.

And now something commpletly different:
One of the mainproblems with Garfield is the lack ob a dedicaded Admin, so we have to wait again.
10) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 13890)
Posted 5 Jun 2006 by MB Atlanos
Post:

Please, don't do that.

Engouraging people to keep that kind of a cache without a proper reason on fast computers will bring only a problems. As we have seen servers at Cern (or where ever they are) won't stand the excessive amount of downloads what around 80 computers downloading WUs for ten days cause.

So don't come here whining when server is down and you wan't download work. You know the reason exactly.


So, you are saying that you have direct knowledge that the servers are so badly configured that they FAIL rather than throttle back connections to a level that they can handle?

Can you tell us where and how you learned this?

If your assertion is true, shouldn't be handled more directly by reconfiguring the servers rather than expecting 65k crunchers to configure their machines in some special way?

And by the way, I was never intending to be "...Engouraging [sic] people to keep that kind of a cache..."
I think that YOU should set YOUR cache to .01 and leave it there.
You should NEVER raise YOUR cache above .1.

By the way, what do you mean by "...a proper reason???"







(End of Quote)

First:
Calm down, dont take everthing too personal and stop shouting/make demands at other people who express there dislike with your behavior.
Your reaction also is not very constructive - please dont try to be sarkastic, its not your best skill. ;)

Second:
Search the forum, there are several reports that to many connections have kicked the DB-driven-websites and also the forum to nirvana. IIRC 50+ became critical, we see that a few days ago at the last batch of work.

If you not noticed:
In the last few months the normal LHC-User see not very much activity by an admin, currently there are no projektadmin at all. Look at the appropriate forumposts and the anwsers from chrulle, your former admin.

Oh, one more thing: please stop to waste space in your quotings, not everyone likes unnecessary scrolling. ;)

Sidenote: before you go ballistic at this post - observe the emoticons.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : I think we should restrict work units (Message 13780)
Posted 29 May 2006 by MB Atlanos
Post:


You're obviously not "in it" for the credits, so what does it matter how many hoops someone else jumps through to get work?

...

No offence intended, but maybe you're more interested in credits than you like to let on, afterall if you're only interested in the science what's the problem, the wu's are getting crunched ie. the science is getting done.


Sense of fairness I guess, why should a minority of greedy numberhunters grab a considerable piece of already limited work? This hampers the participation for the rest of us, who's majority consider credits as a nice bonus but finally really unimportant.

Oh we have definitely a delay in completion, thanks to big-cache-junkies who mainly crunch for there personal benefit (how silly it even may) and the inadequacies of the boincsystem to counteract WU-crabbers.
Remember, currently we do not have an Admin for this projekt, to adjust the limits, if there even are an awareness of this problem at CERN.

Unfortunatly LHC and Einstein are the only "hard science" (physics) projekts in non-alpha/beta stage. And its needs the completion of the current work to issue the next one.



©2024 CERN