1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
The new look bugs
(Message 18329)
Posted 21 Oct 2007 by Da Phoole Post: There is no search box for the message boards. There is one for Questions & Answers. They come in handy when trying to find related messages before starting a new thread. |
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Ghost result (server thinks I got it, but I didn't)
(Message 18283)
Posted 18 Oct 2007 by Da Phoole Post: I also have a ghost that never made it to the machine WU 1730113 Result 8937073 |
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Claimed 0 credits - still pending after all 5 results received
(Message 18143)
Posted 14 Oct 2007 by Da Phoole Post: If you look at the result for one of the computers, you will see So, this was a normal exit for a model with a bad cofiguration? Now it makes sense. Cyber particles crash into cyber walls and the cyber system shuts down -- without any smoke. |
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Claimed 0 credits - still pending after all 5 results received
(Message 18123)
Posted 13 Oct 2007 by Da Phoole Post: Another pending with all goose eggs WU 1711447 |
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Happenings...
(Message 18094)
Posted 12 Oct 2007 by Da Phoole Post: It's set to two WUs per CPU. That computer is dualcore, so 4 for it. Thanks for setting me straight. I can't believe I missed that minor detail. I'll just blame it on sleep deprivation. I worked 12 hours last night, and came home to babysit an ill granddaughter. She can't go to school sick, so she gets to stay with Grandpa until her parents get home from their jobs. Three hours and counting. ;-) |
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Happenings...
(Message 18086)
Posted 12 Oct 2007 by Da Phoole Post: Hello Everybody... Hungry CPUs seem to ask often, and it looks like they set their own wait time - at least my problem box wasn't deferring the required hour. I suspended network activity on the problem machine, waited about 90 minutes, then turned network activity back on. It picked up its first WU and deferred the next request for 1 hour. Perhaps the 1 hour deferral isn't sent/processed unless work is assigned. BTW - It seems the quota may actually be set at 4 WUs. The machine that first started getting work received 4 before the server message said quota reached on the request for number 5. Results for computer |
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Happenings...
(Message 18074)
Posted 12 Oct 2007 by Da Phoole Post: Two workunits a day, one request an hour. So, the quota applies to CPU while the request time applies to user. Just fate that first box received a WU before the second box asked. The second box was told NO. Then the first box requested and received work after the hour delay, but before the second box could try again. First box happy. Second box pouting and waiting. |
8)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Happenings...
(Message 18071)
Posted 12 Oct 2007 by Da Phoole Post: ... the quota is per CPU not user or IP so people with more than one machine should get 2 on each. Thank you for clarifying how the quota restrictions are applied. However, I am still puzzled by server message traffic when requesting work. I have two machines attached to this project. One received 2 WUs without difficulty. The second is repeatedly rebuffed with the explanation:
|
9)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
What do we crunch for?
(Message 16684)
Posted 8 Apr 2007 by Da Phoole Post: Speaking of "folk" I don't really know much about hill-folk at all... but I did see Deliverance. I understand that if you gather 32 of them in the same room, you get a full set of teeth. |
10)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Trojan used by dishonest BOINC cruncher
(Message 16634)
Posted 27 Mar 2007 by Da Phoole Post: There may be some movement on this issue at Predictor. According to the QMC Forum, Mr. Braun has frozen the account. |
11)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Fairer distribuiton of work(Flame Fest 2007)
(Message 16438)
Posted 28 Feb 2007 by Da Phoole Post: OK, I am a newbie at LHC. Yet, I must admit to being thoroughly perplexed by this obsession with “fair” distribution. I just let BOINC poll for work and forget it. If work is assigned, wonderful. I have no plans to open a vein if there is no work available today, tomorrow, or even for the next several months. There are other projects, and mountains of numbers in need of crunching. Those clamoring for “fairness” appear more interested in self-gratification than science. My grandchildren regularly ask for change to purchase an ice cream at the corner store. Sometimes I have some. Most times I do not. While they might express mild disappointment, they do not demand I alter my routine so there will always be coins available. They understand the true meaning of fairness However, I do find the suggestion for placing limits on distribution of WUs intriguing. Perhaps I can convince the local casino to implement such a scheme. No other gamer at the roulette table, having once won, could be paid until my number came up on the wheel. |
©2024 CERN