1) Message boards : Number crunching : LHC@home server being reconfigured today !! (Message 14703)
Posted 20 Sep 2006 by Profile The Ox
Post:
We are looking for the missing files problem - most other problems seem to have been solved.

Keep the faith...

Ben Segal / LHC@home

maybe you should reset the project
or you should detach and attach again.

Already tried. Still getting the file missing error.


Keeping faith :)


Also keeping the faith, but am having the same missing file problems...
2) Message boards : Number crunching : BOINCstats and number of users (Message 8774)
Posted 21 Jul 2005 by Profile The Ox
Post:
I think I read somewhere on the BOINCStats website that only users with credit get added to the database there, so even if they are being exported, they probably aren't showing up yet.

Regards,
Clint
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Bug in the Credit addition (Message 8649)
Posted 17 Jul 2005 by Profile The Ox
Post:
> Either invalid is invalid thus no granted credit, or there is a new category
> "not-quite-valid-but-not-that-bad-as-well", where half the amount is granted.
> But then granted is granted, and not just some fake value in the table, to put
> you at rest, and lets you expect everything is fine, but don't add this to
> your score. That's deceit, and I don't even see some advantage for the project
> from this.


Deceit? That seems like a pretty harsh word to be throwing around. BOINC isn't perfect (yet) and there are going to be inconsistencies between projects. I personally don't think anyone at CERN is trying to be deceitful, and from the good work I've seen accomplished by the limited staffers assigned to this project, I think you're being just a little bit unfair.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : If only the numbers were a measure of reality!! (Message 7474)
Posted 6 May 2005 by Profile The Ox
Post:
> > anyone know where to get a 30 m copper hat? I'd love to see that!
> >
> Not me, though you'd need at least a 31m hat anyway ;) :D

That's it - I'm moving to the Andes Mountains and never looking back! =]

5) Message boards : Number crunching : If only the numbers were a measure of reality!! (Message 7435)
Posted 5 May 2005 by Profile The Ox
Post:
We were just testing with a new quantum-mechanics based file transport
> technology. It is based on principle of moving whole files directly from
> source HD to destination HD in one instance of time (instead of serializing
> the file into bits and moving them through net).

LOL Marku! I'm putting a great big aluminum foil hat over my computer so you can't invade it's mind while I'm not looking... ;)

Regards,
Clint
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Holy WU's ... BatMan ... !!! (Message 7337)
Posted 30 Apr 2005 by Profile The Ox
Post:
105k+!! Thank you lhc@home staff!
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Schedulers online status for websites (Message 6707)
Posted 24 Mar 2005 by Profile The Ox
Post:
Very impressive, Bruno. Thanks for your contributions!

Regards,
Clint
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Daily Quota? (Message 6706)
Posted 24 Mar 2005 by Profile The Ox
Post:
> Me too ...
>
> The willingness of some of the development groups to accept external input is,
> um, unenthusiastic, to say the least. Which is a shame ... one of the whole
> points to being "open" source is to get critical input from the outside.

I agree with you. I'm afraid that the original concept of multi-project development has gotten lost in the specifics. Without trying to slap down Berkeley, I think that BOINC was designed with SETI in mind and perhaps not enough thought was given to the flexibility issues we're dealing with, like quotas and heterogeneous workunit sizes. It's my hope that some of the significant variations in BOINC deployment and the subsequent growing pains for LHC, Einstein, and Predictor will finally open their eyes. If these types of issues aren't worked out, BOINC isn't going to expand to include more projects...

You know the sad part is that I've become a staunch BOINC supporter to the exclusion of other projects/platforms available because I love the concept and the projects, but I worry that a narrow vision will diminish its future.

Regards,
Clint
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Daily Quota? (Message 6698)
Posted 24 Mar 2005 by Profile The Ox
Post:
@Paul:
> Though supposed to be set up to be multi-application and multi-project, oops,
> one size fits all Work Unit! :)
>
> I suppose I should not be so easily amused ...

If you're easily amused, then I suppose that I am no better. As a former-programmer-turning-theologian I am still very much interested in the nit picky details of code design. And in this case I think you're right on. A multi-app, multi-project system with a one size fits all approach is a definite design oversight. Perhaps they'll pick up on that throughout the development cycle...

Regards,
Clint
10) Message boards : Number crunching : running out of work (Message 6555)
Posted 14 Mar 2005 by Profile The Ox
Post:
@mmciastro:

You hit the problem right on the head and drove it through the board! :)

If they introduce Astropulse as a subset of SETI, not unlike how Paul described it earlier using the 10,000, 100,000, and 1,000,000 million analogy here at LHC, there won't be an effective run on the bank for their servers. Everyone will be connected to one project, so the odds of a tremendous growth in SETI just becuase the Astropulse application was added are pretty slim.

@everybody:
In general, I see a couple of things here:

1) I understand their desire to not have to duplicate any hardware setups. The current one they have has been troublesome enough and I don't blame them for wanting to utilize it to the maximum. In this respect, I can sympathize with the folks at Berkeley.

2) Astropulse will be reparsing through the same identical datatapes as SETI, so in that sense it could be considered similar enough to be the same; except that the goals of the project really aren't that similar. If this was a line of reasoning, I have to respectfully disagree with the Berkeley crew.

3) I remember hearing that they're having trouble keeping enough workunits ready to meet demand. It would seem logical to distribute more workunits that are doing similar (kinda-sorta: see reason 2) work to keep everybody happily crunching. While I can agree with this in principle, because the projects have two very different goals, I respectfully disagree here as well.

4) This really isn't a line of reasoning for them so much as it is for me. I have done like Paul has and voted with my feet. Let me emphasize that this is not because of the server outage situation, but because of the science. I think that SETI is pretty impractical compared to scientifically useful applications like Einstein, LHC, and Predictor. Yes, CPDN is conspicuously absent because I don't find it as personally exciting. I have now shaved SETI down to the bare minimum (and on some machines removed it) and use CPDN as my time-filler application since it is fairly stable. Besides, those workunits last forever, so they are the perfect space filler in case of downtime from all three of the projects I favor.

Now that I've rambled on, it basically comes down to the fact that I would love to crunch Astropulse units, but I don't want to crunch SETI units. If I have to chance it that I'll get either Astropulse -OR- SETI units in order to crunch Astropulse, I'm very likely not to do it. Besides, I'd rather get credit for a separate entity listed as Astropulse than for SETI. Basically, whenever somebody looks at my little stats signature, I'd like them to be able to tell which projects I am all about. (right now, SETI is still my second high, but that will change in due time...)

So anyway, I'm not trying to be pain in the butt, or longwinded for that manner. Maybe I've failed at both! :) I guess it's just disappointing that this won't be separated out like the "purist" in me would like. Oh well.. That's more than my two cents.

Regards,
Clint
11) Message boards : Number crunching : running out of work (Message 6546)
Posted 13 Mar 2005 by Profile The Ox
Post:
@Paul & @Kenneth:
I'm totally with you on Astropulse vs. SETI. I think SETI is a whimsical project, especially considering the limitations of the search capabilities (Arecibo has limited bandwidth capabilities, operates in northern hemisphere = horrible view of the galaxy). Astropulse in my thinking would be a great way to reevaluate all of the SETI data and search for celestial bodies we would have a much stronger chance of finding IMHO. My bent is toward physical and life sciences, so LHC, Einstein, Predictor, and Astropulse would be me top receiving projects. I've basically all but phased out SETI, using CPDN as my "backup" work in case of downtime!

@Pete:
I'm afraid you're probably right. Unless they could come up with some grants or donations, the necessity of running AP on the same hardware setup is probably inevitable...

@all:
I think they reason they are probably so adamant about running the project interleaved with SETI is that they have the largest crunching base in the entire BOINC spectrum available to them. Why jeopardize that size by running a separate project that we all know people aren't necessarily going to join when you can just shuffle in the AP workunits while they're not looking. Maybe I'm coming off just a little too cynical here, but they've got all the resources on hand they really need, and my thought is that searching for pulsars isn't nearly as cool as searching for aliens to the average Joe Q. Cruncher.

Unfortunately, though, that means that AP may lose potential crunchers like me who don't want to mess with SETI anymore. That's really too bad...

Regards,
Clint
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Already have result... error (Message 6350)
Posted 4 Mar 2005 by Profile The Ox
Post:
> Clint, try this

Ric,

That seems to have done the trick - thanks for the advice!

Regards,
Clint
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Already have result... error (Message 6329)
Posted 4 Mar 2005 by Profile The Ox
Post:
My error has evolved...

While I was out my client reconnected to the server and apparently downloaded the executable correctly without the signature verification error. However, I now cannot download the logo_back_1.01_.tga file correctly. I'm getting the "wrong size" (checksum?) error, so I suspended network activity to keep from flooding out a bunch of worthless d/l requests for the file which was repeating over and over. Here's the new errors from my log:

LHC@home - 2005-03-03 23:15:47 - Started download of logo_back_1.01_.tga
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 23:15:54 - Finished download of logo_back_1.01_.tga
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 23:15:54 - Throughput 32150 bytes/sec
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 23:15:54 - Giving up on download of logo_back_1.01_.tga: Downloaded file had wrong size: expected 2691072, got 210483
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 23:15:54 - Started download of logo_back_1.01_.tga
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 23:16:02 - Finished download of logo_back_1.01_.tga
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 23:16:02 - Throughput 29032 bytes/sec
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 23:16:02 - Giving up on download of logo_back_1.01_.tga: Downloaded file had wrong size: expected 2691072, got 210483
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 23:16:02 - Started download of logo_back_1.01_.tga
--- - 2005-03-03 23:16:04 - Suspending network activity - user request


This pattern repeated for quite a long time until I got in and shut down communication. Any help on this would be appreciated. I haven't been able to crunch LHC workunits for over a day now.

Regards,
Clint
14) Message boards : Number crunching : Already have result... error (Message 6303)
Posted 3 Mar 2005 by Profile The Ox
Post:
@Genes
> The cure (for me, anyway) was to detach/reattach.

Thanks for your help, but this time the detach/reattach didn't work. However, it did change my status because now I'm getting signature verification errors on the sixtrack client executable file. I'm going to dig around a little bit for an answer and I'll update if I find a solution.

-EDIT-
I've looked around and didn't notice anything that seemed helpful on the checksum errors... Detached and reattached twice now with the same result - checksum error on the download of the sixtrack executable. I'm getting the following when the client tries to reattach to the server:

LHC@home - 2005-03-03 02:33:28 - Requesting 8527 seconds of work
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 02:33:32 - Sending request to scheduler: http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 02:33:35 - Scheduler RPC to http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi succeeded
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 02:33:35 - Already have result v64lhc92-37s8_10575_1_sixvf_1085_5
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 02:33:35 - Got ack for result (null), can't find
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 02:33:35 - No work from project
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 02:33:35 - Deferring communication with project for 1 minutes and 0 seconds
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 02:33:35 - Started download of sixtrack_4.64_windows_intelx86.exe
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 02:33:50 - Finished download of sixtrack_4.64_windows_intelx86.exe
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 02:33:50 - Throughput 188022 bytes/sec
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 02:33:50 - signature verification error for sixtrack_4.64_windows_intelx86.exe
LHC@home - 2005-03-03 02:33:50 - Checksum or signature error for sixtrack_4.64_windows_intelx86.exe


Any help is appreciated!
-EDIT-

Regards,
Clint
15) Message boards : Number crunching : Already have result... error (Message 6269)
Posted 2 Mar 2005 by Profile The Ox
Post:
I've been getting the following error all morning. I don't understand it completely, but it looks like it's trying to download a result that I have already received and have as of now completed and uploaded the finished files for. Here's my log information:


LHC@home - 2005-03-02 10:17:01 - Requesting 8525 seconds of work
LHC@home - 2005-03-02 10:17:01 - Requesting 8525 seconds of work
LHC@home - 2005-03-02 10:17:08 - Scheduler RPC to http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi succeeded
LHC@home - 2005-03-02 10:17:08 - Already have result v64lhc92-37s8_10575_1_sixvf_1085_5
LHC@home - 2005-03-02 10:17:08 - Got ack for result (null), can't find
LHC@home - 2005-03-02 10:17:08 - No work from project
LHC@home - 2005-03-02 10:17:08 - Deferring communication with project for 48 minutes and 14 seconds


I can confirm that the result mentioned above in the log entries is the wu that I just finished computing and returned to the server. However, I can no longer download any new work or report the finished wus from my BOINC client. I can't seem to find any information on this, but think I vaguely remember something similar to this happening on another project (maybe PP@H?).

Thanks for your help.



©2024 CERN