Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think you made your point !!
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Apparently you have not read my other posts to them. I have been critical of them, but yet I know that they are operating within their rights. Whether it is the best course of action to take given the ease at which people are riled up over things like this, that is a different subject, which is: Just because you can do something, doesn't always mean you should. |
Send message Joined: 4 Oct 08 Posts: 1734 Credit: 64,228,409 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Just because you can do something, doesn't always mean you should. However, given the circumstances it did draw their attention and things are happening, I think. As regards to people getting riled because someone has, legitimately, modified the code to carry out crunching much much more efficiently. My reaction is to say - get over yourself, please! |
Send message Joined: 1 Oct 08 Posts: 106 Credit: 24,162,445 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Just because you can do something, doesn't always mean you should. That is right and the very reason we are not doing it with our personal accounts and for our team. But I guess I don't have to explain another time why we think someone just has to show the extent of the waste. You have read it often enough ;) Just repeating an argument does not make it better. PS: The last sentence is a general remark and applies of course also to my own posts (more specifically this one), just to cause no unnecessary irritation. |
Send message Joined: 1 Oct 08 Posts: 106 Credit: 24,162,445 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
However, given the circumstances it did draw their attention and things are happening, I think. This is what we intended. Thanks for the support! |
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
What I have not done is to simply give the project the source code. I explained the reason for that to you already more than a week ago. I know, but like I said, holding things back like that can make people question your motives. If you don't care, then that's one thing. If you do care, then perhaps you should consider softening your approach. I know that what you're doing wouldn't be technically against the letter of the GPL (if the code was GPL'd), but it would be against the spirit of it as well as against the spirit of OSS/OSI. I said already several times we are not hiding something. ...and as I just mentioned, by not contributing your improvements back to the community, without conditions, you do violate the spirit of the GPL, if there was a GPL, even if you aren't breaking the letter of it (since you aren't distributing). I know you know what I'm talking about, and you should know that I know what I'm talking about too... What you're doing is very borderline behavior, and this is likely why Crunch3r warned you (that this sort of thing would happen). |
Send message Joined: 1 Oct 08 Posts: 106 Credit: 24,162,445 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
The code does not have a license at all. You can do whatever you want with it. The Boinc part (coming from Berkeley) is under the LGPL license. That means you are allowed to create closed source projects with it (as done at several other projects). I said already several times we are not hiding something. Fine, we exchanged arguments and we both still stand on our positions. That happens. But you know I gave a description of the changes leading to that substantial speed improvement. If someone asks you the way to the next gas station, do you get in the car and drives him to the station? Most probably you will tell him: "Just drive one mile in that direction, at the crossway there turn right, the next left and you are there". What you're doing is very borderline behavior, and this is likely why Crunch3r warned you (that this sort of thing would happen). He told us that people will react angrily, accuse us of cheating and resort to personal attacks (edit: that applies of course not to you). But we thought and still think that some signal has to be send. By not using our personal accounts we think we are on the right side of the border ;) |
Send message Joined: 9 Aug 08 Posts: 10 Credit: 46,370 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
You just bit me with your app, Milksop. You did a WU in under 1.5 hours when it took me more than 11 hours for the same one... I don't expect I'll get credit for it. Looks like I should abort when it gets to the due date. Well, DSL is coming soon.. That will let me send results as soon as they are ready, but it won't affect any processing speed. I have the same cache size as you, but your speeds are more than double mine. I have no idea why that is and probably can't do anything about it. Is this a AMD vs Intel comparison? |
![]() Send message Joined: 27 Aug 07 Posts: 915 Credit: 1,503,319 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
So I take it you're using dialup that may not be available at all times? You're right, that won't change processing speed, but it would change how quickly you could report a completed task.
I thought about clarifying what I was talking about when I mentioned "cache" because of the potential confusion, but I didn't... What I'm talking about is the workunit cache, in number of days, that you have set in your BOINC preferences, not the amount of cache memory that your processor has. My thought is that if you are requesting 3 days, you might consider dropping back to 2 days. If you are already at 2 days, then you might consider dropping to 1 and using the "Maintain enough for an additional" number of days...to perhaps 0.5 days. |
Send message Joined: 9 Aug 08 Posts: 10 Credit: 46,370 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
It's on the house phone and I'm not always here either. I think I would have been late even if I has sent it after finishing - never quite sure if I need to account for another 4 hours... But Boinc never gives me the right times. It reported 10:57 for my last task when the log shows it's been running for 17:13. But the trickiest part is how many 260 credit tasks I get - that seems to be increasing lately.
I toyed with that yesterday. I had 2 days set in Boinc, but 3 at Milkyway, which must have overridden it. There seem to be fewer tasks now. So how are you processing so fast? Are you overclocked or something? |
Send message Joined: 9 Aug 08 Posts: 10 Credit: 46,370 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Jeez, looks like the big dawg scared everyone off! |
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
But Boinc never gives me the right times. It reported 10:57 for my last task when the log shows it's been running for 17:13. You mean the estimated time to completion, or the CPU time?
My system is overclocked from 2.2 GHz (normal) to 2.75 GHz, but an Athlon64 is a better processor than a Celeron... Also, I suspect the cache amount listed for your Celeron is wrong and should probably be 256K... The cache amount reporting in BOINC is a bit buggy... Doesn't affect performance, just not detected correctly all the time. |
![]() Send message Joined: 27 Aug 07 Posts: 915 Credit: 1,503,319 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Jeez, looks like the big dawg scared everyone off! Me too! me@rescam.org |
![]() Send message Joined: 17 Oct 07 Posts: 23 Credit: 26,399,335 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Not scared off. Just pointless in continuing a conversation with fundamentalist. And besides the current topic has nothing to do with the thread. |
Send message Joined: 9 Aug 08 Posts: 10 Credit: 46,370 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
But Boinc never gives me the right times. It reported 10:57 for my last task when the log shows it's been running for 17:13. Estimated doesn't make any sense at all! It might say 8 hours done with 8 hours to go. Never could tell - not on this project anyway. But the log says it start at 10:19pm and finished 17 hours later the next day (log gone now). It even looks like Boinc's clock runs slow (or not at all sometimes). Just blew another task. :( Should have reported it last night during SNL, but didn't. Some 'Anonymous' came in and did it in 34 minutes! But got awarded less credits than I had claimed. Interesting. |
Send message Joined: 9 Aug 08 Posts: 10 Credit: 46,370 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Not scared off. Just pointless in continuing a conversation with fundamentalist. And besides the current topic has nothing to do with the thread. But it's such a hostile thread, Zed. It made for interesting reading (some of it). It needed that dog! I agree with your position, but it's not worth raising your blood pressure. I wish I could crunch a task like that, but I can't - oh, well. Maybe next one... |
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
No, that host didn't do it in "an hour", it did it in 258.77 seconds, which is 4 minutes, 18.77 seconds. Since it was a gs_373 (medium length), most likely it is one of the people with a fully optimized application. My system does those in about 10,000 seconds, and even if a Xeon 5460 was 10 times faster, and I doubt that it is, that would still be 1,000 seconds, so it would be someone with an optimized (or de-unoptimized) application. Whether that is someone with the project or one of the people that folks will like to say are "cheating", is anyone's guess... On the positive side (for the rest of us who are credit conscious), they are only getting about 4X the cr/hr of my system. Mine will get around 50/hr, and they got 216/hr for that task. My (revised) guess is a 5460 is about 4-6 times better than my system, so in a sense, it is "fair" (for the rest of us)...even though I disagree with the cap... |
Send message Joined: 9 Aug 08 Posts: 10 Credit: 46,370 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Rats! It was a 373 too - probably why I didn't worry about it. I can do those in time. In "real-time" it took me 29471 seconds to do that one! Oh, well. DSL comes Tuesday, if the phone co. is true to their word and I can figure it out. |
Send message Joined: 1 Oct 08 Posts: 106 Credit: 24,162,445 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
No, that host didn't do it in "an hour", it did it in 258.77 seconds, which is 4 minutes, 18.77 seconds. Since it was a gs_373 (medium length), most likely it is one of the people with a fully optimized application. My system does those in about 10,000 seconds, and even if a Xeon 5460 was 10 times faster, and I doubt that it is, that would still be 1,000 seconds, so it would be someone with an optimized (or de-unoptimized) application. Actually it isn't a very fast version. Crunch3r can do a long WU in less than 120s (two minutes), a medium one takes just slightly more than a minute. And that on a 3GHz 65nm Core 2. A 3.16GHz 45nm Core2 would be a bit faster. Nevertheless, if I would have to bet, I would still think it is Crunch3r. That he does not use the fastest version has a very simple explanation. As weird as it sounds, on a sufficiently fast system (anything from AMD or intel with more than 1.6GHz, maybe besides an Atom ;) you get less credits per day if you use the fastest version. That behaviour of the cap is really a punishment. The faster you crunch, the less credits you get. And remember, I'm not speaking about the credit/WU level (that goes down too of course) but the credit/day number. |
Send message Joined: 9 Aug 08 Posts: 10 Credit: 46,370 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
That is just too fast! I'll bet the developers should be quite leary of releasing something like that (though it needs to be done). It might totally change their way of doing things. It could work better - or it could break it. |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group