Posts by Beezlebub

1) Message boards : News : Screensaver Demo (Message 42475) Posted 30 Sep 2010 by Beezlebub Post: Ok got to the cube but my in out controls are < (out) > (in) Out meaning the cube gets smaller or further away and in means the cube goes to individual dots. Also the arrows move the cube opposite the arrow,,,,,,
2) Message boards : News : Screensaver Demo (Message 42358) Posted 25 Sep 2010 by Beezlebub Post: I see multiple blue dots in almost all views but none look like a cube. Intel q6600 quad, Asus p5k deluxe, 3 gig ddr ram, 4850 ATI video.
3) Message boards : News : Screensaver Demo (Message 41223) Posted 3 Aug 2010 by Beezlebub Post: Another vote for color!
4) Message boards : Number crunching : No New Work (Message 40790) Posted 4 Jul 2010 by Beezlebub Post: Collatz is down here, been down since yesterday.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Results ready to send 0 ? (Message 40722) Posted 28 Jun 2010 by Beezlebub Post: Thank you sir! :)
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Results ready to send 0 ? (Message 40717) Posted 28 Jun 2010 by Beezlebub Post: data-driven web pages milkyway Running upload/download server milkyway Running scheduler milkyway Running feeder milkyway Running transitioner milkyway Running milkyway_purge milkyway Running file_deleter milkyway Running Running: Program is operating normally Not Running: Program failed or ran out of work (or the project is down) Disabled: Program has been disabled by staff (for debugging/maintenance) Database/file status State # Results ready to send 0 Results in progress 120,542 Workunits waiting for validation 26,592 Workunits waiting for assimilation 63 Workunits waiting for deletion 0 Results waiting for deletion 0 Transitioner backlog (hours) 0
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Can we have some more work, please? (Message 40262) Posted 7 Jun 2010 by Beezlebub Post: Thank You, hope the weekend was fun at least!
8) Message boards : Cafe MilkyWay : Milestones III (Message 39941) Posted 25 May 2010 by Beezlebub Post: I wonder how many people see the rac's and credits listed here and think "I'm wasting time here." and leave.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Can't stop CPU based WU on ATi system. (Message 39937) Posted 25 May 2010 by Beezlebub Post: Upgrade your boinc version.
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Down for maintenance? (Message 37565) Posted 19 Mar 2010 by Beezlebub Post: Up and running! :)
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Down for maintenance? (Message 37561) Posted 19 Mar 2010 by Beezlebub Post: Seems to be down again, not acknowledging "ready to report"
12) Message boards : Number crunching : server crash (July 29) (Message 28564) Posted 29 Jul 2009 by Beezlebub Post: My stats still show as a minus 27,000 credits,,,,bummer.
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Milestones (Message 2901) Posted 29 Mar 2008 by Beezlebub Post: 91,327 here. (soon as stats catch up)
14) Message boards : Number crunching : GECCO2008 paper accepted (Message 2417) Posted 20 Mar 2008 by Beezlebub Post: Thanks from me also Travis.
15) Message boards : Number crunching : GECCO2008 paper accepted (Message 2322) Posted 17 Mar 2008 by Beezlebub Post: So people with fast machines and Report Result Immediately feature in Boinc core would be most effective. That's why i'm here :P We need a thread listing OS, CPU, and run time per model to compare results. Interesting to see what combo returns the best times.
16) Message boards : Number crunching : GECCO2008 paper accepted (Message 2321) Posted 17 Mar 2008 by Beezlebub Post: I would think a minimum "work unit crunch time" suggestion pointing out the "real time" model updating as a qualifier for computers for this project so people with slow units do not waste their time and your server space with outdated results would be needed. Well, turn-around time would be best figure to use. One may have fast host, finish WUs quickly but doesn't report back. So people with fast machines and Report Result Immediately feature in Boinc core would be most effective. Yes Honza that was what I was trying to say :) Thanks for stating it that way.
17) Message boards : Number crunching : GECCO2008 paper accepted (Message 2310) Posted 17 Mar 2008 by Beezlebub Post: Nice paper Travis! Question, the below paragraph seems to indicate the results returned quickest update the database and generate a new line to compute. If this is so, how useful are the slower computers as it seems their results as you said will be outdated when received. I would think a minimum "work unit crunch time" suggestion pointing out the "real time" model updating as a qualifier for computers for this project so people with slow units do not waste their time and your server space with outdated results would be needed. In the first phase of the algorithm (while the population size is less than the maximum population size) the server is being initialized and a random population is generated. When a request work message is processed, a random pa- rameter set is generated, and when a report work message is processed, the population is updated with the parameters and the fitness of that evaluation. When enough report work messages have been processed, the algorithm proceeds into the second phase which performs the actual genetic search. In the second phase, report work will insert the new pa- rameters and their fitness into the population but only if they are better than the worst current member and remove the worst member if required to keep the population size the same. Otherwise the parameters and the result are dis- carded. Processing a request work message will either return a mutation or reproduction (crossover) from the population.
18) Questions and Answers : Wish list : Fixed Credits (Message 500) Posted 19 Nov 2007 by Beezlebub Post: This computer: 2202 is running 1000+ sec. and getting an avg of 2.25 credits. This computer: 2206 is running 1000+ sec. and getting an avg of 2.35 credits. This computer: 2195 is running 500+ sec. and getting an avg. of 2.87 credits. This computer: 2198 is running 480+ sec. and getting an avg. of 2.67 credits. This computer: 2199 is running 660+ sec. and getting an avg. of 2.67 credits. Computers 2195, 2199, 2198 are all core2duo, 2 e6600 quads and one e6750 Computers 2202, 2206 are P4's The core2's are running Vista and the P4' are running XP Note the discrepancy between times, credits, cpu's, if credit is assigned by cpu time invested(work accomplished) the P4's are really low. If credits are per WU then why are there any discrepancy?