Posts by Cameron

21) Message boards : News : Nbody Release 1.62 (Message 64770) Posted 29 Jun 2016 by Cameron Post: I've been back for four of five days after a bit of an absence and had been recieving 1.60 during that time. Anyway always nice to see a meaningful version bump. Do these changes affact the actual science modelling or does it just improve the model througput validation/error ratio.
22) Message boards : News : New Nbody version 1.46 (Message 62908) Posted 29 Dec 2014 by Cameron Post: Returned ps_nbody_12_20_orphan_sim_2_1413455402_1482094 and it can't validate because of too many results. de_nbody_08_05_orphan_sim_0_1413455402_1236584 looks like going the same way. How can 6 or 4 (mt) apps not come up with a qurom between them and my standard app is the odd one out making up the numbers. Should 1.46 be taking 90 minutes to reach the first checkpoint on a single core of http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/show_host_detail.php?hostid=496692
23) Message boards : News : New Nbody version 1.46 (Message 62865) Posted 20 Dec 2014 by Cameron Post: Just Retuned de_nbody_12_19_orphan_sim_1_1413455402_1432766_0 due to Computational error running 1.46. <core_client_version>7.4.27</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> The system cannot find the drive specified. (0xf) - exit code 15 (0xf) </message> <stderr_txt> <search_application> milkyway_nbody 1.46 Windows x86_64 double , Crlibm </search_application> Error reading histogram line 37: 1 -48.5294117647 0.0439655511 0.0013148967 21:05:57 (4564): called boinc_finish </stderr_txt> ]]> Appeared to have run ps_nbody_08_05_orphan_sim_0_1413455402_1036953_3 successfully with 1.46 (just awaiting validation)
24) Message boards : Number crunching : Why so short Workunits? (Message 62839) Posted 15 Dec 2014 by Cameron Post: Aside from the new _fast_ runs as mentioned. Milkyway have always had short workunits with fast turn around times so that the eveloving testing parameters are checked and that any particular result does not become stale. Just Running on a CPU the Milkyway@home Simulation could take an hour or so. and the Usually Seperation or Seperation(Modified Fit) takes about 2 hours. The N-Body Simulation might be a bit different. Double Precision GPUS the Only GPUs that Milkyway utilies a MultiThreading are probably much faster. It's just the way the Milkyway Project utilises the volunteered resources.
25) Message boards : News : New Nbody version (Message 62751) Posted 28 Nov 2014 by Cameron Post: Greetings! <first day to post this, found this thread dealing with N-body - as it may have the proper thread subjects from the issues I have trying to run Milkyway@Home> I'm finding messages from BOINC telling me... Milkyway@Home: Notice from server Your app_info.xml file doesn't have a useable version of Milkyway@Home Separation (Modified Fit). and message containing N-body Simulation - same context... DTD Tue 25 Nov 2014 03:40.36 AM EST This is two notices each day, process I do is... Reset Project>>Update Continuing issue starting back in November 5th or thereabouts... Searching Linux Mint V17 [Quiana] Locates this xml file... /user/share/boinc-app-milkyway and file contents... <app_info> <app> <name>milkyway</name> </app> <file_info> <name>milkyway</name> <executable/> </file_info> <app_version> <app_name>milkyway</app_name> <version_num>18</version_num> <file_ref> <file_name>milkyway</file_name> <main_program/> </file_ref> </app_version> </app_info> Seems either I need this file, or I already have a file or do I need to delete this file so the system can sense this and reinstall? Trying to help you run stuff but I'm not sure how to fix the above... Any suggestions? Regards! :+> Andy <+: I think you should delete the file and then reset the project. It sounds as though it is behaving like an local override file and the server is saying it does not match the current app version but is being prevented from auto updating the app. If Resetting does not work you might need to detach [Remove] and (Re)join the Poject
26) Message boards : News : New Nbody version (Message 62724) Posted 20 Nov 2014 by Cameron Post: de_nbody_08_05_orphan_sim_0_1413455402_195772_3 was progressing slower than the previous N-Body Task at .37%/hr. I've aborted it after 24 hours[9.08%] and won't do N-body Tasks until a new app version is released.
27) Message boards : News : New Nbody version (Message 62715) Posted 19 Nov 2014 by Cameron Post: I am aborting de_nbody_08_05_orphan_sim_0_1413455402_345349_0 which after 16.5 hours at 0.411%/hr has achieved 6.78%. I also have another N-Body workunit [de_nbody_08_05_orphan_sim_0_1413455402_195772_3] If this one is similarly 0.4%/hr I shall be aborting it as well.
28) Message boards : News : Award Badges Going Live Soon! (Message 60851) Posted 28 Jan 2014 by Cameron Post: I currently have over 2 million credits on the books for Milkyway WUs. When the awards get posted, will these credits be recognized or will everyone be starting from zero? Thanks Gandalf, Matt mentioned earlier in the thread [page 1] that the current cobblestone\|credit values will be used and the appropriate badges will be displayed once the badge system is live so your current 2 million credits will grant you a 2M badge and when you've done a total of 3 millions credits worth you'll have a 3 million badge instead.
29) Message boards : News : Award Badges Going Live Soon! (Message 60703) Posted 8 Jan 2014 by Cameron Post: A question more relevent for 2016 but will you be adding badge pairs for extened years of service after platinum? (bronze),(silver),(gold),(platinum),(rarer metal),(unobtainium) or adjusting the service ranges for (bronze),(silver),(gold),(platinum) in the future?
30) Message boards : News : Award Badges Going Live Soon! (Message 60658) Posted 26 Dec 2013 by Cameron Post: Is it possible to include a badge to indicate a CPU contribution of 50%/75%/100% to a participants contribution to the project?
31) Message boards : Cafe MilkyWay : Definately not Seti....... (Message 44005) Posted 21 Nov 2010 by Cameron Post: I'm doing some Cosmology@Home (Who's boards are even quieter than here) until I find out MilkyWay has fixed Completed CPU Work Granted Credits or Credit is Pending until another CPU can Validate. (I might be a MW Minority Group using only the CPU but I can't be the only one) that or SETI@Home Returns -- To Summarise -- I would like to know what's happened at MW over the last month or perhaps what about to happen over the next few weeks. I'd started returning Completed MW WUs at the start of November everything looking fine. Then About 10/11 November I suddenly got fewer credits for returning completed work (have been returning 4-6 WUs a Day [within deadline]) Camerons Daily Milkyway Granted Credit for November 2010 I want to know Why I've had nearly two weeks of historically consistant CPU WU Returned Milky Way Credit Granted (which I'm happy with) and then overnight suddenly the granted credit drop (I've been returning completed CPU Workunits) The reason best I can tell is that the tasks that are generated after I return my WU that has been crunched by my CPU are taken by GPUs and they form the quorum.
32) Message boards : News : an update on the credit issue (Message 43907) Posted 17 Nov 2010 by Cameron Post: If tasks that have be validated by CPUs can also be validated by CPUs rather than being dropped because the quorum is met by two GPUs AFTER the CPU Task has been returned than that would be great. Really annoying for doing tasks _0 and _1 when the next task for the workunit is not generated until the return of the workunit sent out. Started Happening to me on the 10th-11th November. The week before CPU Tasks were being accepted and credit being granted normally. I may have mis-posted the message on the Science Board but This is the thread I started
33) Message boards : Number crunching : Are Tasks being given to a CPU only to be ignored?? (Message 43821) Posted 14 Nov 2010 by Cameron Post: I'm a CPU Only Cruncher for MilkyWay and thought to contribute a few cycles while SETI@Home was still remodelling their servers. On November 11 I noticed a servere drop in credit awarded for the number of tasks completed and reported. None of the Tasks appeared to have errored out. Number of Workunits I've Reported over the last few days 11-Nov-2010 16:05:01 [Milkyway@home] Reporting 4 completed tasks, requesting new tasks for CPU and GPU 12-Nov-2010 22:20:44 [Milkyway@home] Reporting 7 completed tasks, requesting new tasks for CPU and GPU 13-Nov-2010 13:01:32 [Milkyway@home] Reporting 4 completed tasks, requesting new tasks for CPU and GPU 13-Nov-2010 13:10:36 [Milkyway@home] Reporting 1 completed tasks, requesting new tasks for CPU 14-Nov-2010 15:43:23 [Milkyway@home] Reporting 5 completed tasks, not requesting new tasks I took special note of the tasks I reported today (14-Nov-2010) and I've noticed I've been the only CPU for: Workunit 183210055 [Task 242726316] Workunit 183210056 [Task 242726317] Workunit 183211484 [Task 242728396] I also noticed that the other tasks which were validated with ATI GPUs were generated after my task had been returned. The GPUs Validate Each Other and My CPU Task then gets discarded. I understand the BOINC quorum validation process of generate tasks until a quorum is reached but Why is Milkyway going to satisfy a CPUs immediate request for work (within MilkyWays workunit limits) wait for it to be returned and then generate new tasks until a quorum is reached if that quorum is more than likely going to be two validating GPUs.
34) Message boards : Number crunching : Torrents of Invalid WU's (Message 43799) Posted 13 Nov 2010 by Cameron Post: I think I've been handed a batch of Invalids 'Completed Marked as Invalid' CPU Onlys MW 0.45 sse2's. I can't list them as they've already be refreshed out of reach but I've returned 12-16 and probably only had 3 or 4 awarded full marks over the last two days kind of annoying to lose full workunits Thing is They Ran for the 6-7 hours which was the average under 0.19 and looked error free when I sent them. will take careful note of the 15 I've got on the client (cross fingers I won't have to announce them 'Marked as Invalid'). BTW any Idea how long an n-body is supposed to run I've had 4 run 30-60 minutes and then one run for 20 hours??
35) Message boards : MilkyWay@home Science : SDSS Stripe 82 searches (Message 3624) Posted 1 Jun 2008 by Cameron Post: Well Thanks for the info. I can now visualise the wedges of work we've all been doing.
36) Message boards : Number crunching : Could We Get a Paper On This? (Message 3623) Posted 1 Jun 2008 by Cameron Post: I am still getting the occasional bad work unit. I aborted about six just then when I checked my pc's. I have 13 pc's and only check them once a day. I would estimate, (using the SWAG principle) over 150 hours of crunching has been lost on those wu's, on my machines. Is there going to be any credit for them ? I hate to think that I have waisted all that processing time. I stopped crunching when the problem was discovered, and returned after I thought it was fixed, but they seem to be still coming. Just a thought but if I KNOW there has been a problem and THINK it MAY have been fixed I check my machine more often than once a day. Or I crunch another project until I Know it has been fixed. Well I'm only cruching MW one WU at a time when I'm connected and then only if I can get a WU. I have 2 or 3 other projects I can run when I'm offline. It's enough to give me a satisfying MW total and I can ride out any fluxes in server/WU availability.
37) Message boards : Number crunching : UPDATE: started some new searches, submitted a paper to GECCO 2008 (Message 1679) Posted 10 Feb 2008 by Cameron Post: I'd like to read your next paper I found your last one quite interesting.

Previous 20