Posts by Annika Kremer

21) Message boards : Number crunching : No Work ? (Message 6052) Posted 8 Nov 2008 by Annika Kremer Post: I'm starting to wonder if I'm doing the project a favour by participating with my fast CPU and the optimized app. Maybe it's doing more harm than good atm as the server clearly can't cope. The thing is, I tried the stock app and there was no way it would run on my system, signal 11 errors were everything I got, I crashed all WUs I had within seconds. So, go back to Malaria/Einstein/Enigma only? I'm really just trying to help.
22) Message boards : Number crunching : And if we DONT run a "FASTER" App.? (Message 5979) Posted 6 Nov 2008 by Annika Kremer Post: Ah, okay. Thanks a lot for the information. Emanuel: I know too well what you mean. Now try being an idealist among a bunch of mostly childish and completely un-idealistic CS students and you know how I spend my time ;-)
23) Message boards : Number crunching : And if we DONT run a "FASTER" App.? (Message 5977) Posted 6 Nov 2008 by Annika Kremer Post: Sorry, but I haven't come across the term "to TLDR" yet. What does it mean?
24) Message boards : Number crunching : No Work ? (Message 5972) Posted 5 Nov 2008 by Annika Kremer Post: I'm not getting any WUs either. My box is crunching MalariaControl and Enigma atm, so it's not idle, but I hope MW will manage to distribute some more WUs soon :-)
25) Message boards : Number crunching : Credit limits apparently exist ... (Message 5955) Posted 5 Nov 2008 by Annika Kremer Post: Well, I'm not going to lower my res share or anything. With this box I make a downright scary amount of credit no matter what I crunch, and besides, I like the science. But I do think I'm reaching the cap, I'm running four projects (with equal res shares) but MW has built up a huge negative debt due to running out of work a few times...
26) Message boards : Number crunching : Credit limits apparently exist ... (Message 5886) Posted 4 Nov 2008 by Annika Kremer Post: Well, I don't pay too much attention to credits normally - I join projects for the science, but I do enjoy a good fat bunch of cobblestones when I get it. But this seems strange enough for me to want to give my opionion about it. To make it clear, I am very much for giving out fair credit between projects. We had the same "problem" over at Einstein about a year ago, that we were getting too much credit (though probably less than what Milky Way was giving crunchers until the fix). Even then I was in favor of lowering credits to get closer to what SETI was giving and my opionion has not changed. Let credits be something that can be compared, and try to give all projects a fair chance of attracting volunteers. Still, I'm not happy with the current situation. Give us less credits per WU, so we get the same as crunchers at SETI or Einstein - fine with me. But this "cap" is, in my eyes, a bad idea to say the very least. To me that is punishing people with fast boxes, and let's face it - those are the ones that get most work done for science. With the credit scheme we have now, my cute little Core Duo laptop would probably make the same amount of credit as my brand-new quadcore desktop - although it only has rougly 1/4 the power. Hell, I could attach my old Acer with the Celeron CPU and would probably get way more credit, compared to faster crunchers, than the speed of that box suggests. What's next? If we are still getting too much credit, would you lower the cap so far that the faster boxes reach it in the time it takes to go for the first cup of coffee in the morning after switching on the computer? I might be exaggerating but you get my point: People who only go after credits would consider much of their work "wasted" (and probably decrease res share, which would be bad for science) and even for those crunchers who, like me, see the credits as merely a nice little extra, it is kinda demotivating. And there are faster comps out there than mine, much as I hate to admit it ;-) take Xeons alone. That said, I want to make clear that I have no intention of leaving this project any time soon and I want to express my solidarity to the project staff, who seem to have done a very good job so far. My comment on crediting is meant as constructive criticism and I hope it comes across as such. Greetings, Annika
27) Message boards : Number crunching : Server Problems? - currently the U/L one (Message 5872) Posted 3 Nov 2008 by Annika Kremer Post: Looks like the feeder is not running.
28) Message boards : Number crunching : Server Problems? - currently the U/L one (Message 5866) Posted 3 Nov 2008 by Annika Kremer Post: Looks like our boxes were too much for the server to handle again. Not getting new work and the server status page shows only 38 WUs "ready to send" (which would last less than two hours on my box, so of course there's no way that's enough for even a few crunchers demanding work)...
29) Message boards : Number crunching : Process got signal 11 (Message 5824) Posted 3 Nov 2008 by Annika Kremer Post: Yes, it works fine, thanks a lot :-) No cheating in sight, too... if anything, I seem to be underclaiming rather heavily.
30) Message boards : Number crunching : Process got signal 11 (Message 5820) Posted 2 Nov 2008 by Annika Kremer Post: I decided to try the optimized app proposed in this thread http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/forum_thread.php?id=433 and it seems to work. Should be a bit faster, too. Hopefully all those flames about credit cheating and whatever found in that thread don't mean this is an app which will gain me unfair credit, cause that's not what I want. It's simply the only app I tried that doesn't crash on my system, for whatever reason.
31) Message boards : Number crunching : Process got signal 11 (Message 5727) Posted 1 Nov 2008 by Annika Kremer Post: Looks like the stock app isn't working. Have you tried Crunch3rs application yet? I've just done that and it doesn't seem to help.
32) Message boards : Number crunching : Process got signal 11 (Message 5654) Posted 30 Oct 2008 by Annika Kremer Post: Had the same on my quadcore (C2Q) box today, all WUs I had crashing within seconds and showing signal 11s. This box is new but it's totally Prime stable, is running five other BOINC projects without issues and temperatures were always okay. Since I have only just joined to this project, I have no idea why this is happening. I'm using a somewhat experimental BOINC client (from the Ubuntu repos), could that be the cause? I'm running 64 bit Linux but that should not be a problem, shouldn't it? Thanks Annika

Previous 20