Posts by MontagsMeeting

21) Message boards : Number crunching : Run the project only a few hours a day (Message 17950) Posted 8 Apr 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: In order to pick up the pace and keep output of the project at 14.3m creds/day, they'd have to speed up work generation. Which if you remember is what brought down the project last week, and why instead of 21m creds/day, the project is only doing 14.3m. They had to turn down the work generator to stop it all from crashing. << That last paragraph is the most important one...! Where did you get that information? couldn't it be that they put down output because there were complains about traffic or the server got hurt seriously due to the crash so it can't produce more WUs actually
22) Message boards : Number crunching : Run the project only a few hours a day (Message 17947) Posted 8 Apr 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: Of course it would get the work done. Actually MW gets actually 14,000,000 Credits per day, i think this could be done in less than 12 hours easily by the current users. Now my idea was to produce WUs 12 hours long without giving them out and then start distribution for the other 12 hours. so people will get 12 hours full of work and all the work the project has available will be done. Numbers have to be adjusted of course.
23) Message boards : Number crunching : Run the project only a few hours a day (Message 17943) Posted 8 Apr 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: I think i was misunderstood, i didn't mean the users should run the project a few hours per day. The project itself should shutdown for a few hours everyday so there is no need for users working together, that exactly was my point. If the project is down no one complains about it. You can see it every tuesday over at seti: no one gets work, no one complains. Simply disable the scheduler and forums, stats and so on will work but no WU distribution. But if GPUMW will get online there's no need for any temporary solutions anymore
24) Message boards : Number crunching : Run the project only a few hours a day (Message 17884) Posted 8 Apr 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: Perhaps this is a idea to stop complaining. if the project runs only a few hours per day, it would be possible to feed all peoples needs during this time. I don't know if it is possible to produce that many WUs on stockpile but if, it would solve a lot of problems. It would reduce traffic as during off-time it should be possible to stop a lot of traffic before it even reaches MW. Perhaps it's possible to do some more WUs with the same traffic as now. It would stop complaining as WU distribution is fair again. during on-times everyone will get as much as he can crunch. It'll show the real potential of what Milkyway users can do at the moment, some interesting numbers i think. The only negative issue i see is that the slow machines are favored again as they get enough work to do nearly the whole day while the fast one can only crunch a few seconds after the project turned off. But this could probably handled by a general setting the max cache to 1h, so slow machines will only get 1 WU each time and still benefit from this. I don't think it makes any difference for the project, but perhaps the peoples problems will go away.
25) Message boards : Number crunching : Travis: Please set a minimum update interval (Message 17628) Posted 5 Apr 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: which won't happen, ever Tamensi movetur ;)
26) Message boards : Number crunching : Travis: Please set a minimum update interval (Message 17610) Posted 5 Apr 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: As long as $170.00 can translate into almost 100k a day ... there's a chance to do more complex work it's tough to see an end to the problem. ...there is no problem at all If output is increased more people will buy gpu's. They are just waiting for the fix. Your looking at 1 gpu = 40 rigs. It's just to tempting of an offer from a cost per point value. ...good for the projects It can only be balanced by lowering the point value per Wu. Otherwise you cannot stop the wave of gpu's that will emerge. ...no one wants to stop this and granting less credit will be less credit for all, so nothing will change. Honestly if Wu's increase you don't think gpu's will be there. The reward is just too high. Remember, this is no different than an arms race....how much money you got? Patrick It is no war against gpus, it's good that they're here for the science and economy. hopefully there will be more projects doing more complex science, things that couldn't even thought of because of too less power even with distributed computing. More power is good!!! the only problem we have are people that think they aren't rewarded enough and therefore want to stop technological progress. Think of Moores Law from 1965. it is still correct and it actually will until 2029(source: Intel) (i think it will much longer) and the crunshing speed grows exponential to this
27) Message boards : Number crunching : Travis: Please set a minimum update interval (Message 17606) Posted 5 Apr 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: One of the project admins said that the problem is that the database is on the same disk as the server software. (which would rellay make sense as the limiting factor) somewhere else it was stated that the project runs very smoothly If the problem were the requests, the server couldn't keep up, but they're very constantly producing WUs, just not enough. That indicates that there is some other limiting factor. It couldn't be the requests as they rise every day but the servers are very stable. The status page only gives a snapshot at some given point and travis stated that ther was a problem with it. You conclusion that the problem comes from requests isn't fact-based and it is wrong. Fact is: the project hasn't any problem, all the work it could produce will be done. They're working on a higher output. Until this is done there will be not more work to do.
28) Message boards : Number crunching : Travis: Please set a minimum update interval (Message 17533) Posted 4 Apr 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: won't work too i think 1. Implementation: If i request 48 WU (i7 HT) the server has to wait until there are 48 WU ready to send any subsequent requests will be dropped, that will not help against update scripts 2. Implementation: When the Server has 6 WU ready the first client that requests 6(slowest PCs - 1 core) will get them - this way fast CPUs/GPUs will never get work until slower PCs have enough work The problem is the behaviour of BOINC it is not made for a situation where no work is available. If a request fails BOINC will increase the time to the next request. This penalizes fast machines as they have to request more frequently than slower ones and so their time to the next request increases very fast and its very likely that they run dry for days. That's why especially GPU-users have to use such scripts to get at least the amount that slower PCs get percentaged. I've two 4850 GPUs that starve at about 50% of their potential - not funny, but that's the situation. And if i don't use a script i will not get anything because of time to next request is always many hours I think there can nothing be done than to wait that the project will be able to serve more work and on that solution is worked at the moment. Should they stop their work only to implement some disputable things and we have to wait even longer for a real solution? I have a great idea lets just all stop complaining and crunch what you get and help out the project. That is the only thing that can be done at the moment, anything else will delay a real solution and that will end in even more complaining and whining. If you read between the lines of the complainers, all that they say is: stop the others give it to me! - no need for any attention, sadly if one starts all whiners that could restrain themself start to sing from the same hymn sheet. Thats the point when they stop thinking because some base instict takes control: "I probably miss something" - They don't care about the project, they don't care about others, it's just them
29) Message boards : Number crunching : Travis: Please set a minimum update interval (Message 17528) Posted 4 Apr 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: Hello ??? The interval has to be less than one WU can be done by any client!!! This is far less than a minute!!! So the interval has to be set smaller than this - easy to understand, i think So the update interval can NOT be greater than 30 seconds and i don't know if this caps some hardware already. This idea lacks any sense! It's a simple me me me i don't get enough, someone got my pacifier idea, nothing else
30) Message boards : Number crunching : Travis: Please set a minimum update interval (Message 17516) Posted 4 Apr 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: It's a great idea i get sometimes only one or two WUs, i do them in 30 seconds, so this or less has to be the min update interval. I'll set that in my update script at once - Bill & Patsy, thanks for the suggestion Or not? Perhaps it would be better to reduce the deadline from 3 days to 10 minutes, this would make sure those who can do will be supplied with work and the project would not be thwarted by the slow crunchers. Travis, please! just kidding of course, but some should really think about what they say before they say Thanks Dan, that's the way :)
31) Message boards : Number crunching : Server Updates and Status (Message 17396) Posted 2 Apr 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: Another way would be to check CPU-times. This would be a 100% solution because it hasn't necessary to be a GPU to crunch big WUs, fast CPUs could do them too. and at last users could decide for their own if their CPUs/GPUs should do which sort of WU. works quite well on seti Seems a lot of people are very concerned about what other people do, why they do and judge them.
32) Message boards : Number crunching : Server Updates and Status (Message 17388) Posted 2 Apr 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: Every host has its own RAC and only this has to be used. I don't know how high Milkyway CPU RAC can be but as my i7s do about 12000 on seti, it should be safe to say 20000 is a GPU. My two 4850 have more than 20000 even with the lack of WUs
33) Message boards : Number crunching : Server Updates and Status (Message 17380) Posted 2 Apr 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: It could be done by RAC. If RAC > 10,000 send big WU else small WU. this way it could be adjusted very sensitive to the needs of the project
34) Message boards : Number crunching : Got first WUs (Message 17109) Posted 29 Mar 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: on two PCs :)
35) Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse (Message 16745) Posted 24 Mar 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: Don't tell someone to get a life when you waste your time and energy with something that won't change and that's simple reality And don't tell people that you are here for the project if you were here for the project you were happy when it's saturated with FLOPS. But you aren't, you're here to be against others who are happy with the project. You're so negativ - keep it at yourself - no one needs it The project isn't there to feed you, you're here to feed the project. Do it or not but don't complain if others do.
36) Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse (Message 16366) Posted 21 Mar 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: Sorry, i mixed things up with Pwrguru, he's reporting WUs every few seconds immediately when they're done which i a pain for the servers and completely senseless. You're reporting a WU every 30 Minutes which is perfect Anyway i don't understand your problem with deadlines, they're at 3 days you can do the max 6 WUs in 3 hours so it should be possible to do the 6 WUs and report them back. Not that i think that is needed but it should be possible. kindly regards
37) Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse (Message 16359) Posted 21 Mar 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: Not sure who you are directing this towards, but if it is towards me you got it I am using an official BOINC client, although an old one (5.8.16). That client does not have the capability of reporting immediately. yes it has, you can set it in the cc_config.xml As I explained in another post, my tasks are reporting as they complete because my cache setting is equal to the length of the deadline. regardless of how you managed this behavior, compared to it, update scripts are peanuts BTW, dual and quad core systems probably would naturally report more tasks at once... MW reports as many WUs as it got with the last download if it isn't tricked to behave another way
38) Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse (Message 16349) Posted 21 Mar 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: Is it possible to link to the tasks list of your accounts or of one of your computers? those message historys are hard to read while containg very few useful information and the thread becomes unreadable - i feel like the MW-Servers when Pwrguru gets some work :D
39) Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse (Message 16338) Posted 21 Mar 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: The times you "contact" the servers indicate that you have enabled the option to send every result immideatly when they're finished. this hammeres the servers massively when you have an ati-card, in your case i think a 4870. with this setting enabled i got less work than when it was disabled. And you do more hammering than i do even with the updatescript. For MW it isn't needed to report every result at once. This option is set very manually so you deon't let it just run, you tweak it in a way that doesn't make sense, as it doesn't help you to get more work and this setting is more harmful as senseful used update scripts. And its you that justifys update scripts as they are far less harmful than your clients settings. Not that i want to judge you, i don't care for others senseless configurations, but i think especially you shouldn't judge anybody else for whatever he's doing. As you can see here i report my results in greater packets for example 12 results reported at 20 Mar 2009 23:55:17 UTC So correct your settings - killer ;)
40) Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse (Message 16313) Posted 20 Mar 2009 by MontagsMeeting Post: More like I proved you wrong again and you're having a difficult time dealing with that. If making up an excuse helps to make you feel better about yourself so be it. at least stubborn :D

Previous 20 · Next 20