Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Posts by EigenState

1) Message boards : Number crunching : search progress visualization (Message 11671)
Posted 19 Feb 2009 by EigenState
What we have in this post is pretty much preliminary work, so we'd really like to hear your ideas and suggestions as to what you'd like to know is going on server-side, and what we're doing as a whole.

Right now we would like to get these graphs (and some other ones) automatically generated in their own webpage, with information like what users have given us the best fitness and things like that.

Pretty much we could have whatever information you guys think would be interesting, and we'll also have things we're interested about and looking into on their for our own benefit.

Basically, we'd like a webpage we could check to easily know the status of our different searches, and I thought it would be more interesting with some user input, so we could make that information more interesting to you guys, and also add things you'd be interested in as crunchers.

I would suggest, no urge that the project utilize this new webpage as a means to provide a vastly greater educational opportunity for the volunteer participants. Thus, I believe it should provide information on both the fundamental physics and the computational aspects of the project. By computational aspects, I most certainly do not mean any discussion of credits or who has the bigger, faster hardware--such discussions are all too prevalent as it is on the forum. Some suggested reading materials on both subject matters would be excellent additions.

Allow your volunteers to learn if they so choose. The lack of such learning resources is, in my opinion, a great weakness in the BOINC concept.

Best regards,
2) Message boards : MilkyWay@home Science : What are we doing and for whom? (Message 8544)
Posted 17 Jan 2009 by EigenState
We've updated the main page of the project, so now you have information on our publications and related grants.

Nice! The NSF logo would look good there as well.

Best regards,
3) Message boards : Number crunching : New faster application? (Message 8519)
Posted 17 Jan 2009 by EigenState
At least my SSE3-App I linked to in this thread does not suffer from any of these shortcomings ;)

I for one am grateful for you making this available Cluster Physik.

I've already added it to www.arizmoon.com which I will be updating now with what I think are the 'correct' SSE2 and SSE apps.

OK, I've updated www.arizmoon.com with what has been agreed in this thread as usable optimized apps for SSE, SSE2 and SSE3.

Please let me know if I'm wrong, thanks.

I have moved my additional download resource to www.zslip.com


Just to be sure I have this right since I have been away for a few weeks.

The SSE2 application currently on zslip is different from the one that had been available at arizmoon a couple of days ago. Different hashes and the current zslip one I find to be approximately 25% slower.

Results from both have given validated results for me. So, is the current zslip application the one that gives more reliable results compared to the stock application?

4) Message boards : Number crunching : New App status (Message 6817)
Posted 26 Nov 2008 by EigenState
Greetings Gentlemen,

What you apparently fail to realize is that my suggestion would in fact protect the project's NSF funding base in that the NSF requires formal acknowledgment. The following is quoted from the NSF website:


An acknowledgment of NSF support and a disclaimer must appear in publications (including Web pages) of any material, whether copyrighted or not, based on or developed under NSF-supported projects:

“This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. (grantee must enter NSF grant number).”

NSF support also must be orally acknowledged during all news media interviews, including popular media such as radio, television and news magazines.

Except for articles or papers published in scientific, technical or professional journals, the following disclaimer must be included:

“Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.”

The NSF's policies are very clear. I rest my case and shall make no further contributions to this exchange.

Best regards,

5) Message boards : Number crunching : New App status (Message 6806)
Posted 26 Nov 2008 by EigenState
@ EigenState

Ohhh ,,my jaw is on the floor !!

Do you really believe the next door Hillbilly can just that easy add his project for participation in Boinc? Is this really the sense of your comment?
The project is hosted under an *.edu address and you need more evidences?

First some guys from one forum attacked this project and now this! It's hard to believe what you have posted.

Please remove your comment or edit it. It's ridiculous!

Ridiculous to wish to read the NSF grant proposal that supports the project? Ridiculous to wish to review the reputation of the Principal Investigators and their prior contributions to the field? Ridiculous to note that professional ethics demand explicit acknowledgment of any and all funding sources?

My comment stands firm.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : New App status (Message 6797)
Posted 26 Nov 2008 by EigenState
Travis wrote:
Actually to correct some misinformation here. The RPI computer science department as a whole does not run this project. There is myself, Nate, dave, and our 4 advisors (1 professor in the physics dept, and 3 in the cs dept). Our advisors have quite a few other projects they're working on (and I myself have another one or two). Either way, the bulk of the work on this project is done by myself, dave and nate. 3 people, not 440. We also have classes and our degree requirements to attend to. This is the nature of graduate level research.

Right now we're operating off an NSF grant which pays for our hardware, Nate, myself and a couple undergrad researchers.

The scientific credibility of Milkway@Home would be well served by explicitly posting the names of the Principal Investigators (the professors), their affiliations, and an acknowledgment to the NSF (including grant number) on the project home page.

That information would facilitate the evaluation of the project on the part of volunteer participants that care about the science being pursued. Acknowledgment of funding sources is just the norm in the profession.

Best regards,
7) Message boards : Number crunching : nm_test14 -- credits, fpops estimate (Message 6671)
Posted 25 Nov 2008 by EigenState
Greetings Travis,

I understand the concept of attempting inter-project credit parity. I also have no intention whatsoever of engaging in that long running discussion.

What I question is lack of intra-project credit parity. Why would anyone opt to work 2.5 times as long for half the pay?

Best regards,

8) Message boards : Number crunching : nm_test14 -- credits, fpops estimate (Message 6654)
Posted 25 Nov 2008 by EigenState
I've updated work generation a bit (it should be a lot more efficient server side, which should help keep work flowing).

also, i'm trying to dynamically generate the fpops estimate for workunits and am trying to get the credit granted for the new WUs to be around 10.

Let me know if this batch works and if credits seem about right.

nm_test20_345_1227567420 1,524.58cpusec claimed credit=4.23 granted credit=9.97

nm_test12_293_1227537135 1,534.77cpusec claimed credit=4.26 granted credit=46.04

Milksop's 1.22 units 600cpusec claimed credit=1.6 granted credit=17.5 (those numbers are approximate)

One might argue that work units requiring 2.5 times longer to run should not receive half the credit. One might also argue that testing is beyond the normal contribution to the development of the project and might warrant a premium payment, but hardly a severely reduced payment. That simply lacks good quantum numbers!

9) Message boards : Number crunching : more wus generated: nm_test1 (Message 6411)
Posted 22 Nov 2008 by EigenState
I renamed my app_info.xml and restarted boinc on all my systems and they are still using Milksop's 1.22 and the test app without any trouble so far.

Thank you! I have renamed the app_info.xml file and Milksop's 1.22 is indeed running. Have not gotten a download of the test app or any of the test WU's yet--yes I did set my preferences to allow the test app.

Best regards,
10) Message boards : Number crunching : more wus generated: nm_test1 (Message 6407)
Posted 22 Nov 2008 by EigenState

So I set my prefs to allow test apps, remove app_xml file, reset project and reboot/restart BOINC.

I am still getting 1.22 WU's.. is this correct ?

We're still generating workunits for 1.22, so you should get both. I only generated 100 new workunits with nm_test1, because i didnt want to flood the system with bad workunits (if they didn't work).

Since I haven't heard any complaints about the new batch, I'm going to create a bunch more and see how these do. They'll be under nm_test2.

Do we need a new app_info.xml file in order to be able to run the test application and Milksop's optimized version of 1.22?
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Server Problems? - currently the U/L one (Message 5755)
Posted 1 Nov 2008 by EigenState
I've gotten all kinds of errors today, but at the moment I'm getting

01/11/2008 17:54:40|Milkyway@home|Sending scheduler request: Requested by user. Requesting 876 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
01/11/2008 17:54:45|Milkyway@home|Scheduler request completed: got 0 new tasks
01/11/2008 17:54:45|Milkyway@home|Message from server: Server error: can't attach shared memory

Also, the feeder and like half of the other stuff is offline?

Same problem here.
12) Message boards : Application Code Discussion : Suggestions for performance improvements (Message 5462)
Posted 14 Oct 2008 by EigenState
Good to see this kind of collaboration moving forward!

Best regards,
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Project down for maintenance?? (Message 5446)
Posted 10 Oct 2008 by EigenState

Indeed we have a conundrum. If we improve the code, it will be faster and we will have to lower credits which people dont like. If we don't improve our code, we get yelled at for wasting cpu time.

A conundrum? I beg to differ!

Credits are by definition an artificial measure of a participant's contribution to the project that can be manipulated with great flexibility. The only valid concern is the scientific output of the project per unit time. It is self-evident that an optimized code offers the potential to greatly increase that scientific output and thereby greatly enhance the potential of this particular research endeavor to become a meaningful contribution to physics.

Greater productivity (research results) can be fully anticipated to lead to more papers being published and more talks at conferences. That is quite clearly in the best interests of the members of the research team.

You have several participants that appear to have successfully optimized your code. It behooves you to do everything possible to work with them to develop an optimized code that can and will be made available to all of the volunteer participants. The failure to do so is an implicit statement that you really do not care about the physics, nor about the resources that your volunteers bring to bear on this project.

I can only imagine my response were one of my research students to inform me that they had taken orders of magnitude more time than necessary to conduct an experiment!

Best regards,

©2023 Astroinformatics Group