Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Posts by Stefan Ver3

1) Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse (Message 16956)
Posted 26 Mar 2009 by Stefan Ver3
Post:
Best thread ever.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : New App status (Message 6085)
Posted 12 Nov 2008 by Stefan Ver3
Post:
For GPU computing app. I'd say stick with cards that support CUDA 2.0. My 8800gts (CUDA 1.0) was absolute garbage for crunching.
As far as the Bitboy's Avalanche chips, I wouldn't even bother. What is this 2002? ;)

Here's a link of what GPUGRID supports for NVIDIA.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : I've had enough also (Message 5408)
Posted 9 Oct 2008 by Stefan Ver3
Post:
I still think you should work with them rather than hold back. I don't quite understand your "incentive" for holding back... If you give them one or two lines and they don't try it, how is it different from giving them 100 lines and they don't try it? They have said that they basically inherited the code. As I pointed out before, if you are given code and are told that it works, most of the time you're not going to go over it with a fine-tooth comb looking for efficiency improvements right away...



What I find most amusing in all of this Milksop at try had someone help HIM in rewriting the code. Hypocrite!!!

Seems to me he is incapable of actually helping MW@home, other than whining and ranting.

THATS MY TWO F-ING BITS. SO S*** ALREADY, OR GET OFF THE POT!

I'll still be crunching this so called waste of power.

Milksop at try, you truly are a Milksop! Perhaps more of a Mollycoddle than a Milksop...

SUE ME. ;)


4) Message boards : Number crunching : New App status (Message 5376)
Posted 8 Oct 2008 by Stefan Ver3
Post:
Hi everybody haven't been around here in a while, what the heck happened?

There's a whole new team devoted to source code complaints and not getting your way? LOL you guys!

Well whatever it takes to get your point across I guess.

Question: Are our own compiled apps. supposed to be approved by the admins? That is the requirement right?
So it can used?

Or is this the nerd eqiviliant of the wild west round here? :P

5) Message boards : Number crunching : WU Credits (Message 4917)
Posted 21 Aug 2008 by Stefan Ver3
Post:
I agree 100%, FULL credit should be given to valid results, no matter how fast it is getting done, by whomever and whatever. Period.


OK, so I ask that either you or zeitgeistmovie to define 'Full Credit'.

Alinator


The same credit I would get, if I had crunched that particular w/u, even if my box took 5 hours to crunch verses a couple of minutes.
That might sound crazy but, it's the same work isn't it?
Optimizations RULE.. :D
After all, even before this latest rubish, it still took twice as long for a Windows O.S. machine to crunch the same job as a Linux O.S. box. That's why my boxes dual boot Linux now.
That's a difference in optimization. Were do we draw the line?
Should I be credit punished because my Linux app from MW goes twice as fast as my Windows MW app?
NO.
Should others be punished because there app is faster than mine?
NO.


Ok, then isn't your last statement exactly what I said here?

The point is that the Credit Anarchists are saying the basis should be set to whatever anyone feels like setting it to.

The Kredit Kops are saying, no the basis should be set to what a plain vanilla math version of the app would result in using BM-T scoring calibrated to the specifications of the reference computer, since that is the way the Cobblestone is defined, period.

Alinator

Please don't take an offense to this but, I failed to see the relevance between my post, and the post you suggested, I think. Other than the forest, heading for an oak tree. ;) :D
Or did I?
That just reminded me how much I missed downhill skiing.
Watch out for that tree! LOL. That probably explains it.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : WU Credits (Message 4909)
Posted 21 Aug 2008 by Stefan Ver3
Post:
I raised the amount of time WUs were being kept on the server to check out the results and make sure the WUs were correct.


And what have you found so far?

Again, if the result is valid, then so is the credit. And limiting the credit for a valid result is not being fair and equal.

How am i supposed to do this? i have no more access to his source code than you do.


It is your project is it not? Ask him for the code, and review it. But better yet, just do what you say you are already doing, review the returned result for validity. If it is valid, then again, the credit is valid. Period.


I agree 100%, FULL credit should be given to valid results, no matter how fast it is getting done, by whomever and whatever. Period.


OK, so I ask that either you or zeitgeistmovie to define 'Full Credit'.

Alinator


The same credit I would get, if I had crunched that particular w/u, even if my box took 5 hours to crunch verses a couple of minutes.
That might sound crazy but, it's the same work isn't it?
Optimizations RULE.. :D
After all, even before this latest rubish, it still took twice as long for a Windows O.S. machine to crunch the same job as a Linux O.S. box. That's why my boxes dual boot Linux now.
That's a difference in optimization. Were do we draw the line?
Should I be credit punished because my Linux app from MW goes twice as fast as my Windows MW app?
NO.
Should others be punished because there app is faster than mine?
NO.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : WU Credits (Message 4905)
Posted 21 Aug 2008 by Stefan Ver3
Post:
I raised the amount of time WUs were being kept on the server to check out the results and make sure the WUs were correct.


And what have you found so far?

Again, if the result is valid, then so is the credit. And limiting the credit for a valid result is not being fair and equal.

How am i supposed to do this? i have no more access to his source code than you do.


It is your project is it not? Ask him for the code, and review it. But better yet, just do what you say you are already doing, review the returned result for validity. If it is valid, then again, the credit is valid. Period.


I agree 100%, FULL credit should be given to valid results, no matter how fast it is getting done, by whomever and whatever. Period.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : 8 Workunit limit (Message 4557)
Posted 30 Jul 2008 by Stefan Ver3
Post:
Even for 4 cores it's not enough, assuming 5-6hrs per WU it needs at least 16 per day.

You get a new batch when you finish the ones you have. ;)

With 8 w/u limit A quad core would never run out of work, unless the server went down of course. :D
Here's the trouble I see. If I was running a V8 I'd be worried. Because if my boinc client didn't return results immediately it would either timeout until the next work unit finished, or wait until the next automatic boinc (refill work unit cue) communication. Or worse yet timeout from the server, if my 'additional work cue' from the Milkyway@home server(communication deferred for xx amount of seconds), was set to high. Either way 8 work units on a V8 or higher cpu count, would only keep 7 cores at a running constant. Follow me? The client would sit a core idle intermittently every other contact.
[eye's rolling] How about 10? As long as there isn't a V16 on the block. [/eye's rolling]
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Compute errors (Message 4546)
Posted 30 Jul 2008 by Stefan Ver3
Post:
If something interrupts a disk write it will give you that error too Tutta, see the folowing > http://www.boinc-wiki.info/index.php?title=Unrecoverable_error_for_result_%27(result)%27_(process_got_signal_11) ... :)


Thanks for the info Poorboy. I had 3 wu's crash yesterday upon an Ubuntu update
while it was writing to disk. 10,000 seconds worth of crunch time I had lost on that little error. :(
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Nice! (Message 4374)
Posted 22 Jul 2008 by Stefan Ver3
Post:

Don't get me wrong now, I never said there was cheating. If I suspected there was cheating, I would have flat out said it was.
I need me a farm of those Pentium 4's! LOL


the farm of P4s won't help... you need the application to do this ;)



MINT! Crunch3r :D :D
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Nice! (Message 4371)
Posted 22 Jul 2008 by Stefan Ver3
Post:
I did not say it was cheating, that has yet to be proved. I said it could be cheating, that has yet to be disproved. It could be other things as well (such as a win9X client that restarted causing the CPU time to go to 0). Until there is some sort of investigation, we won't know either way. I believe that it is probably only the project admins that can do the investigation, we can only bring the possibility of a problem to their attention.


There is no problem with this nor is it cheating. It's just ... doing the math a little bit faster that's all... and of course its valid.




Don't get me wrong now, I never said there was cheating. If I suspected there was cheating, I would have flat out said it was.
I need me a farm of those Pentium 4's! LOL
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Nice! (Message 4364)
Posted 22 Jul 2008 by Stefan Ver3
Post:
Fish on! Fish on! Got me another one!

Nice Pentium4 2.8Ghz #23272

Smile!! You ought to be in pictures! :D



I'm on FIRE today!
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Nice! (Message 4349)
Posted 22 Jul 2008 by Stefan Ver3
Post:
I got a laugh out of this client.

Now thats a smoking cpu!#23471

Even managed to snip a w/u screen capture!


Must have rockets for rollerskates.


14) Message boards : Number crunching : Credit Calculations. (Message 4344)
Posted 22 Jul 2008 by Stefan Ver3
Post:
I'm a bit Off Topic here, but didn't feel like starting a new thread. Lazy, just lazy.
What is up with this box?
Seems to be calculating a bit funny.

What the deuce?

GenuineIntel x86 Family 6 Model 7 Stepping 3 498MHz
With a RAC of 2,644.47? Hmm.

Have to get me one of those! :D :D

O.k. resuming topic ;)

A fancy graph.
The credit granted here really has not deviated much since the longer w/u's, or in the last six months for that matter.
Why this argument all of the sudden? To many quads on the block now? MINT!!!!!
15) Message boards : Number crunching : bad wus in the database (Message 3887)
Posted 19 Jun 2008 by Stefan Ver3
Post:
... that when the purge starts, it's so expensive that it slows down the rest of the system and can't catch up, while pretty much makes everything slow and unresponsive. so to get the purge done we have to stop the assimilator and work generation.

Can't you automatically delete any WU that's been done for 24 hours or more? So rather than doing a full purge every 24 hours you'd be purging WUs continuously at roughly the same rate that they're coming in..

Perhaps keep a log of completed WUs (sorted by reported completion time by definition), and purge old (>24h) entries whenever you add a new one (i.e. a WU is reported)

if(thisWU was completed more than 24 hours ago) delete and examine next item;
else exit;

To put it in pseudo-code <.< (had a brain-fart, so that was the best I could do)


i'll try and give this a shot and see if the server gets overloaded again. a day of WUs (at ~6 WUs a second) is quite a lot... which is part of the problem


Are you sure you want to do that just yet Travis? It's working really good right now. I'd sleep on it for the night, and celebrate Pint Night at the Ruck. :D :D :D :D
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Best completion times (Message 3878)
Posted 19 Jun 2008 by Stefan Ver3
Post:
What kind of completion times would you Linux boys get if you weren't using a opptimizied app? :P
Makes Windows look like a dozer.

[evil grin]You sould all get 2.03 credits per w/u, with times like that. HA-HA-HA[/evil grin]

Stefan




©2019 Astroinformatics Group