Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Posts by Jayargh

1) Message boards : Application Code Discussion : What's needed to compile the app? (Message 8516)
Posted 17 Jan 2009 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
Thanks very much Petros! Works like a charm on the older 64bits!

Now I just need an app for 32 bit Linux SSE2/SSE3.....
2) Message boards : Application Code Discussion : What's needed to compile the app? (Message 8474)
Posted 16 Jan 2009 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
Actually I have 2 P4 xeon's at 3GHz and an AMD 4200+ that support SSE3 and are 64bit ?? It must be the way that Petros compiled that App in some way.

So it looks like the 32bit Linux is out in the cold at the moment unless someone feels kind enough to provide a link :)
3) Message boards : Application Code Discussion : What's needed to compile the app? (Message 8445)
Posted 16 Jan 2009 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
DP
4) Message boards : Application Code Discussion : What's needed to compile the app? (Message 8444)
Posted 16 Jan 2009 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
Thanks Temujin for the link and have it going now on my C2D tech hosts but it does not work on Linux64 P4 tech and Speedimic's link for my 32bit boxes doesn't work so are there any links to what I need anyone? Thanks in advance....
5) Message boards : Application Code Discussion : What's needed to compile the app? (Message 8335)
Posted 15 Jan 2009 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
The Linux link to the app doesn't work for me......I have a dynamic IP and Rapidshare tells me that my IP is already downloading it but sends nothing. Can anyone help?
6) Message boards : Number crunching : New faster application? (Message 8334)
Posted 15 Jan 2009 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
Are there any links to a Linux app? The links given seem to be all for Windows :(

Thanks in advance..
7) Message boards : Number crunching : New App status (Message 6336)
Posted 21 Nov 2008 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
I am curious why OSX comes before Linux as Linux has the 2nd largest user base. ???? O_o
8) Message boards : Number crunching : No further Support for Milkyway at this time! (Message 6184)
Posted 15 Nov 2008 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
Saenger-To be completely honest with the usership and admin here I think you need to add that you are actively petitioning the stats sites to remove Milkyway!
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Milestones (Message 5306)
Posted 6 Oct 2008 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
2 million and counting.......:D
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Stat Export Fixed (Message 5205)
Posted 8 Sep 2008 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
Triple Post!
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Stat Export Fixed (Message 5204)
Posted 8 Sep 2008 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
double post
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Stat Export Fixed (Message 5203)
Posted 8 Sep 2008 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
Cool Beans Dave! From the Beancounter ;)
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Stat Export Fixed (Message 5188)
Posted 6 Sep 2008 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
Looks like the last xml update didn't happen...maybe due to the server going down last night? Please check...Thanks
14) Message boards : Number crunching : project stats updated? (Message 4842)
Posted 20 Aug 2008 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
Hmmmm Travis did you do something since my last post? It does not seem that the Milkyway site produced an xml stats update file at the 1100 pm cdst normal update time.
15) Message boards : Number crunching : I've had enough !!! (Message 4831)
Posted 19 Aug 2008 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
We don't do any redundancy checking here -- so there's no way for us to know if his results are correct or not. In the future we plan on doing some server-side rechecking of weird looking results, but this isn't a big priority because it doesn't really effect the science we're trying to do.


So anyone can pump in whatever looks like a result and get credit for it??


If they want to waste their CPU cycles doing nothing, I guess that's their prerogative. It wont hurt the science, but it won't help it either. Why even bother signing up for BOINC then? The credit monopoly money? However, with the new changes they won't be getting excessive amounts of credit for it.


We really want to stay away from using redundancy because it's really not required (if we get bad results our search methods basically ignore them), and if we even bump redundancy up to 2, we're basically halving the amount of work that gets done, and doubling the time it takes to get results.


using redundancy + using Crunch3r's code still makes at least 5x more science done.
(given the results are valid)



Or we could use optimized apps and get 10x science done. Either way, the focus right now isn't to get the apps running as fast as possible - we're still working on the next iteration of the application which will allow us to get more science done and model more complicated pieces of the galaxy. We'd rather have the code doing what it's supposed to be doing then optimize it, then spend time optimizing old code which will just be thrown out in the next version of the application. There's only two of us working on the code right now (Nate and myself), and there are only so many hours in the day; so we have to prioritize.

That being said, in the next week or so we should have a new application out (it would have been sooner but I had to deal with this mess), and it will be openly available for everyone to optimize if they want to. Hopefully if people do that they'll share their work with us so we can make it freely available to everyone and test it to make sure it's running correctly.


Thank-you Travis for this important information....IMHO your comments are the only thing worthwhile in this whole thread :D
16) Message boards : Number crunching : project stats updated? (Message 4822)
Posted 19 Aug 2008 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
I've been looking at our project stats and they don't seem to be changing -- have they been getting updated?


Yes Travis...the 1100 am CDST update just occurred :) It has been regular and on-time.
17) Message boards : Number crunching : 8 Workunit limit (Message 4709)
Posted 15 Aug 2008 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
I keep looking and really don't see any option for a per-core WU limit. Theres basically one option in the config file that is max_wus_in_progress which basically says how many workunits per machine are allowed. I've sent an email to Dave about what I can do about this.

I'm going to try and increase the max_wus_in_progress back to 20, and lower the deadline to a day for the workunits and see if this helps you guys out any.


Travis,would it be possible to make that deadline 2 days? That way my hosts won't be running in high priority constantly....just on occasion,and internet service/server problems would be less of an issue.

Right now a 372 can take 12hrs on a P4 ...so a 1 day deadline is cutting it pretty close.Also a 1 day deadline would effectively cut out all P3 types from running this project.


ok i've changed the deadline to 2 days.


Thanks Travis :) I am sure you will still get complaints but this is now doable.;)
18) Message boards : Number crunching : 8 Workunit limit (Message 4707)
Posted 15 Aug 2008 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
I keep looking and really don't see any option for a per-core WU limit. Theres basically one option in the config file that is max_wus_in_progress which basically says how many workunits per machine are allowed. I've sent an email to Dave about what I can do about this.

I'm going to try and increase the max_wus_in_progress back to 20, and lower the deadline to a day for the workunits and see if this helps you guys out any.


Travis,would it be possible to make that deadline 2 days? That way my hosts won't be running in high priority constantly....just on occasion,and internet service/server problems would be less of an issue.

Right now a 372 can take 12hrs on a P4 ...so a 1 day deadline is cutting it pretty close.Also a 1 day deadline would effectively cut out all P3 types from running this project.
19) Message boards : Number crunching : Milestones (Message 4622)
Posted 3 Aug 2008 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
3 Gazillion errrrr Million ... :)



Bet ya can't catch Crunch3r! MuHahahaha!
20) Message boards : Number crunching : New WU Length? (Message 4619)
Posted 2 Aug 2008 by ProfileJayargh
Post:
No they have not been extended again. The 3720282 and 3721282 are the long WUs from when I first increased it, but after that they have only been shortened. The 3730382 and 3731382 should run between half and a quarter of the time of those above.


Is the plan to only run with the 373's from now on?

I've been getting a mixture of flavours, but less 371s and 372s - Are these just reissued WUs or are they still being generated?

I only ask because my slowest host really isn't suitable for the long WUs and could be more usefully utilised on another project.

The medium WUs are OK by me - Longer than I usually like, but I can live with it at the moment :)

Al.


Eh Matey....Nate said the 373 type length only ...after the 371 & 372 finish their search there should be no more.


Next 20

©2022 Astroinformatics Group