Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Posts by Bill & Patsy

21) Message boards : Number crunching : Travis: Please set a minimum update interval (Message 17558)
Posted 4 Apr 2009 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
Getting back to the point...

In my initial post, I purposely did not suggest what the interval should be for MilkyWay. Travis will have to work that out based upon performance results and everyone's feedback. I cited LHC as an example, but yes, the LHC 15 min interval is clearly too long for MilkyWay.

As for "no work available", I don't understand why some people keep saying that. Every time I check the server it has plenty of work available. (The Home Page has a hot link "Server Status" where you can check this.)

Some have suggested that the "no work available" update problem is that the available work cannot load into the scheduler or upload/download server, or whatever, fast enough because the server is getting hammered so hard by all these requests. So if everyone backed off to some minimum interval, then we all could get work, maybe even on the first request, because the server would have time to actually serve us.

If this works, then everyone will be served, and those of you who are pushing to the front of the line will be fed plenty too without having to be so pushy. Those scripts may help some individuals, but they're hurting everyone else. A proper minimum update interval could fix this.

It's sure worth a try.
22) Message boards : Number crunching : Travis: Please set a minimum update interval (Message 17512)
Posted 4 Apr 2009 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
LHC uses a minimum 15 minute interval between client updates. Attempted updates before the interval completes result in no work and the clock is reset for another full interval instead. Such server-side minimum update intervals prevent spamming and hammering the server, which has become a sport at Milkyway and a growing problem for everyone. If you enable this feature, it should stop this nonsense and assure work availability for everyone.

Thanks.
23) Message boards : Number crunching : No Work Given Until Run Out of Work? (Message 14414)
Posted 8 Mar 2009 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
Yes. It could be a resource share issue when you're running more than one project. Long Term Debt heavily influences how many work units will download. BOINC Debt Viewer is very nice for watching this.
24) Message boards : Number crunching : No Work (Message 10748)
Posted 15 Feb 2009 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
We are all going to be in trouble soon.

Should we start a PANIC thread?

Absolutely! The sky is falling!
25) Message boards : Number crunching : No Work (Message 10745)
Posted 15 Feb 2009 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
yep it says o results ready to send.

Yes. What happened?
26) Message boards : Number crunching : New faster application? (Message 8650)
Posted 19 Jan 2009 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
Is anybody sharing this with Travis?

bump...
27) Message boards : Number crunching : New faster application? (Message 8547)
Posted 17 Jan 2009 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
Is anybody sharing this with Travis?
28) Message boards : Number crunching : New faster application? (Message 8528)
Posted 17 Jan 2009 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
How soon will these improvements be incorporated into the stock app?

Thanks.
29) Message boards : Number crunching : No work again (Message 7995)
Posted 24 Dec 2008 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
Still no work. (:-(


Still still no work - I hope Travis didn't take a long weekend off snowboarding (rueful smile).

It wouldn't be quite so bad when this happens if the queues were a tad higher -- hint hint.

Still still still no work. Long weekend? Away for holiday?? Travis wouldn't do that, would he, when we still, still, still need work??? (:-(
30) Message boards : Number crunching : No work again (Message 7649)
Posted 12 Dec 2008 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
Still no work. (:-(
31) Message boards : Number crunching : work availability (Message 7013)
Posted 30 Nov 2008 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
Decide to spend the day doing an Astropulse, and come back with a coffee to see a stack of MW and the rude message you cant have more than 20 at once you greedy sod.

That's your imagination at work. You can't have more than 5 you greedy sod. But it's better than having some other problem.

It's OK, we'll settle for 8 ;)

Well, he got you, Ice, didn't he! Rather than just taking you down to 8, he took you down to 5 and, after the screaming died down, he then mercifully granted relief by taking you back up to 8. And you were happy!

Classic Machiavelli.
32) Message boards : Number crunching : New App status (Message 6896)
Posted 27 Nov 2008 by Bill & Patsy
Post:

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.

...

Best regards,
EigenState

You demanded that they "explicitly post" their names. The term "eigenstate" is a quantum mechanical term, and thus likely a pseudonym chosen to hide your real name. It thus appears that you did not "explicitly post" even a part of your own name, while disapprovingly demanding otherwise of them.
33) Message boards : Number crunching : How to Switch to the New Official App? (Message 6268)
Posted 18 Nov 2008 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
When the new official app is released, how do we switch to it from Milksop's optimized app?

Thanks.
34) Message boards : Number crunching : No Work ? (Message 6089)
Posted 12 Nov 2008 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
Can't get work. It's been that way for hours and hours.

Why?
35) Message boards : Number crunching : Credit Calculations. (Message 4383)
Posted 22 Jul 2008 by Bill & Patsy
Post:

No John. Jeff and the many others are right.

You keep repeating and repeating that there is "the problem". Yet you have not proved it. You haven’t even tried to refute many of the explanations that have been presented here. You just repeat your mantra, or you invoke the “authority” of the founders. That’s not an argument. That’s sophistry.

Ever hear the phrase: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”? Words for an engineer to live by.

If there are no untoward consequences of something, there is no problem, no matter how many times you keep saying there is. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so.

We have shown you that the only thing you've described as a possible consequence - credits inflation - isn't happening. Numerous posters here have given various good reasons why it’s not happening, which you have failed to rebut.

No untoward consequences equals no problem. So face it. Since there are no untoward consequences, THERE IS NO PROBLEM! It’s not rational to go around obsessing about an imaginary “problem” that has no untoward consequences.

Nothing needs to be fixed. No harm of any consequence is being done. You haven't proved otherwise.

There is no credits problem.

So stop saying there is. And leave people alone. Go find something to fix that’s actually causing harm.


This is what happens when you "take the bait". Drop this loser and find a better way to waste our time.

Voltron

Thanks, Voltron. You're right. I did take the bait. I shouldn't have given him a target. Obviously he hasn't considered our posts; certainly not mine, and certainly not the one you quoted above. Why anybody would feel so threatened because of a few differences in worthless credits, that clearly isn't impacting BOINC in any significant way, is a mystery.

So yes, he's either out just to stir up a fight, or he's in denial and cannot be reasoned with.

Thanks for the good advice.
36) Message boards : Number crunching : Credit Calculations. (Message 4356)
Posted 22 Jul 2008 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
No, it is just reversing the side on a stupid argument that I am tired of getting. BOINC is SUPPOSED to work such that a particular host gets the same credit per hour no matter which project it is working on. People that say stop complaining about something that is not correct are in the wrong.

No John. Jeff and the many others are right.

You keep repeating and repeating that there is "the problem". Yet you have not proved it. You haven’t even tried to refute many of the explanations that have been presented here. You just repeat your mantra, or you invoke the “authority” of the founders. That’s not an argument. That’s sophistry.

Ever hear the phrase: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”? Words for an engineer to live by.

If there are no untoward consequences of something, there is no problem, no matter how many times you keep saying there is. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so.

We have shown you that the only thing you've described as a possible consequence - credits inflation - isn't happening. Numerous posters here have given various good reasons why it’s not happening, which you have failed to rebut.

No untoward consequences equals no problem. So face it. Since there are no untoward consequences, THERE IS NO PROBLEM! It’s not rational to go around obsessing about an imaginary “problem” that has no untoward consequences.

Nothing needs to be fixed. No harm of any consequence is being done. You haven't proved otherwise.

There is no credits problem.

So stop saying there is. And leave people alone. Go find something to fix that’s actually causing harm.
37) Message boards : Number crunching : Credit Calculations. (Message 4316)
Posted 22 Jul 2008 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Just stop already............You don't like the credits given here...

Go somewhere else!

Since this is a problem affecting the entirety of BOINC, NO.

Actually, that's a great suggestion for you, John.

Until a year ago I was happy supporting SETI exclusively. I had done so for a decade. I didn't care a hoot about other credit systems or cross-project parity. Then you and your PC credit police so despoiled the joyful reasons for participating in SETI that many of us just gave up and left.

Now history has shown how wrong you were. A year later there is no "credit inflation", no "credit wars", no starvation of the "below average credits" projects. In other words, there is no inherent credits problem in BOINC. The so-called "problem affecting the entirety of BOINC" is just in your imagination.

Yet, despite the plain evidence, you continue to go around spreading your false gospel, along with threats and intimidation directed at volunteers!.

Why am I wasting time on this? (And it surely has become a waste!) Because I researched and probed this fine project and then elected to support it. Then, just weeks later, like the Shadows returning from the Rim, you showed up. I don't want you to hurt deserving projects like MW the way you hurt SETI.

The credits "problem affecting the entirety of BOINC" is caused by you. Accept the plain evidence of an entire year. There never was a BOINC credits problem. So stop your campaign, leave MW and other projects alone, and your imagined "problem" will go away too.

Trust me.
38) Message boards : Number crunching : Credit Calculations. (Message 4305)
Posted 21 Jul 2008 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
John, John. Still the same old sophistry. Last year you ignored the key issue (wrongfully recognizing effort rather than achievement) and you are still ignoring it. And you are also still peddling an imaginary problem (so-called "credit inflation") that has not happened and never will (as nicely understandable from Thunder's posting). If "credit inflation" were a real issue, all those below-average projects would be starving. They're not. So please call off your self-appointed PC credit police. You've harmed SETI. Isn't that enough? Leave the other projects alone!

Your claim that being paid for results instead of effort is what every gets is just plain wrong.

I and everyone I know gets paid for effort. I get paid twice a month, and the amount of the check does not vary depending on the number of lines of code that I got written. A couple of examples why (at least in my industry) pay for meeting a performance goal is an extremely bad idea. Occasionally, I can use a tool that writes 10,000 lines of code in 5 minutes. At the other extreme, sometimes the research takes so much time that two of us spent 6 months figuring out how to write 50 lines of code because of the lack of documentation on the system we were trying to work around. Just try codifying that as other than pay for effort please. Another example is from "Dilbert" where the PHB tells the programmers that pay is going to be based on the number of bugs fixed - Wally states "I am going to go write me a mini-van." Another example of why in some cases pay for results is not a great idea.

Another example comes from the summer I spent working construction. My pay was hourly for that job. One of the tasks for the landscaping crew was to dig holes in particular places. On that particular jobsite most of the holes were filled with a fairly soft rock (but still rock) that could be broken up slowly with a pickax or a digging bar. However, that took about an hour for a hole one foot on a side and a foot and a half deep. On the few occasions where the company rented a jackhammer for other reasons and there was some time left before it was returned, the landscaping crew got to use it. This changed the time from an hour to about 5 minutes for the same hole. However, my pay stayed the saem. Again pay based on effort.

The only two classes of people that I can think of whose pay is based almost exclusively on results are Piecework workers and Salesmen on commission. Everyone else has much of their pay based on effort.

Admittedly raises are based on overall effectiveness - but that is similar to having better hardware.

Good Grief! More sophistry.

John, "effort" - in the end - doesn't get most people very far without achievement. Most of us have to deal with things like annual reviews. The Wallys of the world don't get the raises and promotions that the Alices do. Socialism may reward effort, but free enterprise ultimately rewards productivity. "Effort" is but a component of that. Effort, per se, is not the metric. A good boss (not the PHB) knows the difference and will base reviews on a person's effectiveness. It's not better hardware, John. It's competence and effectiveness. People who try hard but don't have impact aren't regarded as well as those who do.

Other people understand this. I've got to believe that you do too, so it's a mystery why after a year you're still pushing your phony arguments. As I pointed out before, the "below average" projects are not starving. There is no problem. Your campaign is just stirring up resentment. Please give it up.
39) Message boards : Number crunching : Credit Calculations. (Message 4293)
Posted 21 Jul 2008 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
Sorry, I do NOT believe that either you or Jeff is correct, and I certainly do not know that you are correct. If that were the case, there would not be a discussion.

Certainly, you can pick based on scientific value. What you are saying is that you are selecting based on how many credits per hour you are granted (how much the project values you). Having projects grant whatever they feel like is a way to have an inflationary race:

Project 1 needs more participants so it raises the credits granted.
Now project 2 does the same.
Now back to project 1...

I do not see this as a good scenario, but apparently you do.


John, John. Still the same old sophistry. Last year you ignored the key issue (wrongfully recognizing effort rather than achievement) and you are still ignoring it. And you are also still peddling an imaginary problem (so-called "credit inflation") that has not happened and never will (as nicely understandable from Thunder's posting). If "credit inflation" were a real issue, all those below-average projects would be starving. They're not. So please call off your self-appointed PC credit police. You've harmed SETI. Isn't that enough? Leave the other projects alone!
40) Message boards : Number crunching : Credit Calculations. (Message 4288)
Posted 21 Jul 2008 by Bill & Patsy
Post:
Jeff is right, John, and you know it. That focus on political correctness (PC) rather than science is why I (and others) left SETI a year ago. (My SETI share is now below 0.03%). This was at the time significant optimizations were incorporated into the standard apps, as you and Jeff mentioned. This resulted in more science being done - more results. At work, I get paid for the work I do (the results I produce), not my effort. But your PC bias rejected what the rest of us were saying, with SETI insisting that the PC thing was to reward effort rather than scientific contribution. So SETI degraded the reward scale and we left, because BOINC is a free enterprise community.

I'm chagrined to see, a year later, that you are still peddling the propaganda that effort is all that matters. It's just plain irrational to maintain that two identical machines producing unequal outputs should nevertheless be looked at as doing the same work! Give it up, John!! The Free World doesn't pay much for effort!

There are two principle criteria I look for in a project. First and foremost is its scientific worth (based subjectively, of course, on the sciences I value most). Secondly is how much the project wants my participation. SETI surely wins on the first, but a year ago failed miserably on the second.

Lastly, John, concerning "personalities", I would remind you that there are two ways to have the tallest building in town. One is to tear the others down. Please stop going around trying to tear down the competition. You wouldn't have this "problem" if you hadn't started this mess in the first place by manipulating SETI's own recognition scale to reward effort rather than results. Fix the moat in your own eye first.

Oh yeah. And it's not a good idea to threaten other BOINC projects. BOINC is not the only distributed computing paradigm around, and if your "principal designer" becomes an enforcer, you could see BOINC unravel real fast.


Previous 20 · Next 20

©2021 Astroinformatics Group